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.
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.
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.
Gang banging, conga lines, etc are not anywher near a norm for hetro males.
Value Collector said: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.
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
Value Collector said:are you saying in your youth you would have turned down a no strings attached romp with a girl you liked
Value Collector said: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.
Gay men don't have this moderator so they are more likely to do it whenever they can.
?
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?
Maybe they're just better looking; fitter and better dressed.
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.
But why do they walk so funny and different to other men?
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?