In most any discussion of the effects of homosexuality, you're likely to be confronted with two sets of statistics. The first is the infamous Kinsey "10%" claim, and the second is the hotly debated statistics of Paul Cameron. If you mention the latter, you are almost certain to be shouted down by homosexual activists because of Cameron's supposed "hate" and being "discredited."
So to get anywhere in debate, it seems that we've got to see whose statistics are corroborated in other studies. In the case of Kinsey, virtually every claim he made has been refuted--and this after the "Sexual Revolution" radically changed sexual mores. We are, by and large, a far more conservative society than Kinsey would have had us believe.
In the case of Cameron, however, his claim that homosexuals simply like to be promiscuous is getting unexpected support from homosexual "marriage" rates in Massachusetts and Vermont. More or less, less than one in five homosexual couples in these states have chosen to "marry" or form a "civil union." Even apart from the legitimate question of whether they're marrying for love or for benefits, the low rate of "making it legal" indicates that, for the vast majority of this community, promiscuity is where it's at.
Can't blame Cameron for this one.
The DFL Has A Bit Of A Felon Problem
-
Last week, the SD12 DFL Committee [1] endorsed convicted felon Judd Hoff,
who has been credibly implicated in stalking his opponent, Rep. Mary
Franson, by ...
3 hours ago
12 comments:
Hmm, I'm not sure I buy your conclusion. Another reason rates of following through on the availability of gay marriage is the odium attached to it in general society. Heterosexual couples in long term relationships who choose not to marry do not, in general, catch flak for that choice, nor do they catch flak for marrying. Some homosexual couples in long term relationships may be preferring to lay low and avoid the persecution that might come from marrying. Before we use these data to conclude that homosexual realtionships are just about sex, we need to come up with some way to correct for this bias towards remaining unmarried.
You could have a point, but all of the rhetoric coming from the homosexual rights groups points to the belief that marriage will have the civilizing effect among them that it does among heterosexuals. Moreover, homosexual couples will catch flak whether, or not, they pretend to marry. I can't see this objection as being one that would be sustained in actual experiment.
Now that we are invoking hyperbole, let's talk about "all the rhetoric" coming out of the anti-gay rights groups. You and the article you cited consistently put marriage in quotes when referring to homosexual couples, or say "pretend to marry," etc. It takes cheek for you to then turn around and argue that they'd be ambivalent about increased persecution for marrying because they'll catch flak no matter what they do--you're the ones causing the flak!
In case you hadn't noticed, heterosexual relationships exist that are long term, committed, and unmarried. Such couples have various reasons for choosing not to marry, and most of them go deeper an appetite for convenient sex. I'm not asking you to like such cohabitation, just to acknowledge that it exists. I'm not asking you to like the fact that such relationships exist among homosexuals, either, (I don't particularly like it myself) but don't pretend it doesn't happen. It might be convenient for you to paint all homosexuals as promiscuous, but that's terribly insulting. It's like saying, "Homosexuality forces a person to submit to their their hormones" and I just don't see how that is the case. You wouldn't say that all heterosexuals are ruled by their gonads, for obvious reasons. What exactly is it then about homosexuality that puts a person in such a predicament?
It's an unnatural act, as our grandfathers would have told you, Joe, and when you use something unnaturally, is it any surprise that it blows up in your face? That it has some side effects?
And here, the simple fact is that most homosexuals are simply not in a relationship that they want to consummate in marriage. If you wish to deny that many singles (heterosexuals too) simply wish to "keep their options open" for promiscuity, you can do so, but I will not take you seriously. I've got far too many points of reference that argue otherwise.
I never wanted to deny that. I did want to point out that it is also an error to say that no couples of any orientation decide against marriage for reasons other than promiscuity.
But I didn't say that. I said that it was a very likely cause for the vast majority, and statistically speaking, it is for both heterosexual and homosexual singles.
Are you really saying that the vast majority of couples are so shallow that they are only in it for the sex? That when they say that they love each other, they they are fooling themselves, and deep down are only in it for the sex? That when they each in apparently self-sacrificially loving ways towards each other, that they are really just trying to maintain their steady diet of sex? Do you realize how arrogant it is to say that Christians are uniquely capable of controlling their sexual urges? Would you be willing to tell a long-term unmarried couple to their face that they are lying to themselves when they say they are committed to each other and love each other? I hope not, because it's absurd to not take them at their word.
The trouble with what you say, Joe, is that you're arguing points that I never made. I'm simply pointing out that the statistical evidence seems to back up Paul Cameron and Alfred Kinsey (yes) and their claims that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
It might be possible that the vast majority of homosexuals are in long term committed relationships, but quite frankly, that's NOT the impression that I get from watching typical "Pride" parades and interacting with activists. Let's have someone produce the evidence before we debate it, K?
It might be possible that the vast majority of heterosexuals are in long term committed relationships, but quite frankly, that's NOT the impression that I get from watching typical sitcoms and interacting with male sport stars.
First of all, "anonymous," I don't bite, so use your real name.
Second of all, there are easily available statistics that demonstrate that most heterosexuals marry, and the large majority of those are faithful to their spouse. One cannot say that about unmarried heterosexuals as a whole, and definitely not about homosexuals.
If you disagree, please provide some evidence--again, with a real name.
It's hard to believe that last anonymous comment was serious -- who would seriously make an argument about real world behavior and admit that it was based on his knowledge of sitcoms and sports stars? I think you're being had, Bert.
Nah--my take is that "anonymous" simply was making a sarcastic point by drawing a parallel between the news coverage of homosexuals and the news coverage of heterosexual celebrities. A bit of apple/orange there, so I asked him for evidence.
Post a Comment