Gay monogamous relationships- are they healthy?

[Mango Elephant]

OP has convinced me; I shall from now on set out to get screwed by a random stranger at least twice a week.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

Keep in mind the location of the poll; it was polled in Amsterdam, one of the most liberal cities in the world. It's the same as polling heterosexual couples living in Johannesburg and delivering the results of high rates of HIV, SHOCK AND HORROR!

Also, they were explicitly looking for HIV Pos couples for data, it's not like they polled EVERY current relationship occurring in Amsterdam.

 

[Lord Gay]

OP has convinced me; I shall from now on set out to get screwed by a random stranger at least twice a week.

Pfft, kids these days... no commitment.

Honestly Mango, if you're going to do this, do it right. You need a lot more than twice a week. Go places where there are lots of people... bus stations, casinos, stadiums.

If you want to be a True American, model yourself after our glorious leaders. Be like Sen. Craig and choose an airport. What else are our leaders there for if not to set an example?

 

[Mouthwash]

Which is why all men who develop a perverse heterosexual desire for females have horrible relationships with their mothers.

It's disheartening that apparently a large number of people will never accept the very simple notion that some men are just naturally attracted to men. Occam's Razor people. It isn't because of father issues, or mother issues, or lack of sports, or too many cats, or not enough dogs, or too many sisters, or not enough brothers, or watching too many cartoons, or being molested, or whatever other stupid idea people toss out to sidestep the obvious.

Green eyes are uncommon, but they aren't caused by being molested. Being left-handed is uncommon, but it's not due to too much masturbation. Being LBGT is uncommon, but it's not due to father issues.

Um, what? Occam's Razor is just the technical way of saying that the more assumptions one makes, the more likely one is to be wrong. It doesn't say that the simpler explanation is better. Please understand what you are talking about before you argue. I don't believe that any "sexual orientation" whatsoever is fixed from birth. I also provided evidence that homosexuality was grounded in gender non-conformity; you ignored it.

 

[LucyDuke]

Incorrect reason is still incorrect, regardless of the number of individuals involved. And I have no idea what "definition" you're talking about.

Yeah, his theory is dumb, I'm not saying it's got any merit. But you misrepresented it. What you disproved was something that he didn't say. Why bother?

I'm talking about giving any airtime to "need for (fe)male bonding in a way that eventually becomes sexual".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Um, what? Occam's Razor is just the technical way of saying that the more assumptions one makes, the more likely one is to be wrong. It doesn't say that the simpler explanation is better. Please understand what you are talking about before you argue. I don't believe that any "sexual orientation" whatsoever is fixed from birth. I also provided evidence that homosexuality was grounded in gender non-conformity; you ignored it.

That paragraph likely has a completely false assumption which largely runs completely contrary to your "gender non-conformity" reference in regard to the influence of genetics, so don't be terribly surprised if most everybody ignores it.

And you still haven't answered this question:

Are you a psychologist?

 

[Lord Gay]

Um, what? Occam's Razor is just the technical way of saying that the more assumptions one makes, the more likely one is to be wrong. It doesn't say that the simpler explanation is better.

According to you some men are gay from "gender non-conformity", while others are gay due to male-bonding issues, while still others are gay due to as yet undisclosed reasons.

Or we just like men.

Please understand what you are talking about before you argue. I don't believe that any "sexual orientation" whatsoever is fixed from birth.

Ahh, the heady scent of irony !

Perhaps you can share what happened to you to make you straight? Did you not get enough love from your mother so you have female bonding issues? Maybe you watched too many war movies? Maybe you just wanted to fit in with all the cool kids at school even though you knew it was wrong?

What made you select your current, yet temporary, lifestyle choice?

 

[Mouthwash]

@Formaldehyde,

Argumentum ad verecundiam brah.

 

[Mouthwash]

According to you some men are gay from "gender non-conformity", while others are gay due to male-bonding issues, while still others are gay due to as yet undisclosed reasons.

Or we just like men.


Ahh, the heady scent of irony !

Perhaps you can share what happened to you to make you straight? Did you not get enough love from your mother so you have female bonding issues? Maybe you watched too many war movies? Maybe you just wanted to fit in with all the cool kids at school even though you knew it was wrong?

What made you select your current, yet temporary, lifestyle choice?

My point was that male-bonding issues lead to gender non-conformity. You aren't even trying to make a reasonable argument now.

Your second point is a mind-boggling strawman, I never said it was a "choice" insofar as it could be "selected" casually, I said orientations are not fixed from birth. They are, however, influenced by our culture and surroundings. The vast majority of people are influenced through a lifetime of social imprinting; it's only certain cases which result in abnormalities.

 

[JollyRoger]

Abnormalities? Did I fall back into another millineum?

 

[Mouthwash]

Abnormalities? Did I fall back into another millineum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormality_(behavior)

 

[JollyRoger]

Your point is DIMly coming through.

 

[MobBoss]

8/year. The rate at which men with a steady partner acquire casual partners.

Uhm. Is it me or does this seem.....really a lot?

 

[Lord Gay]

They are, however, influenced by our culture and surroundings. The vast majority of people are influenced through a lifetime of social imprinting; it's only certain cases which result in abnormalities.

And what influences do you believe made you straight?

 

[Mouthwash]

Your point is DIMly coming through.

I'm just responding to those who say that orientation is fixed at birth and impossible to change. My morality is based on natural law, btw.

 

[Formaldehyde]

@Formaldehyde,

Argumentum ad verecundiam brah.

Only you don't seem to have any regarding this topic at all. You even cited a Wiki reference and then ignored what was stated. What sort of weird appeal to authority is that?

 

[JollyRoger]

Uhm. Is it me or does this seem.....really a lot?

8 is enough if the year was like 1978 or so.

 

[Mouthwash]

And what influences do you believe made you straight?

I've said it: social imprinting. I've read on all of this, if you need details I can find some.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I bet whatever gay hate site you found this study failed to comment on the following:

Statistics That Lie | “The Dutch Gay Marriage Study”

If you were to go a few miles east of where I live in Nevada to the legalized houses of prostitution and conduct a “sexual contacts” survey of the sex workers, would it be fair to extrapolate those findings to the general heterosexual female population? To me? Of course not.

If you were to likewise go to an AIDS/HIV/STD clinic and conduct a “sexual contacts” survey on gay men, would it be fair to extrapolate those findings to the general gay male population? Again, of course not.

But, that type of irrational statistical abuse has actually occurred, and, the deception of this particular “study” is far worse.

One “fact” concerning gay men is repeated often. It is very consistent in its repetition of the details: committed gay male relationships/marriages last, on average, only one and a half years. Each partner has an average of eight sexual relationships outside of that relationship/marriage. Sounds pretty damning.

I’ve heard these numbers for years. I get baffled by it; I know hundreds, maybe thousands of gay people and these findings just do not made sense to me. Why is there a vast difference between what I know and what is repeated as truth?

The origin of the 1 1/2 years/8 partners stats is cited with several sources, most commonly: the Netherlands Study and the Dutch Gay Marriage Study. Here is how the scenario often goes: “In the Netherlands, which is among the most liberal of nations in the world, gays have been able to be married. Yet, a study conducted there found that married men are not monogamous in their marriages.” Blah, blah. Then you get the tsk-tsking stats of 1 ½ years average duration and 8 partners per. Ergo . . . lots of things: gay people are not able to commit, gay people should not be married, gay people, in all that instability, should not be parents. The list goes on. And, the rapid deterioration of the rocky pairing will take us all down the slippery path to the utter destruction of marriage and family.

But, are those the results of the “Dutch Gay Marriage” study? Actually, asking what the purpose of the study is an even better place to start.

First, the study had nothing to do with relationships; it was conducted by Dr. Maria Xiridou to find out how AIDS was transferring in a community. The study is actually called “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships in the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam.” With the stated objective being: “To assess the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partners in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).” Hmmm, so, this was a study about sexual transmission of AIDS, not gay marriage?

The study was conducted over a period of time from 1984 to 1996. Gay marriage became legal in the Netherlands in 2001. Hmmm, so, there were no married partners in the test group?

The participants were limited to gay men under thirty years of age. Hmmm, pretty tough to be in a many- years relationship, marriage or not, when you are under thirty.

Monogamous couples were excluded from the study. Hmmm, so the participants were not even required to be in declared committed relationships? Hardly marriage-ish.

The participants were taken from HIV/AIDS/STD clinic rosters. Hmmm, so the participants were already involved in risky sexual behaviors and, that was the only test group?

The participants lived in metropolitan Amsterdam only. So, no suburban gay people, no gay people from rural areas? Just young, uncommitted, sexually active, risky behavior gay men? Well, that sure is an interesting test group for a gay marriage study, isn’t it?

All this gathered info did give the researcher, Dr. Maria Xiridou, the scientific information she was seeking. The information she needed for the study she was doing on the test group for HIV/AIDS transmission in sexually active gay men.

So, back to the opening question. Would it be fair to extrapolate these findings to the general gay male population ? Please respond “No”, or even better, “Hell, no!” So, why do we? We do it because it supports our fears, phobias and biases. And, unfortunately, the practice is common and that is exactly what is being done with these statistics.

I did a quick search online or “Dr. Maria Xiridou” to see who actually mis-uses this AIDS study to substantiate their less-than-lovely propaganda that touts the sexual promiscuity and unworthy-to-marryness of the gay and lesbian community. Go ahead, check it out. Somewhere buried in the over 2,000 citations is her obscure actual study. Page after page, you will see the organizations that index this report in their websites as a variation of “the Dutch Gay Marriage Study” and use it to attack the notion of gay marriage. Over and over, the “Dutch study on gay marriage” is cited. You know the types of groups using these “facts”, I don’t need to detail them here. The gamut runs from conservative family groups, to churches, to white supremacists organizations. It is used in the US and other countries. (Ugandans love this one.) Some preachers tell it from pulpits, from positions that inherently say “I speak for a Holy God and then they tell this lie. Often.

I accept that many Christians may not share my theological views of full inclusion for gay and trans people into Christian churches. (Read this for my understanding of the Scriptures and why I believe what I do.) But, I will not stay silent while lies are told and information is horribly manipulated so far beyond the scope of a study. The twisting is used to exclude the gay community from families, churches and ultimately, equality. And, sadly, it is not just on this study. When you see statistics that make you gasp and horrify you, they have probably been manipulated. Sad, but true.

I would hope that Christians in particular could agree that it would be completely wrong to justify a lie simply because it bolsters a personal theology. Duct tape words from the Bible together with a lie, put the Holy God stamp on the mess and present it as a missive from the very Throne of God. I see that too much.

The next time you hear this 1 ½ years, 8 partners garbage, forward this link along. I think most people actually just don’t know the facts. It suits their story. so they repeat it. I intend to forward this post to a pastor of a mega church in Dallas who spoke it on a podcast just last week. He told his congregation of over 3,000 this lie. And, the statistic never lie now, do they?

If we could get all this trash and deceit out of the way, maybe we could engage in real dialogues? People are people, no matter their sexual orientation. We might actually find some common places to appreciate rather than fear one another.

So, go ahead and post the URL where you did find it.

And wasn't Mobboss quick to chomp his teeth into 8 relationships per year?

 

[Mouthwash]

Only you don't seem to have any regarding this topic at all. You even cited a Wiki reference and then ignored what was stated. What sort of weird appeal to authority is that?

What are you talking about? Citing sources are not appeals to authority. Claiming that my ideas are irrelevant based on the fact that I am not a certified expert is.

How did I ignore what was stated?