Are Homosexual Relationships Really the Same?

[Arcana XV]

"exclusivity" is one of the key underpinnings of marriage - which is why the poll was done, and why folks think it is relevant (to those with the "so what" question). It (if accurate - as Redress points out, there are methodological concerns) would rather undermine the argument that the SSM movement is not attempting to redefine marriage.

It depends on the marriage. Also, heterosexual couples have been "redefining" marriage for eons. The last big change, before gay marriage gained social acceptance, was the complete teardown of the idea that marriage is a permanent, indissoluble union. Things change, they always have and always will. That's life. Adapt or become obsolete. :shrug:

 

[Redress]

"exclusivity" is one of the key underpinnings of marriage - which is why the poll was done, and why folks think it is relevant (to those with the "so what" question). It (if accurate - as Redress points out, there are methodological concerns) would rather undermine the argument that the SSM movement is not attempting to redefine marriage.

"If accurate"? It goes way beyond concerns. "exclusivity" might be key to marriage, but the gay people looked at for this where not married. Some of the people looked at at having their relationship married include HIV sufferers(If you looked at "exclusivity" of married couples where one partner has a venereal disease, what do you think you will find?). The "study" did everything in it's power to slant the deck to find what it wanted to find.

 

[Slartibartfast]

In theory, gay relationships should be much more stable than straight ones because they don't have to deal with a woman.

That's only half true

 

[rocket88]

That's only half true

Yeah, but I think that gay men are on to something. Who needs women? They just mess up your life and take your money when it's over.

 

[rocket88]

In theory, gay relationships should be much more stable than straight ones because they don't have to deal with a woman.

Gay men at least. Those lesbos just don't know...

I have a friend who's girlfriend was raised by lesbians. Poor guy has 2 mothers in law...

 

[Gardener]

Not only do I get everything I need to know about gay stuff from the family research council, but everything about Black folks from Stormfront and everything about Jews from Jew Watch.

I am SO well informed.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No, they're not.

Family Research Council



Which gives credence to this:

The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)

The Holy Father has instructed you to stop obssessing about this issue. Obey him.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Not only do I get everything I need to know about gay stuff from the family research council, but everything about Black folks from Stormfront and everything about Jews from Jew Watch.

I am SO well informed.

Jew watch, those are the ones made in Switzerland, right?

 

[Gardener]

Jew watch, those are the ones made in Switzerland, right?

Hey, but how bout that game last night?!

Jew Watch Two?

 

[cpwill]

How many of the homosexual couples were married?

Well that was probably a good part of the point of the OP: that since those couples were overwhelmingly not exclusive, that to expand the definition of marriage to them would render it greater violence.

The last big change, before gay marriage gained social acceptance, was the complete teardown of the idea that marriage is a permanent, indissoluble union.

Yeah. :roll: And that's gone just swimmingly. Divorce has become the leading cause of people falling into poverty, and we have legions of children raised in broken homes.

Adapt or become obsolete.

Be conformed unto the world? No thanks. I've got something better.

"If accurate"? It goes way beyond concerns. "exclusivity" might be key to marriage, but the gay people looked at for this where not married. Some of the people looked at at having their relationship married include HIV sufferers(If you looked at "exclusivity" of married couples where one partner has a venereal disease, what do you think you will find?). The "study" did everything in it's power to slant the deck to find what it wanted to find.

:shrug: I would not be surprised to find that that is the case. However, that does not mean that it lacked material to work with. If we had a comparative study of the exclusivity of heterosexual couples where at least one has a VD, that would indeed be a good comparison.

If the only hope Christianity can offer gay people is heterosexuality, Christianity offers no hope to gay people.

Basically I take it as telling me "**** off, God doesn't want you here."

That is not true - you are as loved as I am; God desires the passion of your heart as strongly as anyone else's. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, not after we'd made ourselves perfect.

 

[phattonez]

What samples are those?

You want me to look at only unmarried heterosexuals, when that is going to choose for only promiscuous heterosexuals.

 

[phattonez]

Because your libertarian ideas cannot really coexist with your socially conservative cultural memes?

I can decry the use of government force against gays while still viewing their relationships as nothing more than cohabitation and promiscuity.

 

[phattonez]

Correct. I have not closely looked at the study yet, so I cannot say anything about it beyond the abstract, which as I have shown, does not allow for the conclusion you gives it.

I'll wait for you to do that then.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Get back to me when you can actually respond to the data.

Whats to respond to? 156 people...big whoop. Thats not even .5% of the total homsexual population in the US. Hardly a large enough demographic to draw any real conclusions from. Unless of course you have a partisan agenda....

 

[phattonez]

I'll type slower.

The "problem" isn't homosexuality, its that men are pigs.

Biological imperative and all that.

Lesbians have entirely different issues.

This sounds like speculation. Have any actual statistics?

 

[phattonez]

Got done babysitting and got a bit of time to actually look at this "study". Holy **** it is bad. It uses data from an online poll(hint: that is not good). It uses the study of relationships among HIV positive men in Amsterdam(major selection problems). And I could go on and on but I do have things to do yet tonight.

No, it cited way more than 2 studies, and they all came to the same conclusions.

Considering that it is comparing unmarried gay men to married couples to show less monogamy and stability of relationships, the "study" is a bunch of ****.

Because as I've already said long-term heterosexual couples get married. You want to bias the sample.

 

[phattonez]

Okay, gay men and women have relationships that aren't sexually exclusive more often than heterosexuals. So what.

So it shows that the characterization of gay couples as just the same as heterosexual couples is nonsense.

 

[phattonez]

Basically I don't believe their statists are accurate.

Prove it. I don't care what you believe. If you think the statistics are wrong then prove it.

 

[phattonez]

Get back to us when you can find data from a reliable source that doesn't have SCORES of methodology problems. Family Research Council ain't it and their reputation on gay issues is about as reliable as... hmmm... I can't think of an analogy bad enough that matches up with FRC's lack of reliability on gay issues. I mean these are the guys who published the false and completely debunked "gay agenda".

Uhuh, they cited studies, how awful. If you have problems with those studies then bring that up. The beliefs of the people who compile the information is irrelevant. If you think there is reason for concern then bring it forward.

 

[phattonez]

"If accurate"? It goes way beyond concerns. "exclusivity" might be key to marriage, but the gay people looked at for this where not married. Some of the people looked at at having their relationship married include HIV sufferers(If you looked at "exclusivity" of married couples where one partner has a venereal disease, what do you think you will find?). The "study" did everything in it's power to slant the deck to find what it wanted to find.

Because most gay couples don't get married, and when they do the long term relationships don't include monogamy.

 

[phattonez]

The Holy Father has instructed you to stop obssessing about this issue. Obey him.

Has Pope Francis said to ignore the issue, or to go along with those who say that sodomy is just peachy? Puhlease. Church teaching has not changed, so quit acting like it has.

 

[phattonez]

Whats to respond to? 156 people...big whoop. Thats not even .5% of the total homsexual population in the US. Hardly a large enough demographic to draw any real conclusions from. Unless of course you have a partisan agenda....

Lol, do you know how statistics work? Take a look at how many people Gallup surveys for a typical study and get back to me.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Lol, do you know how statistics work? Take a look at how many people Gallup surveys for a typical study and get back to me.

I know you need a heck of a lot more than 156 people to determine a trend in a group numbering in the millions. I wouldn't accept such a number from any group.

 

[joko104]

These gay-bashing threads really get tiresome.

Let's see, the OP cites an anti-GLTB rights organization claiming it has proven...

"Debating" that crap really is just a redundant waste of time. I don't know why OP's of such threads as this don't just go to the bottomline of what they are always really saying: "I hate gays and I am superior to them." That is what all these OPs really are about.

 

[phattonez]

I know you need a heck of a lot more than 156 people to determine a trend in a group numbering in the millions. I wouldn't accept such a number from any group.

Do you know what the typical sample size is for Gallup polls of all Americans? 1039. Do you know how many Americans there are? 300,000,000.