SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Ben Kenobi]

By the way, NARTH is a highly unreliable source, and most of their "studies" are pretty bogus. But since you quote them I know you really don't have a case at all.

Playing the body, not the ball, eh?

[Giancarlo]

What do I mean by the gay lifestyle? I would argue, a propensity for promiscuity, lack of stable relationships, and a the concamitant psychological and physical problems associated with the above behaviors.

Is there a heterosexual lifestyle too? Because there is plenty of promiscuity, lack of stable relationships and psychological and physical problems associated with it.

Honestly, I think you are full of crap. Take a look at the divorce rate. Just tell me... do you think heterosexuals are such good at relationships? Promiscuity? Since when was that exclusive for homosexuals? I would say it is more prevalent in heterosexuals even.

Your stupidity amazes me.

Playing the body, not the man, eh?

What are you talking about, mr clueless?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because there is plenty of promiscuity, lack of stable relationships and psychological and physical problems associated with it.

None of which I deny. I merely argue that they are found in greater proportion with homosexuals.

Your stupidity amazes me.

What are you talking about, mr clueless?

I rest my case.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


None of which I deny. I merely argue that they are found in greater proportion with homosexuals.

And I don't agree. You arguing that is pretty baseless as you don't have evidence to prove yourself. You are nothing but using faulty assertions here. Nothing but a homophobe. You know who you remind me of? Pat Robertson... or Santorum.

I rest my case.

What case?

[Ben Kenobi]

What case?

You wouldn't know stupidity if it jumped and bit you.

And I don't agree. You arguing that is pretty baseless as you don't have evidence to prove yourself.

Fair enough. You call source.

We are seeing a major debate in Canada regarding the institution of marriage, and about opening the doors to this institution to gays and lesbians. Although I've not been married for years, I do have some thoughts about marriage and what it represents.

For many Canadians, being married is an important part of who they are, one that defines them to the community at large. Just what are the positive attributes which being married denotes?

Well, commitment for one. Marriage is all about commitment, till death do us part and all. And fidelity. Couples enter into marriage with the solemn intention of being faithful, despite what may occur down the road. What about raising a family? Although fewer Canadians now see that as a reason to be married. The list goes on, but by and large, marriage is now and has been viewed historically and culturally as a positive state. A good marriage is one of those things we all grow up hoping to attain and which, once we're married, we hope to preserve. It is so vital to our self image that people in poor marriages often go to extreme lengths to portray their union to the world as a positive one.

With all of these benefits and no real negatives, is it any wonder that gays want to claim the term 'marriage' for their unions? Of course, this requires acceptance by politicians in particular and Canadians in general if it is to happen. That acceptance, which has been forthcoming, is based on the precept that gay relationships are 'just like ours'. But what if this isn't true?

There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. If we are to make the correct decision for this country, it behooves us to examine all sides of the situation - even if some of it isn't pretty.

The first revelation we could examine is commitment. The 1984 book "The Gay Couple" was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (who happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth that gay couples lacked stability and long-term relationships.

Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology had this to say: "Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. "Monogamous" seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while casual sex continues on the side (1).
Imagine coming home to see your spouse heading out the door saying "Love you loads honey, got to go see the boy(girl)friend now." How does that make your creaky heterosexual bones feel? Does that feel like the commitment you went to the altar for? Didn't think so.

Ignoring the emotional effects this could have on a straight relationship, how about the health aspect of all this? Here's something from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. "One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples." 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.(2)

And Genre is an upscale gay men's magazine. We aren't talking about street hustlers here.

How about fidelity, that "forsaking all others" thing we promised? Once again, let's let a homosexual scientist do the talking. According to Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality extensively - (males) are much more interested in casual sex and non monogamous relationships. In the same article in The Advocate, Gretchen Lee, managing editor of Curve, was quoted that one of her female staff writers wanted to "even cruise for sex as gay men do."(3)

How about this comment from Dr. Martin Dannecker (a German sexologist, who studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships")? According to Dr. Dannecker, 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote," the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. (4)

According to gay icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who wrote "After the Ball" (considered by many to be the definitive gay manifesto), "The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." (5)

Here is one more quote, again from a gay magazine, which is surely the saddest testament to gay relationships that I have ever read. In the July 1999 issue of Out Magazine there was an article about a lesbian and a gay guy who decide to get married. The lesbian, Lisa, explains the limitations of their relationship, "I had huge performance anxieties, I mean, the total number of men whose bodies I'd touched and tried to please was, you know, 9. That was, like, the total number of men Bro (her gay husband) would try to please in a weekend...We'd drive out to the Palisades in the evening and talk and talk and talk, then I'd drop him off to go have sex in bathrooms." (6)

I hope that you have noticed that most of these examples are derived from gay sources. I don't want anyone to think that these quotes are coming from heterosexuals who are virulently opposed to any consideration of gay marriage. This is largely what gays are saying about themselves and their lives.

What I want to point out to you is that the entire notion of gay marriage is being presented to Canadians using the facade that gays have unions similar to heterosexual marriage. That is very simply just not true. Gays themselves admit, as you have seen here, that fidelity is not an issue with them.

For whatever reasons, and it can be backed up by research and anecdotal evidence, few gays form unions that are exclusive to their partner. In fact, the sheer prodigiousness of the gay lifestyle and the number of partners gay men have beggars the straight male's imagination. One researcher noted that "Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals". (7)

The American Psychological Association, who have stated that homosexuality is not a deviation and started the ball rolling towards normalization of homosexuality, also have said "after the AIDS epidemic the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year". (8)

Imagine that - only 50 per year. Studies in Canada show that the average Canadian only has sex 102 times per year. This is one of those things that makes me go "hmmmm".

I personally have no objection to gays doing whatever they please, or whatever pleases them, as long as it doesn't affect what I hold dear. I think I can safely extend that attitude as applying to most other Canadians. What I do object to is the gay lobby forcing the redefinition of traditional norms which are important to who and what I and other Canadians are. I object even more strenuously to their doing it with half truths, deception and outright lies.

If we're going to have this debate, and we are doing that right now, then let's have it with all the facts out in the public's eye so that we can make a wise and well-informed decision.

(Wally Moran is a life-long journalist and publisher from Ontario.)

(1) Connell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., " Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208.

(2)Source: LaBarbera, Peter, " Survey finds 40% of Gay men have had more than 40 Sex Partners," The Lambda Report, January-February 1998, p.20.

(3) " Do gay men and lesbians get along?" XY Magazine, July 1999, no.20, p. 77.

(4) Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.

(5) " After the Ball," (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.

(6) Miles, Sara, " He kissed a girl," Out Magazine, July 1999, pp.51-53.

(7) Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).

(8) Sally Ann Stewart, " AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men," USA Today, 21 November 1984.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You wouldn't know stupidity if it jumped and bit you.

No offense or anything, but your an idiot. Also cite your sources when you do five second copy and paste jobs.

I'll pick this one apart...

Well, commitment for one. Marriage is all about commitment, till death do us part and all.

And heterosexuals have that "commitment"? Again look at the divorce rate.

It is so vital to our self image that people in poor marriages often go to extreme lengths to portray their union to the world as a positive one.

Relevance?

is based on the precept that gay relationships are 'just like ours'. But what if this isn't true?

What we have is this: Two loving human beings who happen to be of the same gender, who love each other just as much as a man and woman in a heterosexual relationship.

There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. If we are to make the correct decision for this country, it behooves us to examine all sides of the situation - even if some of it isn't pretty.

Uncorrobated statement. No evidence. There is no evidence.. the large body of "evidence" he claims is mere arbitration.

Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.

Not adequate to make sweeping statements. Also says nothing of heterosexual marriages, which have a 50% divorce rate.

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology had this to say: "Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful.

Again sweeping and lacking in evidence.

"Monogamous" seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while casual sex continues on the side (1).

And this does not happen rampantly in heterosexual couples?

How does that make your creaky heterosexual bones feel? Does that feel like the commitment you went to the altar for? Didn't think so.

Laughable. Again as I said, this is bullshit. Heterosexual marriage has an average of 50% divorce give or takes, primarily because of infidelity.

52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.(2)

Great. Polls. What is that supposed to prove? I also seen other polls showing the exact opposite.

According to Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality extensively - (males) are much more interested in casual sex and non monogamous relationships.

No....

How about this comment from Dr. Martin Dannecker (a German sexologist, who studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships")? According to Dr. Dannecker, 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote," the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. (4)

This is uncorrobated in the least...

I don't even want to reply to the rest of this crap.. where did you get this bullshit from? NARTH? Most of it is uncorrobated and taking statements out of context.

[asleepathewheel]

What's wrong with having sex in a public park?

[Giancarlo]

And here is my source pretty much debunking what you posted. It also cites far more reliable studies.

Citation: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywo...debunking.html

Empirical social science research on gay and lesbian relationships dates mainly from the mid-1970's. To date, work has largely been descriptive--that is seeking to test the accuracy of prevailing social stereotypes about gay and lesbian relationships and to provide more reliable information. (For other reviews, see DeCecco, 1988; Harry, 1983c; Larson, 1982; Peplau & Amaro, 1982; Peplau & Cochran, 1990; Peplau & Gordon, 1983; Risman & Schwartz, 1988;,et.al.)

MYTH #1: HOMOSEXUALS DON'T WANT ENDURING RELATIONSHIPS AND CAN'T ACHIEVE THEM ANYWAY.

Homosexuals are often depicted as unhappy individuals who are unsuccessful in developing enduring same-sex ties. Drifting from one sexual liason to another, they end up old and alone. Existing data sharply counter this stereotype.

Studies of homosexuals' attitudes about relationships find that most lesbians and gay men say they very much want to have enduring close relationships (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978). Other studies have investigated the extent to which lesbians and gay men are successful in establishing intimate relationships. In surveys of gay men, between 40% and 60% of the men questioned were currently involved in a steady relationship (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Harry, 1993; Jay & Young, 1997; Peplau & Cochran, 1981; Spada, 1979). In studies of lesbians, between 45% and 80% of women surveyed were currently in a steady relationship. These estimates are not completely representative of all gay men and lesbians in the United States. They do indicate, however, that a large proportion of homosexuals have stable close relationships. Research also suggests that a slightly higher proportion of lesbians than gay men may be in steady relationships.

Given that substantial proportions are involved in intimate relationships, a next question concerns the longevity of these partnerships. Lacking marriage records and representative samples, it is hard to make judgements about how long "typical" homosexual relationships last. Most studies that have been conducted focused on younger adults whose relationships have lasted for a few years--as would be true for heterosexuals in their twenties. The few studies that have included older gay men and lesbians have found that relationships lasting twenty years or longer are not uncommon (e.g., McWhirter & Mattison, 1984; Raphael & Robinson, 1980; Silverstein, 1990).

The basic point of all these studies to draw from is that gay and lesbian relationships are very much a reality in contemporary life.

MYTH #2: GAY RELATIONSHIPS ARE UNHAPPY, ABNORMAL, AND DYS- FUNCTIONAL.

It is often believed that gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to those of heterosexuals. For example, a study of heterosexual college students found that they expected gay and lesbian relationships to be less satisfying, more prone to discord, and "less in love" than heterosexual relationships (Testa, Kinder, & Ironson, 1987). To investigate this stereotype scientifically, researchers have assessed the psychological adjustment of homosexual dyads, and have often used a research strategy comparing the relationship functioning of matched samples of homosexual and heterosexual couples. The central question has been how well gay and lesbian relationships fare on standard measures of relationship satisfaction, dyadic adjustment, or love.

Illustrative of this research is a study conducted by Susan Cochran & Letitia Anne Peplau (1980) that selected matched samples of 50 lesbians, 50 gay men, 50 heterosexual men, and 50 heterosexual women--all currently involved in "romantic/sexual relationships". Participants were matched on age, education, ethnicity, and length of relationship, and all completed a detailed questionnaire about their current relationship.

Among this sample of young adults, about 60% said they were "in love" with their partners; most of the rest indicated they were "uncertain". On Rubin's standardized Love and Liking Scales, lesbians and gay men generally reported very positive feelings for their partners. Lesbians and gay men also rated their current relationships as highly satisfying and very close. No significant differences were found among lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on any of these measures of relationship satisfaction. All participants were also asked to describe in their own words the "best things" and the "worst things" about their relationships. Systematic content analyses found no significant differences in the responses of any group of respondees--all of whom reported a similar range of joys and problems. To search for more subtle differences among groups that may not have been captured by the coding scheme, the "best things" and "worst things" were typed on cards in standard form, with information about gender and sexual orientation removed. Panels of judges were asked to sort out the cards, separating men from women, or separating heterosexuals and homosexuals. The judges were not able to identify correctly the responses of lesbians, gay men, or heterosexual women and men. Indeed, judges may have been misled by their own preconceptions; they tended for instance, to assume incorrectly that statements involving jealousy were more likely to be made by homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Other studies have portrayed similar findings, and have extended the range of relationship measures used. In general, most gay men and lesbians perceive their relationships as satisfying. Homosexual and heterosexual couples who are matched on age and other relevant background characteristics do not usually differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores in standardized measures such as the Locke-Wallace Scale or Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale. (See Cardell, Finn, & Marecek, 1981; Dailey, 1979; Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1987; Peplau, Cochran, & Mays, 1986; Peplau, Padesky, & Hamilton, 1982.)

None of this is to say that all gay and lesbian couples are happy and problem-free. Rather the point is that homosexual couples are not necessarily any more prone to relationship dissatisfaction and difficulties than are heterosexuals.

MYTH #3: "HUSBAND" AND "WIFE" ROLES ARE UNIVERSAL IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS.

C.A. Tripp notes that "when people who are not familiar with homosexual relationships try to picture one, the almost invariably resort to a heterosexual frame of reference, raising questions about which partner is 'the man' and which is the 'woman' (1975). This issue has generated a good deal of empirical research (see reviews by Harry, 1993; Peplau & Gordon, 1983; Risman & Schwartz, 1988).

Historical accounts of gay life in the United States suggest that masculine-feminine roles have sometimes been important. More recently, there has been a sharp decline in the occurence of gender-linked roles in gay and lesbian relationships. Some have attributed this change to the effects of the feminist and gay rights movements and to the general loosening of traditional gender norms in American society (Marecek, Finn, & Cardell, 1982; Risman & Schwartz, 1988; Ross, 1983).

Today however, research shows that most lesbians and gay men actively reject traditional husband-wife or masculine-feminine roles as a model for enduring relationships (see Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Harry, 1984; Lynch & Reilly, 1986; Marecek, Finn, & Cardell, 1982; McWhirter & Mattison, 1994; Peplau & Amaro, 1982.) Currently, most lesbians and gay men are in "dual-worker" relationships, so that neither partner is the exclusive "breadwinner" and each partner has some measure of economic independence. Further, examination of the division of household tasks, sexual behavior, and decision making in homosexual couples finds that clear-cut and consistent husband-wife roles are uncommon. In many relationships, there is some specialization of activities with one partner doing more of some jobs and less of others. But it is rare for one to perform most of the "feminine" activities and the other to perform most of the "masculine" tasks. That is, the partner who usually does the cooking does not necessarily also perform other feminine tasks such as shopping or cleaning. Specialization seems to be based on more individualistic factors such as skills or interests.

Nonetheless, a small minority of lesbians and gay men do incorporate elements of husband-wife roles into their relationships. This may affect the division of labor, the dominance structure, sexual interactions, the way partners dress, and other aspects of their relationship. In some cases, these role patterns seemed to be linked to temporary situations, such as one partner's unemployment or illness. For other couples, however, masculine-feminine roles may provide a model of choice.

Given that traditional husband-wife roles are not the template for most contemporary homosexual couples, researchers have sought to identify other models or relationship patterns. One model might be based on differences in age, with an older partner acting in part as a mentor or leader. In his studies of gay male relationships, Harry (1982, 1984) found that the age-difference pattern characterized only a minority of gay couples. When it did occur, the actual differences in age tended to be relatively small, perhaps five to ten years. Harry also found that in these couples, the older partner often had more power in decision making. McWhirter and Mattison (1984) also observed age differences among some male couples they studied, and reported that age differences of five years or more were characteristic of couples who had been together for thirty years or more.

Finally, another pattern is based on friendship or peer relations, with partners being similar in age and emphasizing companionship, sharing, and equality in the relationship (e.g., Harry, 1982,1983c.; Peplau,et.al., 1978; Peplau & Cochran, 1981). A friendship script typically fosters equality in relationships. In contrast to marriage, the norms for friendship assume that partners are relatively equal in status and power. Friends also tend to be similar in interests, resources, and skills. Available evidence suggests that most American lesbians and gay men have a relationship script that most closely approximates best friendship. In summary, contemporary homosexual relationships follow a variety of patterns or models.

MYTH #4: GAYS AND LESBIANS HAVE IMPOVERISHED SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORKS.

Although there is growing public awareness of the existence of gay and lesbian communities, stereotypes continue to depict homosexuals as socially isolated and lacking in social support. It is certainly true that in a homophobic society, gays and lesbians may suffer from social alienation and estrangement. The psychological stress that results from social recognition and stigma should nonetheless not be minimized. What is noteworthy, however, is the extent to which contemporary lesbians and gay men seem able to overcome these obstacles and to create satisfying social networks. This is especially important because of growing evidence that emotional support, guidance, assistance, and other forms of social support contribute to mental and physical health.

Illustrative of the research on social support is a comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual women conducted by Aura (1985). She compared the social support experiences of 50 lesbians and 50 heterosexual women. All women were currently in a primary relationship and were matched for age, education, length of their relationship. None had children in their household. Women filled out detailed questionnaires about many specific types of social support. Results showed that both groups of women held very similar values about the importance of social support. In addition, women reported receiving similar total amounts of support from their personal relationships. However, lesbians and heterosexuals often received support from different sources. In particular, many lesbians depended somewhat less on relatives and more on their partner or friends than did heterosexuals. For example, lesbians and heterosexuals reported receiving similar amounts of material assistance such as help in moving or getting a ride to the airport, but lesbians relied more on friends and heterosexuals relied more on their family.

Research by Lewin investigated the social support experiences of lesbian and heterosexual divorced mothers raising children (Lewin, 1981; Lewin & Lyons, 1982). Lewin found that both lesbian and heterosexual mothers were equally likely to turn to their parents or other family members for support. About 84% of the lesbian mothers said that most or all of their relatives were aware of their homosexuality. Although this initially created stress for many lesbians and their families, over time the families seemed to come to terms with the situation. Overall, results seemed to suggest that the presence of children may increase the similarity in social support experiences of lesbian and heterosexual women.

Kurdek (1988) studied the social support among gay men and lesbians in couples. When asked who provided social support, virtually everyone listed not only their partner but also other friends. In addition, 81% of the gay men and 86% of the lesbians cited a family member as a source of support--most often their mother or a sister. Using the standardized Social Support Questionnaire developed by Sarason and his associates (1983), Kurdek found no differences between gay men and lesbians in the source of support or in satisfaction with support. Overall levels of support received by gays and lesbians were similar to and slightly higher than those reported by Sarason for a college student sample. (See also D'Augelli, 1987; D'Augelli & Hart, 1987; Kurdek & Schmidt, 1987). In summary, despite the potential obstacles to the establishment of meaningful social relations, many lesbians and gay men are able to create supportive social networks.

[Ming]

Giancarlo, Ben.. and everybody else. As I posted in the other thread... the personal insults will stop, or you will get restricted. If you can't discuss this issue without calling people stupid, idiots, or other insults, don't bother to post... because if you do... you will get restricted.

Enough of this crap!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why? That seems a fairer consideration than comparing the men to the women.

Why? Because the problem isn't homosexuality, the problem is men, that's why. Men are, by and large, the spouse likely to abusive. So you should look at the partners of the gender who is battering, not the gender of the batterree. Duh.

Secondly, if we accept your conclusion, that because women are by and large not batterers, why do we see the increased battering in lesbian relationships? Surely, one would expect the battering to go down, but it does not.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that male battering by females is greatly underreported, largely due to the humiliation based on stereotyped gender roles. And another thing is that from a size perspective, women just aren't physically as able to batter men as they are other women. And things like slaps from a woman aren't, by many men, considered battering, while women would be more likely to consider them as such. It is, in fact, almost considered socially "acceptable" that a female will give smacks to her husband when he does something really stupid. The reverse, however, is not.

Also, such battering situations often involve the inability to deal with the frustration and burdens of living in a homophobic society as well. There are also similar issues, present in heterosexual marriages (children, money, etc.), but these issues become an even greater problem with gay couples because they don’t have as much support from family or friends during these rough times. In fact, some families don’t even know that their child is in a gay relationship.

These societal factors often times contribute along with more common factors like growing up in a violent home, self-hatred, and poor impulse control.

Using this as some sort of reason to not allow gay marriage is, in fact, pulling a Catch-22 argument.

Umm, the study you cite says no such thing.

Not did I say it did, I said that it called for a more legal support and acknowledgement of gay relationships, which I believe marriage will help accomplish.

How can they say that is is damaging, when they do not test the procedure? It's an assumption they make based on the fact that they delisted homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder.

Bullshit. Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have studied the results, as in homosexuals who have undergone the therapy and become emotional wrecks because of their failures to change their ways. But I'm glad to see you throw out an inference of the old conspiracy chestnut to delist homosexuality as a disorder. It was delisted because it was studied and shown not to be a disorder, not because of political pressure from then non-existant gay lobbying groups.

How can it hurt people, if it is no longer a disoder?

Are you serious? Ask any psychologist or psychiatrist about the potential harm of treating something that isn't a disorder as if it is one. This is one of the more mind-boggling ignorant statements you've made. Why don't you try being a mental health professional before making such ridiculous statements?

We should encourage people to follow their desires, and to accept the fact that they are gay, and to learn to live with it.

Precisely. The problem is from people not wanting accept their natures and the stress that is created fighting against it. If you show people to simply accept themselves and love who they are, they will be healthier.

I'm sorry, but if I'm someone who is gay, and is not happy, that is not what is going to help me. Reperative therapy will.

First, since you're not gay, the notion you could just know what will and won't make a gay person happy is laughable. You don't have a clue.

Second, show me and study that reparative therapy works. Not anecdotal evidence, but a statistical one that shows conversion therapy success rates.

Why don't conversion therapy groups like Exodus and NARTH publish any statistics on their successful rate of conversions, Ben?

Who are the two founders of Exodus, and what are they doing now, Ben? What do they say about Exodus now, Ben?

Where was John Paulik, the supposedly cured homo who was splashed across the country in newspaper ads, found in Baltimore after that campaign?

You've never even undergone Reparative Therapy, yet you claim it works? No, Ben, it doesn't work. It preys upon the minds of people and convinces them to pretend to be something they are not. This eventually leads to a crushing of their self-esteem when they fail to change their natures. It is a horrible thing, and anyone who advocates it is advocating psychological abuse of homosexuals.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, to the extent the tax laws are written to subsidize marriage between a man a woman, they do so because we want to encourage raising kids in families. Providing the same tax breaks to homosexuals is wrong because it would encourage the exact opposite of what we intend to encourage.

Stop with the "we want X" crap... not all of "we" want this; some don't want, some are ambivilent, and some do.

I'm of the opinion that the discrimination issue is larger than any benefit to reenforcing a dubious stereotypical situation, in taxation.

For example, we now subsidize home ownership by allowing people to deduct interest. If we were to now allow rent to be deducted, we would kill the effective preference for home ownership.

And? your point is what?

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The religionistas won't, unless they really want to be seen as hypocritical; lesbians won't, and plenty of heterosexual non-religionistas won't- otherwise who is going to grow up and tell their husbands how to dress, treat their wives properly, trim their nasal and ear hairs, be prison warders and policewomen, et cetera, et cetera.

Mostly tongue in cheek Ned, but you're showing the same deficiency in imagination that Obi Gyn does with his fixation on sexual acts between gay males.

If a gay gene is identified, then the technology to develop a child from merged ova probably won't be that far behind. By which time one might hope that human societies might have matured beyond the stage of applying moral strictures from old tomes to natural human behaviour.

Don't be so sure that religious women would not abort homosexual fetuses. My wife is religious and generally against abortion. She would consider abortion when the fetus is deformed, mentally retarded or when it has a genetic disease. But when I came to homosexuality, my wife was uncertain. She was leaning the direction of aborting the fetus.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned


I beg to differ. Tax policy is central to discrimination in favor of families. This is why I may oppose gay marriages even if I might otherwise be in favor. I am strongly pro-family. I believe in raising kids in the same families with their fathers and their mothers and in no other place. I am strongly against divorce. I am strongly against single parenthood. And above all I oppose gays and lesbians raising children.

Until and unless I am convinced that approving of gay marriages will not undermine our ability to legislate in favor of families, then count me as a bitter opponent of gay marriages.

The notion that being pro-gay marriage is anti-family is ludicrous and simply bigoted, intentional or not.

Gay couples ARE families and they raise families. Gay couples raise children. You're basically saying that the kids in these gay families already in existence are SOL.

Gays and lesbians raise kids to be perfectly healthy, normal people. Gays and lesbians not only raise adopted kids, they raise their own either born in previous marriages or through artificial insemination means. Would you rip those kids away from their biological parents?

Give me a sound reason to oppose gays raising their own kids that is based on concrete fact and not hysterical suppositions and bias.

Educate yourself.

http://www.lethimstay.com/
http://www.ourfamily.org/
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

Funny thing is, Ned, I recall you saying only a few months ago in some old threads that you thought that we should just go ahead and legalize gay marriage. Did Limbaugh and Hannity get to your brain cells that quick?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

And? your point is what?

Extending policies intended to support traditional families to essentially everyone defeats the policy.

However, I think we could be creative in how we subsidize families. As I said in an earlier post, we could provide a very large child tax deduction or credit for the natural parents filing a joint tax return.

[Ned]

Boris, I am generally in favor of legalization provided it is done in a manner that does not prejudice in any way our right to pass laws favoring traditional families.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
Extending policies intended to support traditional families to essentially everyone defeats the policy.

However, I think we could be creative in how we subsidize families. As I said in an earlier post, we could provide a very large child tax deduction or credit for the natural parents filing a joint tax return.

Agreed about the very large child tax deduction... provided that it wouldn't preclude gays from gaining right to married filing separately or jointly...

You did, however, quote me out of context. I was quoting you in the context of home-ownership vs. rental tax benefits.

I don't see why home ownership should carry any particular benefit, or need to be encouraged. Its another separate, pure opinion argument that can't be "solved".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I am generally in favor of legalization provided it is done in a manner that does not prejudice in any way our right to pass laws favoring traditional families.

Why should the kids of a gay couple be legally discriminated against as opposed to a straight couple?

If it's indeed about the kids, the sexual orientation and gender of the parents shouldn't matter two whits as far as the law is concerned, since all the evidence indicates two gay parents will raise kids just as normal and healthy as two straight parents.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Don't be so sure that religious women would not abort homosexual fetuses. My wife is religious and generally against abortion. She would consider abortion when the fetus is deformed, mentally retarded or when it has a genetic disease. But when I came to homosexuality, my wife was uncertain. She was leaning the direction of aborting the fetus.

Rather surprising. I'd ask your wife what is the religious justification for ensuring one has a "perfect" child.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, to the extent the tax laws are written to subsidize marriage between a man a woman, they do so because we want to encourage raising kids in families. Providing the same tax breaks to homosexuals is wrong because it would encourage the exact opposite of what we intend to encourage.

For example, we now subsidize home ownership by allowing people to deduct interest. If we were to now allow rent to be deducted, we would kill the effective preference for home ownership.

How would it encourage anything? Gays that can't get married now aren't thinking to themselves "Hmmm...I really want those tax benefits, so I'll pretend I'm not gay, get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids". Not to mention what a wonderfully stable home that would be, having a spouse contanstantly repressing their sexuality for a tax break.

Or are you echoing Ben in assuming that if you give these tax breaks to homosexuals, there will be a mass exodus away from heterosexual marriages and childrearing for reasons that utterly defy any form of logic?

Your home ownership scenario would only be analogous if you were to grant the same benefits to non-married people (regardless of sexual preferrence). Allowing gays to get married takes nothing away in regards to incentives to get married and have a family.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Your home ownership scenario would only be analogous if you were to grant the same benefits to non-married people (regardless of sexual preferrence). Allowing gays to get married takes nothing away in regards to incentives to get married and have a family.

Not only that, the percentage of gay marriages occuring as opposed to heterosexual marriages will be miniscule enough that it won't have any noticeable effect.

I still don't see why extending benefits to more couples is a bad thing. BK kept using the vague term "dilute," but this is nonsensical jargon, as far as I can see. What is being "diluted?" Is there only a set pool of resources that is allocated to married couples, and the more couples there are, the smaller the piece of the pie they get? Of course not.

[Ben Kenobi]

when you do five second copy and paste jobs.

from my files, Fez.

That's why I left the citations.

[Ben Kenobi]

Giancarlo, Ben.. and everybody else. As I posted in the other thread... the personal insults will stop, or you will get restricted. If you can't discuss this issue without calling people stupid, idiots, or other insults, don't bother to post... because if you do... you will get restricted.

Enough of this crap!

Thanks Ming.

[Ben Kenobi]

Got to go.

Have a busy day today.

Won't be back till late tonight. then I shall reply to the rest.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, false analogy, in the comparison between race, which cannot be chosen, and sexual preferences, which can.

So when did you choose to be straight? When did you sit down, think over whether you should be gay or straight, weigh the consequences of each, and decide, "From this moment on, I shall be attracted to women!" And how did you tell your body to honour this decision in its involuntary responses to sexual stimuli -- do you consciously have to make yourself acheive an erection when you look at a naked woman? Would you have that same reaction when you look at a naked man? Could you make yourself have that reaction with a man, could you make yourself look forward to it? Make your heart race with anticipation, make your palms sweat, your pupils dilate?

Why doesn't everyone who thinks that sexual orientation is a choice weigh in on that question? Tell us all about The Day You Made Your Choice. I'm sure everyone has wonderful stories to tell about it. We must all have different factors that went into our decisions to be attracted to the genders that we chose. I'd be fascinated to hear them.

If only because I didn't make any choice to be straight, and I think the assertion that it somehow is a choice to be utter rotgut. Further, to use that argument as any sort of justification for denying gays their rights under the law is even worse, and a symptom of ignorance, bigotry, or both.

[Boris Godunov]

Bk is also inconsistent here. At times he says that gays should be surpressing their urges, which implies the preference isn't a choice, but just something they should overcome. Then he goes and says it is a choice. Seems like his notions change for the convenience of his arguments.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bk is also inconsistent here. At times he says that gays should be surpressing their urges, which implies the preference isn't a choice, but just something they should overcome. Then he goes and says it is a choice. Seems like his notions change for the convenience of his arguments.

Bennie is inconsistent, period.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You were the first to mention anal intercourse in the thread molly, so perhaps I am not the one so fixated.


Again, you speculate that these are my positions. A great amount of speculation based on sparse evidence.


What do I mean by the gay lifestyle? I would argue, a propensity for promiscuity, lack of stable relationships, and a the concamitant psychological and physical problems associated with the above behaviors.

All of these, can be found in greater proportion among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Faux disingenuity, Obi Gyn. In your diatribes against marriage for gays and lesbians, you hardly ever include lesbians in your thinking, or your posts.

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual males? Or does that not compute, because the daughters of Bilitis are lesser vessels than the sons of Adam, so any data compiled on lesbians isn't really worth considering?

I may have been the first to actually mention explicitly the thinking behind your posts, but perhaps that's because I prefer to call a spade a f@cking shovel. I mean, you hedge your posts with nonsense such as 'gay marriages can't be fruitful'- hello? This isn't Cotton Mather's colony, we're talking the 21st Century blues here.

I don't speculate on your positions, every time you post in a 'gay marriage' thread, or 'gays and lesbians adopting' thread, your thinking is apparent for us all to see- the fact that you can't see what is in plain sight is more revealing about you and your mind's inner workings (and perhaps your capacity for self-deception, such as the notion that your interminable 'why can't two male heterosexuals get married to each other' schtick, or the 'why can't I get married to my grandmother?' routine present anything new or relevant each time they're regurgitated).

As has been pointed out, not simply by the gay males, the logic behind these arguments is flawed, and each time you resurrect them, it doesn't make the logic any less flawed.

Now I understand where you're coming from with your studies secreted away to 'prove' just how bad the 'gay lifestyle' is, but let's imagine that the shoe is on the other foot, and a gay sociologist decides to study that strange dimension, the twilight world of the heterosexual, what would they find?

Well, using kenobist logic, they'd discover that, shock, horror, wife beating takes place in heterosexual marriages!

That until the 19th Century, a wife was her husband's property, and had no property rights of her own!

That until the 20th Century, it was seriously believed that rape could not take place in marriage!

That an unequal divsion of labour was commonplace, with females earning less for the same work that men did, that mostly females bore the brunt of childrearing duties, that males hardly saw their offspring for long periods of time during a working week, that sex was on sale in major cities for the benefit of single and married heterosexual males, with little evidence that such a service was provided for heterosexual females, and so on and so on.

Then of course there are the institutionalized dens of promiscuity called singles' bars, catering to (allegedly) single heterosexuals where the possibility of casual promiscuous sex is the point of a social encounter, that many large towns and cities (and smaller ones too) had 'lovers' lanes' where open air heterosexual sex could and did take place!

That major cities such as Hamburg, Amsterdam, London, New York and Melbourne and Nairobi had 'red light' districts where a variety of anonymous sexual encounters could be had by heterosexuals (single or married) for a sum of money.

That heterosexual divorce is on the increase across the industrialized world.

That networks of heterosexual child abusers exist internationally, preying on children.

That events such as Brazil's Carnival in Rio, the Notting Hill Carnival in London, and Mardi Gras in New Orleans see open displays of public lewdness by heterosexuals, with skimpily dressed heterosexual females flaunting their bodies and their sexuality, and with public sexual encounters taking place over a course of several days, with little regard for the consequences of unprotected sex.

That the numbers of teenage school age mothers are increasing.

And so on, and so on....

Of course what you leave out of your posts is any attempt to place the problems that gay men and lesbians face in any kind of cultural or societal context, but of course that might just prove detrimental to your notions of an inherently bad 'gay lifestyle'.

It is my experience that males, either heterosexual or gay, can be and sometimes are promiscuous, which has more to do with the physical nature of the human male's sexual response and equipment, and perhaps the genetic hardwiring for male behaviour- 'eats roots and leaves' is the Aussie joke about male sexual behaviour (root= Aussie slang for f@ck).

A lesbian joke that seems to me to sum up the disparity between the two worlds is

'What's 24 hours of lesbian sex?'

'Foreplay.'

[Ben Kenobi]

At times he says that gays should be surpressing their urges, which implies the preference isn't a choice, but just something they should overcome. Then he goes and says it is a choice. Seems like his notions change for the convenience of his arguments.

Boris:

The desires are not the choice. The decision to act on them is. One can suppress these desires.

No inconsistency there. I do believe you define sexual orientation, not just in the urges, but in the actions as well?

[Ben Kenobi]

So when did you choose to be straight? When did you sit down, think over whether you should be gay or straight, weigh the consequences of each, and decide, "From this moment on, I shall be attracted to women!"

I have yet to make that decision, to act on my desires, in such a way, as to sleep with a woman. So, yes, it is a conscious decision to act on my desires.

Do you consciously have to make yourself acheive an erection when you look at a naked woman?

No. Would I be gay if I had to?

Could you make yourself have that reaction with a man, could you make yourself look forward to it? Make your heart race with anticipation, make your palms sweat, your pupils dilate?

Could I force myself to? Sure.

Again, I offer the same critique of you, as I do Boris. One can control ones urges. I do not fault a man for his urges, but rather, for his actions, for the conscious decision that he makes to act on them.

Further, to use that argument as any sort of justification for denying gays their rights under the law is even worse, and a symptom of ignorance, bigotry, or both.

What rights are denied to them?

[Ben Kenobi]

Faux disingenuity, Obi Gyn. In your diatribes against marriage for gays and lesbians, you hardly ever include lesbians in your thinking, or your posts.

You would not want to be able to read my mind. Don't presume you do.

Are lesbians more promiscuous than heterosexual males? Or does that not compute, because the daughters of Bilitis are lesser vessels than the sons of Adam, so any data compiled on lesbians isn't really worth considering?

Do I say that anywhere? No. I do not seperate the one from the other. If you do, then you get into some really interesting questions.

One point you could make is that homosexuality is not the same for lesbians, as it is for gay men. That the two are psychologically and physically different from each other. Just because they are different, does not make the situation better for either.

I may have been the first to actually mention explicitly the thinking behind your posts,

Again, you presume to know what you cannot. So don't try.

we're talking the 21st Century blues here.

So, you believe in progress, unending, perpetual progress? I don't. Sorry. Nothing new under the sun.

Now I understand where you're coming from with your studies secreted away to 'prove' just how bad the 'gay lifestyle' is,

I can anticipate arguments, and I prefer to be prepared when one makes the call for sources. Nothing more to it. When I looked for articles, the other day, I found others that would also be useful, so I saved them.

Well, using kenobist logic, they'd discover that, shock, horror, wife beating takes place in heterosexual marriages!

Nor do I deny that some marriages are bad.

That until the 19th Century, a wife was her husband's property, and had no property rights of her own!

So? Do I believe this?

That until the 20th Century, it was seriously believed that rape could not take place in marriage!

Nor do I believe this.

That an unequal divsion of labour was commonplace, with females earning less for the same work that men did, that mostly females bore the brunt of childrearing duties, that males hardly saw their offspring for long periods of time during a working week, that sex was on sale in major cities for the benefit of single and married heterosexual males, with little evidence that such a service was provided for heterosexual females, and so on and so on.

So how does this disprove the ideal? That marriage, can and does work? That there have always been happy marriages is the other coin that there have always been ones that are not so good. But the former outweigh the latter.

Then of course there are the institutionalized dens of promiscuity called singles' bars, catering to (allegedly) single heterosexuals where the possibility of casual promiscuous sex is the point of a social encounter, that many large towns and cities (and smaller ones too) had 'lovers' lanes' where open air heterosexual sex could and did take place!

Yeah, that's why I wait, eh? I lambaste the one, and not the other. Both are wrong, and I have said that before. Wait until marriage, and then enjoy each other.

That major cities such as Hamburg, Amsterdam, London, New York and Melbourne and Nairobi had 'red light' districts where a variety of anonymous sexual encounters could be had by heterosexuals (single or married) for a sum of money.

Again, I would say that some do these kinds of things, but they are a smaller proportion than among homosexuals.

That heterosexual divorce is on the increase across the industrialized world.

Funny, eh? Everytime I make an analogy with divorce, it is not proper, yet you constantly bring up this fact. Yes, there are broken marriages, but fewer than among homosexuals.

That networks of heterosexual child abusers exist internationally, preying on children.

Do you really want to go down this road, Molly? Comparing the proportions?

That events such as Brazil's Carnival in Rio, the Notting Hill Carnival in London, and Mardi Gras in New Orleans see open displays of public lewdness by heterosexuals, with skimpily dressed heterosexual females flaunting their bodies and their sexuality, and with public sexual encounters taking place over a course of several days, with little regard for the consequences of unprotected sex.

So can one say that such actions are the majority of heterosexuals?

That the numbers of teenage school age mothers are increasing.

Where? They are declining.

Of course what you leave out of your posts is any attempt to place the problems that gay men and lesbians face in any kind of cultural or societal context, but of course that might just prove detrimental to your notions of an inherently bad 'gay lifestyle'.

How does the outside oppression explain and justify battering among homosexual couples?

It is my experience that males, either heterosexual or gay, can be and sometimes are promiscuous,

Ignores my argument, on the proportion being different between the two. Quite different.