Gay Marriage

[Tink]

Junior, I did ask if there was any scientific evidence to this, and the transgender movement.

No one is stopping people doing what they want to do.

This debate is about the meaning of Marriage and whether it should be changed.

 

[Tisme]

Junior, I did ask if there was any scientific evidence to this, and the transgender movement.

No one is stopping people doing what they want to do.

This debate is about the meaning of Marriage and whether it should be changed.

Yes the crux is that ignorance is a two way street. Blind faith that a lifestyle poses no risk to those most vulnerable (e.g. developing minds) is not a scientific approach.

Homosexuals aren't poodles, where you can guess a temperament based on breeding and they certainly aren't pets to be pampered. You don't make a decision that affects the broader community based on attachment.

If arguments are going to boil down to pro marriage advocates gaffawing, being indignant or wounded about being called a homosexual themselves then it exposes the fallacy of their position by the insult reaction.

We need to argue the case logically and be cognisant of our learned histories, of our social engineering failures of the past and the real threats posed by dissolving social infrastructure in favour of individual satisfaction.

 

[Knobby22]

We need to argue the case logically and be cognisant of our learned histories, of our social engineering failures of the past and the real threats posed by dissolving social infrastructure in favour of individual satisfaction.

Good words.

There are lots of words that change meaning and naturally some dislike the change.
Many says "partner" now rather than wife or husband which I find a bit sad. Just seems a downgrade, partner to me will always relate to business or tennis.

A work colleague used to say my partner Chris (short for Christine) for years until he realised that quite a few of his clients thought he was gay. (True) now he words things a little differently.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the definition will change eventually and once that is achieved I doubt many of the homosexual community will even bother taking it up. It is becoming less frequent in the heterosexual community, but it will help some feel more accepted.

Marriage has been debased with people not taking the pledge seriously and divorce being rampant anyway, so it really doesn't bother me much and if it makes some people happy well good on them. Why should I stop them? In the end it's a piece of almost worthless paper in the civil sphere.

Adoption is a separate issue and should be treated separately.

 

[Junior]

Yes the crux is that ignorance is a two way street. Blind faith that a lifestyle poses no risk to those most vulnerable (e.g. developing minds) is not a scientific approach.

Homosexuals aren't poodles, where you can guess a temperament based on breeding and they certainly aren't pets to be pampered. You don't make a decision that affects the broader community based on attachment.

If arguments are going to boil down to pro marriage advocates gaffawing, being indignant or wounded about being called a homosexual themselves then it exposes the fallacy of their position by the insult reaction.

We need to argue the case logically and be cognisant of our learned histories, of our social engineering failures of the past and the real threats posed by dissolving social infrastructure in favour of individual satisfaction.

This is fair, but the substantial percentage of heterosexual couples who make bad parents, and the very high incidence of divorce and domestic violence, says to me that this 'gold standard' argument is not grounded in reality.

The current situation is that there are no barriers of entry to marriage - other than having to be a man and woman. You can have a criminal record, history of violence, drug problem etc. etc. You can have known your partner for 10 minutes before marrying, you can marry 10 times if you want. You can lie and cheat, and still go and get married a second time or third time.

So if two blokes want to get married...so be it, no skin off my back.

 

[Value Collector]

Gang banging, conga lines, etc are not anywher near a norm for hetro males.

Lol, not for lack of trying though.

 

[SirRumpole]

promiscuity isn't a gay man thing, it's a man thing, all straight men would have a lot more sex is the average women was up for a one night stand as they were.

Do you base that on personal experience ?

Are you saying you are not loyal to your partner ?

Probably heterosexual promiscuity has been moderated by the fear of getting the woman pregnant and being saddled with unwanted responsibilities, but the fact remains that it is well known that gays are more promiscuous than hets for whatever reason.

 

[luutzu]

Do you base that on personal experience ?

Are you saying you are not loyal to your partner ?

Probably heterosexual promiscuity has been moderated by the fear of getting the woman pregnant and being saddled with unwanted responsibilities, but the fact remains that it is well known that gays are more promiscuous than hets for whatever reason.

Maybe they're just better looking; fitter and better dressed.

 

[Value Collector]

Do you base that on personal experience ?

Are you saying you are not loyal to your partner
.

Well I have been with my partner since I was 21, But prior to that I a certainly out trying to get as much as I could, are you saying in your youth you would have turned down a no strings attached romp with a girl you liked

Probably heterosexual promiscuity has been moderated by the fear of getting the woman pregnant and being saddled with unwanted responsibilities,

No, its moderated by a lack of equally motivated women.

but the fact remains that it is well known that gays are more promiscuous than hets for whatever reason

Again you seem to only be talking about hets vs gay men.

what about lesbians, once you start talking about women (in general) promiscuousness rates fall, so whether its straight men or gay men, men generally are open for no strings attached sex.

Here is two social experiments that proves my point.

Women asking guys for sex



guys asking girls

 

[SirRumpole]

are you saying in your youth you would have turned down a no strings attached romp with a girl you liked

The point is than in hetero relationship there ARE strings attached, as I said the risk of pregnancy and unwanted responsibilities. Gay men don't have this moderator so they are more likely to do it whenever they can.

what about lesbians, once you start talking about women (in general) promiscuousness rates fall, so whether its straight men or gay men, men generally are open for no strings attached sex.

Did you read the Guardian article I linked to which indicates that lesbians are more promiscuous (higher risk takers) than straight women ?

 

[Value Collector]

Gay men don't have this moderator so they are more likely to do it whenever they can.



?

So are you saying Gay men in relationships don't expect their partner to be faithful, and its all no strings?

Did you read the Guardian article I linked to which indicates that lesbians are more promiscuous (higher risk takers) than straight women

Even if that were true, do you think gay women are more promiscuous than straight men?

Did you even watch the video I linked?

Both Straight and gay men are capable of both promiscuous behaviour and also of being faithful, So to bring it up in a debate about marriage is a red herring

 

[Junior]

Further to the above, men and women can get married and be as promiscuous as they want....society may frown upon it, but they can do that if they wish. Then if the relationship breaks down and ends in divorce, they can go and get married and do it again.

So to say that gay men or women are promiscuous (generalisation), and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married, well that's not really fair.

What about the gay couples who are entirely faithful to one another? They should be precluded from marriage because of this generalisation?

 

[SirRumpole]

Even if that were true, do you think gay women are more promiscuous than straight men?

Comparing women with men, gay or straight in this context is irrelevant.

Gay men are more promiscuous than straight men and lesbians are more promiscuous than straight women and that's a fact.

I'm not saying it has anything to do with marriage, but someone said there was no evidence that gays are more promiscuous than straights, and I provided some.

 

[noco]

Maybe they're just better looking; fitter and better dressed.

But why do they walk so funny and different to other men?

 

[luutzu]

Comparing women with men, gay or straight in this context is irrelevant.

Gay men are more promiscuous than straight men and lesbians are more promiscuous than straight women and that's a fact.

I'm not saying it has anything to do with marriage, but someone said there was no evidence that gays are more promiscuous than straights, and I provided some.

I think VC and others are trying to tell you that all men are more promiscuous - gay or straight. Just that gay men have a better chance with other gay men so more sex; versus straight men trying to get some but straight women are more picky. That is, all guys want to screw, just gay guys are luckier since the object of their screwing also want to screw too.

Clear as mud now?

So guys like VC, and to some extend myself, who are "loyal" and less promiscuous... it's not out of choice or nature or personality. It's that we ain't that good looking... well I am pretty handsome but yea

 

[luutzu]

But why do they walk so funny and different to other men?

Better diet, more exercise and generally more happier (gay).

Serious, no idea. I think you're referring to the "really gay" gay guys. You know, the ones that are obviously gay - with all those stereotypical mannerism. There are gay guys who we really have no idea are gay until we spend enough time and they let slip a few too many jokes about being rock hard behind somebody (ha haha).

 

[Tisme]

Good words.

There are lots of words that change meaning and naturally some dislike the change.
Many says "partner" now rather than wife or husband which I find a bit sad. Just seems a downgrade, partner to me will always relate to business or tennis.

A work colleague used to say my partner Chris (short for Christine) for years until he realised that quite a few of his clients thought he was gay. (True) now he words things a little differently.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the definition will change eventually and once that is achieved I doubt many of the homosexual community will even bother taking it up. It is becoming less frequent in the heterosexual community, but it will help some feel more accepted.

Marriage has been debased with people not taking the pledge seriously and divorce being rampant anyway, so it really doesn't bother me much and if it makes some people happy well good on them. Why should I stop them? In the end it's a piece of almost worthless paper in the civil sphere.

Adoption is a separate issue and should be treated separately.

all true

 

[SirRumpole]

I think VC and others are trying to tell you that all men are more promiscuous - gay or straight. Just that gay men have a better chance with other gay men so more sex; versus straight men trying to get some but straight women are more picky. That is, all guys want to screw, just gay guys are luckier since the object of their screwing also want to screw too.

You have just proved my argument that the objects of attention (gay men) are more likely to want sex, ie are more promiscuous.

Thanks for that.

QED.

 

[Tisme]

There are gay guys who we really have no idea are gay until we spend enough time and they let slip a few too many jokes about being rock hard behind somebody (ha haha).

That made be laugh, well done. Double entendres aren't lost on you cobber.

 

[Tisme]

Further to the above, men and women can get married and be as promiscuous as they want....society may frown upon it, but they can do that if they wish. Then if the relationship breaks down and ends in divorce, they can go and get married and do it again.

So to say that gay men or women are promiscuous (generalisation), and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married, well that's not really fair.

What about the gay couples who are entirely faithful to one another? They should be precluded from marriage because of this generalisation?

It's a matter of weighting the decision based on a majority versus a minority. There is certainly anecdotal evidence amongst my homosexual friends, family members and acquaintances that monogamy is at best tenuous and more likely frivolous.

So first hand observation says no they aren't by 'n large suitable as reliable carers and role models (depending on whether you think child exposure to sexualised elders is ok or not).

We are crystal balling with rose coloured glasses about a commitment that is already treated with contempt by many hetrosexuals because it impinges on their self gratification; and that's starting from a base of high expectation to be monogamous.

 

[Value Collector]

You have just proved my argument that the objects of attention (gay men) are more likely to want sex, ie are more promiscuous.

Thanks for that.

QED.

Not "Gay Men", men in general. when the object of attention is male, regardless of whether he is straight or gay, he is more likely to be up for it than the average women.

But any way, how is this relevant to gay marriage?