Gay marriages

[DN]

I'm quite certain the study did not look at straight men at all, butI'm not sure of the exact specifics of the study.

 

This online book may be of some interest to you:

 

link removed

 

It suggests (particularly around pages 80-90) that straight men would be just as promiscious as gay men if women allowed them to be, but women act as "natures brakes" in terms of sexual conduct.

 

Who or what acts as 'nature's brakes' on promiscuous straight women?

[dizzymeg]

Yes to both.

 

Gender is a superficial quality. Everybody has the god-given right to search for happiness. If someone of the same sex makes you happy, and somebody of the opposite does not, then I believe that speaks for itself, no need for further explanation.

 

I believe love is what children need to be brought up around. If you have a stable relationship and are ready for children then go right ahead! Alot of straight couples can't pull that off.

 

 

I have two friends whose parents are of the same sex and they are just fine. They are normal, well-adjusted young adults and they are both awesome. The only problem they have had has been other people being disrespectful, ignorant ***holes.

 

And besides, how is it that we can vote to "give" rights to certain people, but others have that right automatically?? Thats backwards and hateful.

[lillady898]

Gender is a superficial quality..

 

I tend to disagree with this. Whenever people say this, it is usually referring to sex changes- which in my mind are deceitful and wrong. If I ever found out a "man" of mine was really a woman...

[dizzymeg]

I tend to disagree with this. Whenever people say this, it is usually referring to sex changes- which in my mind are deceitful and wrong. If I ever found out a "man" of mine was really a woman...

 

I was not referring to sex changes. And I did not say I think gender is a superficial quality, I said it IS. Furthermore, if you found out that a "man of yours" used to be a woman and left them on the spot, then your love for that person was not unconditional and you didn't deserve them anyway. Try to think outside of the box.

[lillady898]

And I did not say I think gender is a superficial quality, I said it IS.

 

Okay, well, that is your opinion and I respect it. My take on gender is obviously a bit different that yours.

 

Furthermore, if you found out that a "man of yours" used to be a woman and left them on the spot, then your love for that person was not unconditional and you didn't deserve them anyway. Try to think outside of the box.

 

Our relationship would've been built upon a lie; thereforeeee, it wasn't love to begin with. Also, is that true love if someone was to selfishly fooling me into being with them when I otherwise wouldn't? I love many of my friends who are girls, but just as that... As friends.

 

I don't believe in unconditional love. If someone cheats on me, I will not love them anymore. If someone lies to me about their gender, I will not love them anymore. If someone murders a family member, I will not love them anymore. I think you get the point. To me, love is conditional.

 

Thought I'd clear that up, but I guess this isn't the point of the thread, so I'll drop it.

[annie24]

My gay friends have some of the most stable and balanced relationships that I know of. More stable than my relationships or those of my straight friends. I also know another loving lesbian couple who are raising their adopted children in a very loving and stable home. I am very happy for them.

[leicesterstreet]

I'm quite certain the study did not look at straight men at all, butI'm not sure of the exact specifics of the study.

 

This online book may be of some interest to you:

 

link removed

 

It suggests (particularly around pages 80-90) that straight men would be just as promiscious as gay men if women allowed them to be, but women act as "natures brakes" in terms of sexual conduct.

 

Who or what acts as 'nature's brakes' on promiscuous straight women?

 

Ha good question. Well one would hope fear of pregnancy would play a role in perhaps limiting their sexual activity, not to mention society's view on promiscious women. If a woman screws around, she is a whore, if a man does it, he is a stud. Personally I don't think any sex/gender engaging in promiscious sexual activity should be feeling proud.

 

The other point I wanted to make was this. If gay society is so heavily focused on the sexual act and the pursuit of a hedonistic lifestyle, is it any wonder that those in power are reluctant to allow gay couples to have children? Yes I'm sure there are gay couples who are happy and stable and all the rest, but based on my personal experience and from my readings on the topic (some of which I've presented to you), overall gay relationships, in particular relationships involving two men, are not as stable as straight relationships.

 

Gay culture needs to change for a variety of reasons. It needs to focus on higher ideals aside from mere sexual gratification at all costs. Perhaps then society will start to take gay people more seriously as a whole.

[DN]

I'm quite certain the study did not look at straight men at all, butI'm not sure of the exact specifics of the study.

 

This online book may be of some interest to you:

 

link removed

 

It suggests (particularly around pages 80-90) that straight men would be just as promiscious as gay men if women allowed them to be, but women act as "natures brakes" in terms of sexual conduct.

 

Who or what acts as 'nature's brakes' on promiscuous straight women?

 

Ha good question. Well one would hope fear of pregnancy would play a role in perhaps limiting their sexual activity, not to mention society's view on promiscious women. If a woman screws around, she is a *beep*, if a man does it, he is a stud. Personally I don't think any sex/gender engaging in promiscious sexual activity should be feeling proud.

 

The other point I wanted to make was this. If gay society is so heavily focused on the sexual act and the pursuit of a hedonistic lifestyle, is it any wonder that those in power are reluctant to allow gay couples to have children? Yes I'm sure there are gay couples who are happy and stable and all the rest, but based on my personal experience and from my readings on the topic (some of which I've presented to you), overall gay relationships, in particular relationships involving two men, are not as stable as straight relationships.

 

Gay culture needs to change for a variety of reasons. It needs to focus on higher ideals aside from mere sexual gratification at all costs. Perhaps then society will start to take gay people more seriously as a whole.

 

Well, if you realise that DNA evidence shows that anywhere from 5% to 10% of people are not the child of the man who thinks he is their father, your view on promiscuous women may change.

 

Again, what evidence do you have that gay people are not already focusing on higher ideals than mere sexual gratification, compared to straight people, and that the view that society has of them is not wrong?

 

One study in Amsterdam is nowhere near conclusive enough to back up your assertions. Frankly, I suspect you, and many other people, are more guided by fear and prejudice than reason and evidence. I think that is a shame, you are obviously intelligent and I am always surprised when intelligent and rational people allow themselves to be influenced in such a way.

[mgirl]

Gay culture needs to change for a variety of reasons. It needs to focus on higher ideals aside from mere sexual gratification at all costs. Perhaps then society will start to take gay people more seriously as a whole.

 

Agreed... work in it (gay culture), so i can understand exactly what you're saying. But if society valued gay people in terms of equal rights, recognition and social support, we wouldn't have to turn to clubs in the first place.

 

The problem is that we've stopped fighting for our love rights and we are now spending larger proportions of money dulling the pain with drugs and alcohol.

 

Wake-up gay people!

[leicesterstreet]

One study in Amsterdam is nowhere near conclusive enough to back up your assertions. Frankly, I suspect you, and many other people, are more guided by fear and prejudice than reason and evidence. I think that is a shame, you are obviously intelligent and I am always surprised when intelligent and rational people allow themselves to be influenced in such a way.

 

A recent study of over 5,000 obituaries in gay papers showed the average age of death for gay men from all causes to be 41 (5. "The Homosexual Lifespann, from Family Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1992.)

 

Homosexuals account for 80% of the serious sexually transmitted disease in the United State (From various statistics compiled and documented by the Family Research Council in "Sexual Disorientation: Faulty Research in the Homosexual Debate," Washington, DC June, 1992)

 

study showed that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics (Robert J. Kus, "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men," Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 114, No. 2, 1987.)

 

Dr. Maria Xiridou published a study in a 2003 edition of AIDS, which reveals that homosexual couples in Amsterdam engage in what can be called consensual infidelity.

 

Dr. Xiridou was studying the spread of HIV among homosexuals in The Netherlands and found that HIV was spread more rapidly among homosexual couples who considered themselves to be in "steady" relationships. These couples failed to engage in "safe sex" and were involved in 6-10 additional sexual encounters outside of the primary relationship each year.

 

Those who considered their sexual relationships "casual" engaged in 16-28 sexual encounters outside of the primary relationship each year. (AIDS, 17:1029-1038, 2003)

 

In 2004, a group of researchers at the University of Chicago published a study of homosexual sexual relationships in that city. The research was led by Sociology Professor Edward O. Laumann. His team of researchers studied the sex habits of homosexuals in Shoreland, a "gay center" in Chicago. Laumann found the following:

* 42.9% of homosexual men in Shoreland had

more than 60 sexual partners; 18.4% had between

31 and 60 partners.

* 61.3% of the area's homosexual males had more

than 30 partners.

to report high rates of HIV infection among homosexual

and bisexual males. In spite of a 20-year

educational campaign about the dangers of HIV,

homosexuals and bisexuals continue to engage in

sexual behaviors that result in HIV infection and

death.

 

 

I mean I can quote statistics until the cows come home, but there is one very confronting statistic which is very difficult to ignore:

 

In 2003 Of the 920,565 Diagnosed AIDS cases, 440,887 were through male to male contact in the United States (link removed) - doesn't that strike you as somewhat unbalanced in proportion to the general population? Heterosexual contact only made up 149,989 I might add. Given that approximately 5% of the population are made up of mostly gay men, and this group were involved in nearly 50% of the AIDS cases, what does this tell you about the lifestyle choices of gay men in particular? All of those men can't be single - it doesn't exactly make me feel confident about the stability of gay relationships.

 

You are yet to present evidence to the contrary......

[leicesterstreet]

 

Agreed... work in it (gay culture), so i can understand exactly what you're saying. But if society valued gay people in terms of equal rights, recognition and social support, we wouldn't have to turn to clubs in the first place.

 

 

This is a case of the chicken and the egg - which comes first? You might be right. I'm not sure to be honest and I'm undecided either way. Even if we had social support as you say would gay people's attitudes change? I'm not so sure, at least when it comes to men.

 

There is a Comedy Show in Australia where one the of the characters say:

 

"Men are just animals with urges - I thought that was good advice for a four year old" - LOL Jokes aside, I'm afraid that this might be true

[DN]

[i mean I can quote statistics until the cows come home, but there is one very confronting statistic which is very difficult to ignore:

 

In 2003 Of the 920,565 Diagnosed AIDS cases, 440,887 were through male to male contact in the United States (link removed) - doesn't that strike you as somewhat unbalanced in proportion to the general population? Heterosexual contact only made up 149,989 I might add. Given that approximately 5% of the population are made up of mostly gay men, and this group were involved in nearly 50% of the AIDS cases, what does this tell you about the lifestyle choices of gay men in particular? All of those men can't be single - it doesn't exactly make me feel confident about the stability of gay relationships.

 

You are yet to present evidence to the contrary......

link removed

[DN]

It seems very odd to me that some people make the argument that gay people are promiscuous and their relationships are not stable - but want to deny them the very institution that is supposed to stop people being promiscuous and make relationships more stable.

[leicesterstreet]

link removed

 

That article points out that AIDS exist in other parts of the world and that women also get AIDS, I didn't deny either of these facts. However it doesnot negate my point that in the United States AIDS contracted through male to male contact (which we could safely say is mainly by gay men) is disproportionately high than amongst the rest of the population.

[DN]

see my post just before yours.

 

If your argument were true, which is debatable, then surely the institution of marriage should reduce the incidence of promiscuity and AIDS? Is that not the logic of it?

[leicesterstreet]

It seems very odd to me that some people make the argument that gay people are promiscuous and their relationships are not stable - but want to deny them the very institution that is supposed to stop people being promiscuous and make relationships more stable.

 

At no time anywhere did I say I was against gay marriage. My main reservations were allowing gay couples to have children, based on the fact that through my own personal observations and through some of the evidence I've presented to you that gay relationships do not have the same stability, or chances of success as straight relationships.

 

I will also stress that these same reservations extend to straight couples as well. My parents are a perfect example of this - totally screwed up. I wouldn't allow them to have babies - now or in the past.

 

Hence my argument for "Child Licenses"

[DN]

Further to your point.

 

Your argument seems to be that since gay men are more likely to contract AIDS than other sub-groups this should debar all gay men from marrying and adopting children.

 

Men are more likely to be imprisoned than women. Following your logic, all men should be forbidden to marry and have or adopt children.

 

Some straight people are promiscuous and contract AIDS - again following your logic; nobody, straight or gay, should be allowed to marry and have or adopt children because why should mere percentages matter if any member of the sub-group is not suitable.

 

The fact that some gay men are promiscuous does not mean that you should thereforeeee discriminate against all gay men.

[DN]

And who sets the criteria and standards for passing the test to get a licence? You? Me? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

And if someone gets pregnant without a licence. Forced abortion? More kids in foster care?

[leicesterstreet]

Further to your point.

 

Your argument seems to be that since gay men are more likely to contract AIDS than other sub-groups this should debar all gay men from marrying and adopting children.

 

Men are more likely to be imprisoned than women. Following your logic, all men should be forbidden to marry and have or adopt children.

 

Some straight people are promiscuous and contract AIDS - again following your logic; nobody, straight or gay, should be allowed to marry and have or adopt children because why should mere percentages matter if any member of the sub-group is not suitable.

 

The fact that some gay men are promiscuous does not mean that you should thereforeeee discriminate against all gay men.

 

No my argument is that I personally would have reservations about allowing gay men in particular to adopt and have relationships due to their poor success rate in relationships - of which the AIDS statistics support this hypothesis - among other evidence.

 

As I've already pointed out three or four times I am not proposing ruling out gay couples from having children all together - am I saying that they are what I would call a "high risk" group in terms of having the ability to raise a child properly.

 

I think it is appropriate to have some discrimination, especially when raising children. If you just let anybody do whatever they please, the world would be chaos - which it is now in some ways!

 

In terms of what conditions child licenses are given, that is a very good question, and it would not be appropriate to give you a flippant answer. Although it would be a good idea to stop drug addicts and fourteen yr olds having kids.

[leicesterstreet]

And who sets the criteria and standards for passing the test to get a licence? You? Me? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

And if someone gets pregnant without a licence. Forced abortion? More kids in foster care?

 

This is also another difficult question as well. Possible sterilization or vaccines at birth to prevent pregnancy?... once a license is granted, an antidote or reversal procedure can be given - allowing the woman to become pregnant. A bit of science fiction at the moment, which is why a lot more work would need to be done in this area before the whole system can be put in place.

[DN]

I think it is appropriate to have some discrimination, especially when raising children. If you just let anybody do whatever they please, the world would be chaos - which it is now in some ways!.

 

So, by your argument, it is ok if gays have their own children but not adopt other children as they are a 'high risk' group? Why should their own children not enjoy the same protection from them that you would extend to adoptees? Oh, right! I forgot - licenses!!

 

You think gays are a high risk group? What about the other sub-groups that are also deemed to be, or soon will be, high risk. Stop them too?

 

What constitutes low-risk? What percentage of 'at-risk' members of a sub-group determines whether the entire sub-group should be allowed to adopt or not adopt?

 

What to do about gays who can demonstrate a history of a loving stable relationship, AIDS free? Are we to deny them because statistics show that they might split up and get AIDS. Well, so might you from your partner. Perhaps we should not allow you to adopt either.

[DN]

And who sets the criteria and standards for passing the test to get a licence? You? Me? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

And if someone gets pregnant without a licence. Forced abortion? More kids in foster care?

 

This is also another difficult question as well. Possible sterilization or vaccines at birth to prevent pregnancy?... once a license is granted, an antidote or reversal procedure can be given - allowing the woman to become pregnant. A bit of science fiction at the moment, which is why a lot more work would need to be done in this area before the whole system can be put in place.

 

OK, now you are joking - you know very well that thinking like that is why George Orwell wrote '1984'. Let's keep the discussion serious, it is a serious topic and not one to be making jokes about.

[darkblue]

I don't think he's joking. Which is concerning.

[leicesterstreet]

So, by your argument, it is ok if gays have their own children but not adopt other children as they are a 'high risk' group? Why should their own children not enjoy the same protection from them that you would extend to adoptees? Oh, right! I forgot - licenses!!

 

You think gays are a high risk group? What about the other sub-groups that are also deemed to be, or soon will be, high risk. Stop them too?

 

What constitutes low-risk? What percentage of 'at-risk' members of a sub-group determines whether the entire sub-group should be allowed to adopt or not adopt?

 

What to do about gays who can demonstrate a history of a loving stable relationship, AIDS free? Are we to deny them because statistics show that they might split up and get AIDS. Well, so might you from your partner. Perhaps we should not allow you to adopt either.

 

I think I should make a distinction here between my personal concerns and what should be legislated.

 

From a personal point of view I am concerned about high risk groups having children, such high risk groups may include gay couples, those people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and so forth. This is not to say rule out those people from having kids entirely, but there would be more potential for harm to come towards the child, in my opinion. In regards to gay couples, my main concern is the stability of the relationship of the parents.

 

From a legislative point of view, each couple would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, regardless of which group they belong to, whether it be gay,straight, black, white or otherwise.

 

FYI I am actually gay myself.

[leicesterstreet]

I don't think he's joking. Which is concerning.

 

Your right I'm not joking I'm deadly serious. Something has to be done, and sometimes it has to be drastic in order to make any real/effective change.

 

What alternative do we have? Let individuals have babies willy-nilly, then have generations upon generations of people perpuating misery? Having a child is a privelege not a right - for anybody.