|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 43 of 293:
| 
Dec 5 02:44 UTC 2003 |
If a man and a woman need a marriage license, what do lesbians need?
A liquor license.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 44 of 293:
|
Dec 5 03:02 UTC 2003 |
re 38:
>"According to Dr. (Martin) Dannecker . . . (o)f the homosexual men in
>steady relationships . . . "the average number of homosexual contacts
>per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had
>only 45 sexual contacts.
I'll bet that heteros in steady relationships get a lot more "sexual
contacts" than hetero singles, too. That's one of the fringe benefits
of goin' steady--it's easier to persuade your partner to jump in the
sack than the blonde at the end of the bar.
At any rate, Wally Moran might not be the best spokesman regarding what
is moral and what is not: http://www.goldhawk.com/gfb/20010401.shtml
|
lk
|
|
response 45 of 293:
|
Dec 5 12:20 UTC 2003 |
I think Sindi makes a good point. If "conservatives" want to focus
on gay men and monogamy, as if this would discredit the idea of gay
marriage (which might encourage monogamy), then we should also discredit
heterosexual marriage based on comparisons to lesbian relationships.
Of course, the whole issue of monogamy is a red herring. It's none of our
business what (or with whom) a married couple chooses to do in their bedroom.
That the article in #0 is written by by Nixon's press secretary says a lot.
And Republican strategists might want to take note. I also recently read an
article on this topic by George Will. It wasn't as "liberal", but it also
was not as "homophobic" as Will used to be. Will elderly voters care more
about gay marriage or the rising cost of prescriptions and health care?
About social security? And will younger voters be turned off by a
Republican convention reminiscent of 1992?
Much has changed over the last decade or two, and things will continue
to change. Get used to it.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 293:
|
Dec 5 14:37 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:42: That's a statistic for *married* heterosexuals. I asked
about unmarried heterosexuals. You can't compare statistics for married
heterosexuals to homosexuals because the latter aren't allowed to marry.
If all the Republican rhetoric about the social benefits of marriage is
right, we ought to see married people being far more monogamous than
people who aren't married.
|
klg
|
|
response 47 of 293:
|
Dec 5 17:47 UTC 2003 |
Mr. johnnie - We believe that "contact" refers to the number of
different individuals, not to the number of sexual encounter.
Mr. gull - You ought to be asking about hetereosexuals who are married
or in "committed relationships." Please refer to my response to Mr.
johnnie, above. Your heterosexual friends who are in committed
relationships have encounters with 115 other people each year?
|
flem
|
|
response 48 of 293:
|
Dec 5 19:34 UTC 2003 |
Maybe instead we should be asking why anyone would care who sleeps with
whom, or what their relative marital statuses are at the time?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 49 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:10 UTC 2003 |
Sorry, klg, but the idea that gays in committed relationships are
significantly more promiscuous than their "single" brethren makes no
sense whatsoever, unless one has a deeply pathological view of
homosexuals. The stat (at least as you're reading it) cannot be true.
|
gull
|
|
response 50 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:18 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:48: I think whether it's government's job to police that is, in
fact, a good question.
|
gull
|
|
response 51 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:21 UTC 2003 |
(I do wonder where these people are who, according to klg, are
apparently having sex with 115 other people each year. I certainly
don't know any of them, and I know a fair number of people who are
bisexual or homosexual. If they're really finding 115 different
partners every year, that's an awful lot of people involved.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 52 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:55 UTC 2003 |
Wow. How come I never get spam advertising videos of *that*?
|
klg
|
|
response 54 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:55 UTC 2003 |
So what figures have you to present, Mr. gull?
re: "#49 (johnnie): Sorry, klg, but the idea that gays in committed
relationships are significantly more promiscuous than their "single"
brethren makes no sense whatsoever"
What, then, would it mean to be in a "committed relationship" if not
exclusivity?? (Call us old-fashioned.)
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 293:
|
Dec 5 22:10 UTC 2003 |
Okay, taking a closer look at resp:38.
First off, MassNews appears to be a right-wing news site. This is about
as credible as me quoting Michael Moore to support an argument. The
fact that this was an "exclusive to MassNews" instead of a story from a
mainstream source should be a big warning sign right from the start.
Your second quote does not give the sample size or how the sample was
gathered. That makes the numbers meaningless. Obviously the writer
wants to imply that there were only 156 gay couples in lasting
relationships in the entire known universe, but in reality we don't
know. No percentage is given, either. Is that 312 people (156 * 2) out
of 500? 1000? 10,000? The information is suspiciously lacking, probably
because it doesn't support the writer's argument.
The third quote from the article that you cite, from the gay magazine
Genre, also does not give any information about how the sample was
taken. If it was a sample of their readership, that's unlikely to be
representative; your sexual orientation has to be a pretty big part of
your lifestyle before you start subscribing to magazines about it.
Also, the article does not support your suggestion that the "115
contacts" were with different people. It says "the average number of
homosexual contacts per person." While the article writer clearly wants
us to assume that this implies 115 different people, nothing in the
quote supports that conclusion. It's hardly shocking that someone in a
committed relationship would have more sex than someone who is single --
especially given the note later in the article that the average Canadian
has sex ("sexual contacts", if you will) 102 times per year. That
suggests that homosexuals in committed relationships are having 12% more
sex than average, hardly shocking.
|
richard
|
|
response 56 of 293:
|
Dec 6 02:48 UTC 2003 |
#34 is exactly right. I think klg is not a conservative, because he is overly
concerned with legislating other people's lives and telling other people what
they can and cannot do. That makes klg more like a communist than a true
conservative. klg doesn't want people to lead their own lives, because only
klg KNOWS what is right for their personal lives. Gays and lesbians who are
in love and have made a life commitment to someone else, shouldn't be allowed
to get married-- in klg's view-- because klg knows better how to lead their
lives than they do. Sheesh.
|
twenex
|
|
response 57 of 293:
|
Dec 6 10:10 UTC 2003 |
Figures != truth. HMG (Her Majesty's Government)
currently estimates that *upto* five thousand
people a year die from "superbugs" contracted
whilst in hospital which are resistant to
antibiotics. Independent research suggest the
number may be closer to *at least* twenty
thousand. Since HMG also claims that the *total*
number of people who are infected with superbugs
is 100,000 a year, unless the independent
statistics have higher figures on the total
number of infections (i.e. those who are infected
and die, and those who are infected but
recover), that's eithe one hell of a discrepancy,
or one hell of a large proportion of the total
*and* a large discrepancy.
(The discrepancy arises because the methods of
recrding death certificates are not sufficiently
rigorous to record every case of death which was
*not* the direct result of infection with a
superbug, but where such infection was a
contributing factor. Thus HMG's figurtes are in
fact extrapolited from US Govt. statistics,
adjusting for demographicsd and population size.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 58 of 293:
|
Dec 6 18:53 UTC 2003 |
("Figures don't lie, but liars figure.")
|
klg
|
|
response 59 of 293:
|
Dec 7 03:43 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Mr. gull. The (gay) people who conducted the studies actually
want to make homosexuals look bad. Makes sense to us!
Mr. richard,
Watch your blood pressure (and please either use a dictionary or cease
using terms that, quite obviously, you do not understand)! We have no
desire for governmental control of how homosexcuals wish to conduct
their personal lives. But, quite obviously, since marriage is
commonly known as a relationship between two people of different
sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other. We have
no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has
been effective and useful for thousands of years. (Which, we would
think, is the definition of conservative.)
regards,
klg
|
lk
|
|
response 60 of 293:
|
Dec 7 06:30 UTC 2003 |
I strongly suspect that the "surveys" referenced were as scientific as
web polls. Vote early, vote often, and tell us whatever fancy you wish.
Brag and exaggerate to your heart's content. And never mind that the
survey was conducted in a porn magazine that is self-selective and not
representative of the gay population....
All of which misses the point. We don't deny marriage to heterosexuals
because some of them lack fidelity. Why should we deny marriage to
homosexuals for that reason?!
|
willcome
|
|
response 61 of 293:
|
Dec 7 07:06 UTC 2003 |
Because they're fags.
|
keesan
|
|
response 62 of 293:
|
Dec 7 15:12 UTC 2003 |
Marriage would not be the first word to change its meaning. Family used to
be the people who lived in your house and worked for you.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 63 of 293:
|
Dec 7 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Quite obviously, since marriage is
commonly known as a relationship between two people of different
sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other
It was equally obvious, once upon a time, that women shouldn't have the
right to vote. That black people shouldn't be allowed to use the same
water fountains as white people, or serve in the same military units as
them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 64 of 293:
|
Dec 7 16:07 UTC 2003 |
Of course, since you don't fall off or lose your balance, the world must be
flat, too.
|
klg
|
|
response 65 of 293:
|
Dec 7 23:22 UTC 2003 |
re: 62. Ahhh. So you understand what we are getting at.
and Mr. jmsaul tries to take us off on tangents.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 66 of 293:
|
Dec 8 01:51 UTC 2003 |
No, I'm pointing out that "it's always been this way, so it's obvious we
shouldn't do it any other way" is a dumb argument.
|
scott
|
|
response 67 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:15 UTC 2003 |
My favorite take on this argument comes from a very old Doonesbury cartoon:
Clyde (a black male): I heard you're gay.
Andy (a gay male): I heard you're black.
Clyde: Yeah, but that's normal.
Andy: Didn't used to be.
|