Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[GFR7]

As shown in the B.A.R. obituaries, thanks to expensive-government subsidized AIDS cocktails, many sodomites are living into their 50's, 60's and sometimes even 70's. So in reality, they still have a death sentence, they're just prolonging it. Let's not forget that violence, drug and alcohol abuse play a big role in the homosexual lifestyle. So AIDS isn't the only thing that proud and unrepentant homosexuals have to worry about.

What's really sad it that these poor lost souls think that they can fool God (as shown in earlier posts, different strains of HIV are now appearing and many of those that engage in homosexual behavior are still perishing at a younger age from AIDS).

http://70.90.168.99/olo/index.jsp

Yes, all true. And as I pointed out in my post above, a hypocrite like Andrew Sullivan bears a huge responsibility for the fact that many young gay males now believe "the plague has ended" (Sullivan's proclamation in 1996) and that there is little need for prevention, as you can always get the cure.

I have often thought that if a new strain arrived (I know they already have) which was particularly resistant to the medications, it just might expose the lie of the "middle class, mainstream, hum drum gay married male" which was exported by Sullivan and which was for him a "holy lie" (one that his faith in God allowed him to believe was OK to spread as he did in "Virtually Normal").

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Yes, all true. And as I pointed out in my post above, a hypocrite like Andrew Sullivan bears a huge responsibility for the fact that many young gay males now believe "the plague has ended" (Sullivan's proclamation in 1996) and that there is little need for prevention, as you can always get the cure.

The only "prevention" to not getting sick is not engaging in homosexual behavior. Look through the B.A.R. obituaries and note how many homosexuals that died had their "partner of 20 years by their side". If you can find a monogamous relationship (which there is no proof that the above were), it still doesn't mean that they're going to live longer.

Unnatural sex acts bring risk, and homosexuality is inherently an unnatural act.

 

[GFR7]

The only "prevention" to not getting sick is not engaging in homosexual behavior. Look through the B.A.R. obituaries and note how many homosexuals that died had their "partner of 20 years by their side". If you can find a monogamous relationship (which there is no proof that the above were), it still doesn't mean that they're going to live longer.

Unnatural sex acts bring risk, and homosexuality is inherently an unnatural act.

In addition, studies have shown that gay males are by definition (as with heterosexual males) and by circumstance (unlike heterosexual males) given to excessive promiscuity:

Obviously, homosexual men could not have hundreds or thousands of sexual partners if they spent much time in monogamous, sexually exclusive relationships. And they don't. Even though many male homosexuals describe themselves as being in a committed relationship, male homosexual relationships tend not to last long. According to one study, in 71% of cases, the male homosexual “long term relationship” had lasted seven or fewer years. Only 29% of male homosexuals who described themselves as being in a long-term relationship had been in a relationship lasting more than seven years, and only 9% had been in a relationship lasting more than 15 years.[v] By contrast, about half of first (heterosexual) marriages last 20 years or longer.[vi]

But even within relationships, the terms “committed” and “monogamous” mean something very different from what they mean in heterosexual marriage. A Canadian study of homosexual men in “committed relationships” lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous.[vii] In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison (themselves a gay couple, one an M.D. psychiatrist, the other a Ph.D. psychologist) reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men had been together less than five years.

Stated another way, only nine percent (9%) of the male couples were actually monogamous, but none of the couples with a relationship lasting more than five years were sexually exclusive.[viii] McWhirter and Mattison consider monogamy to be a homophobic stage that gay couples pass through and out of; in other words, McWhirter and Mattison consider promiscuity to be definitional to male homosexuality.

http://advindicate.com/articles/3022#sthash.FTQsvMxU.dpuf

 

[TracerBullet]

http://advindicate.com/articles/3022....FTQsvMxU.dpuf

typical conservative Christian misinformation presented for people to lazy to do any sort of fact checking


anti-gay Christian groups love to claim that gays and lesbians have huge numbers of sexual partners. The numbers of sexual partners these groups claim gays and lesbians have can stretch into the thousands. There are even claims of gay men having more than 10,000 sexual partners in a life time. A ridiculous number no matter how you slice it. Consider if we accept the anti-gay lie that homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years is true that means over the course of their adult lives gay men would have to have a minimum of three sexual partners per day, every day, weekends and holiday’s included.


Your advindicate article referenced Bell and Weinberg

"forty-three percent (43%) of white male homosexuals had had sex with 500 or more partners, and twenty-eight percent (28%) had had sex with 1,000 or more partners. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said that more than half of their sexual partners had been strangers." A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women 1978

wow those gays are really promiscuous. lets compare this with the numbers of sexual partners, the control sample, of heterosexuals that Bell and Weinberg collected.




there are no statistics for heterosexuals collected at the same time, place and manner.
For all we know the heterosexual sample may have had a greater number of sexual partners than the homosexual sample. Without this control group, we cannot generalize their sample to the population at large, because we do not know that their population represents national norms since we have no heterosexual control group. It is possible that the heterosexual statistics were equally high, and could have shown that the data does not represent promiscuity specifically among gays

If you are going to say homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals then you have to directly compare the two groups.

In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34

this one is a well known fabrication. It seems to have been made up by John Diggs in his "The health risks of gay sex"

the numbers mentioned above appear nowhere in the Van de Ven paper. looking at the number of lifetime sexual partners for older gay men Van de Ven published we read:
: “… men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

Meaning that 97.3% of the respondents had less than 10 lifetime sexual partners.

Being in a so-called “committed relationship” clearly does not reduce gay male promiscuity, and it is now becoming clear that it does not reduce the transmission of AIDS. A study of homosexual relationships in Amsterdam found that steady partners contribute more than casual partners to HIV infection, because gays tended to engage in risky behavior (unprotected anal intercourse) more often with steady partners than with casual partners.

Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

I just knew this one would be included.

Your leaves out the fact that the research conducted by Dr. Xiridou was about promiscuous gay men. Any gay men in a monogamous relationship were excluded from her study.



If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Perhaps society should once again make it it's business.

Then go bog off somewhere where there isn't a constitution or statute where people's sexual lives and relations are protected via law. Your list is wholly unimpressive. I could dredge up stats on heterosexuals and syphilis, clamydia, also AIDS and yet you don't bang on about any sort of heterosexual promiscuity or fetishes/practices that aren't of the 'traditional' sort do you? It's no wonder you shy away from one of the most commonplace male heterosexual fantasies aka 'lipstick lesbianism' as you're not remotely honest on this subject.

Now I know that you're all cocky because you've made it to the ripe old age of 43 Art, but keep in mind that your new friend is at the age where he very well might die before his 25th birthday.

Hmm, I see your fevered lurid imagination has gone into overdrive again there. Why would a straight guy even feel the need to invent such as your above? :idunno:

Baffling...

 

[GFR7]

typical conservative Christian misinformation presented for people to lazy to do any sort of fact checking


anti-gay Christian groups love to claim that gays and lesbians have huge numbers of sexual partners. The numbers of sexual partners these groups claim gays and lesbians have can stretch into the thousands. There are even claims of gay men having more than 10,000 sexual partners in a life time. A ridiculous number no matter how you slice it. Consider if we accept the anti-gay lie that homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years is true that means over the course of their adult lives gay men would have to have a minimum of three sexual partners per day, every day, weekends and holiday’s included.


Your advindicate article referenced Bell and Weinberg



wow those gays are really promiscuous. lets compare this with the numbers of sexual partners, the control sample, of heterosexuals that Bell and Weinberg collected.




there are no statistics for heterosexuals collected at the same time, place and manner.
For all we know the heterosexual sample may have had a greater number of sexual partners than the homosexual sample. Without this control group, we cannot generalize their sample to the population at large, because we do not know that their population represents national norms since we have no heterosexual control group. It is possible that the heterosexual statistics were equally high, and could have shown that the data does not represent promiscuity specifically among gays

If you are going to say homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals then you have to directly compare the two groups.





this one is a well known fabrication. It seems to have been made up by John Diggs in his "The health risks of gay sex"

the numbers mentioned above appear nowhere in the Van de Ven paper. looking at the number of lifetime sexual partners for older gay men Van de Ven published we read:
: “… men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

Meaning that 97.3% of the respondents had less than 10 lifetime sexual partners.





I just knew this one would be included.

Your leaves out the fact that the research conducted by Dr. Xiridou was about promiscuous gay men. Any gay men in a monogamous relationship were excluded from her study.



If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

Ok. Gays are as chaste and pure as the driven snow.:sigh: Including Andrew Sullivan. And there are no health risks to gay sex. All is well.......

 

[GFR7]

typical conservative Christian misinformation presented for people to lazy to do any sort of fact checking


anti-gay Christian groups love to claim that gays and lesbians have huge numbers of sexual partners. The numbers of sexual partners these groups claim gays and lesbians have can stretch into the thousands. There are even claims of gay men having more than 10,000 sexual partners in a life time. A ridiculous number no matter how you slice it. Consider if we accept the anti-gay lie that homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years is true that means over the course of their adult lives gay men would have to have a minimum of three sexual partners per day, every day, weekends and holiday’s included.


Your advindicate article referenced Bell and Weinberg



wow those gays are really promiscuous. lets compare this with the numbers of sexual partners, the control sample, of heterosexuals that Bell and Weinberg collected.




there are no statistics for heterosexuals collected at the same time, place and manner.
For all we know the heterosexual sample may have had a greater number of sexual partners than the homosexual sample. Without this control group, we cannot generalize their sample to the population at large, because we do not know that their population represents national norms since we have no heterosexual control group. It is possible that the heterosexual statistics were equally high, and could have shown that the data does not represent promiscuity specifically among gays

If you are going to say homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals then you have to directly compare the two groups.





this one is a well known fabrication. It seems to have been made up by John Diggs in his "The health risks of gay sex"

the numbers mentioned above appear nowhere in the Van de Ven paper. looking at the number of lifetime sexual partners for older gay men Van de Ven published we read:
: “… men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

Meaning that 97.3% of the respondents had less than 10 lifetime sexual partners.





I just knew this one would be included.

Your leaves out the fact that the research conducted by Dr. Xiridou was about promiscuous gay men. Any gay men in a monogamous relationship were excluded from her study.



If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

I have a news flash for you, Sunshine:

There have been studies which compare the 2 groups (heteros and homos) and it still comes out the same way.

I notice when severe methodology and control sample flaws are pointed out in pro-gay studies, you could not care less. But you keep insisting that virtually ALL studies which do not come out the way you want them to are flawed.

And there have been studies which show say, a group of menopausal women reacting to anti-depressants, etc. and not using young women as a control. You can still glean statistics.

You will not accept this because it is on the website of a big, bad "hate" group (says you) but that does not negate it's truth: Yes, they are using the same researchers but they did compare the rates to those of heterosexual groups. And gay monogamous men were questioned.

It would appear that you have selective blindness.

Somehow pro-advocacy studies are good, and pro-traditional studies are nothing but full of methodology flaws and lies. I wonder why you would see it that way? Perhaps you yourself are biased? :think:


http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

And disclosures such as these stand alone and robust to those of us who have had long and wide-ranging experience with gay males and their culture:

All of these findings obviously demonstrate that men and women need each other. Men without women have no domesticating or moderating influence on their much stronger, testosterone-driven sex drives. And as a result, it is very likely that homosexual males will be prone to the excessive and destructive extremes of their unrestrained sexual appetites. The homosexual male subculture is therefore typically characterized by an astonishing high level of promiscuity with a great number of partners — sometimes high-risk casual, anonymous sexual encounters.

As Dr. Elizabeth Iskander so provocatively contends:

It is pointless to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because male homosexuals, who comprise two-thirds of all homosexuals, have demonstrated that they will not accept monogamy or sexual exclusivity. Marriage [would] have to be redefined not only to include same-sex couples, but also to exclude the element of sexual fidelity. By now it should be clear that gay marriage is motivated more by the desire to destroy the concept of marriage than by “fairness” concerns. Homosexual practice denies the need for discipline, self-control, and self-denial, making a god of sex, and insisting that the worship of that god trumps all other values. Because God designed marriage to put sexuality in its place—and sex is not to be worshiped—gays cannot tolerate marriage and would see it destroyed.

In a moment of candor, “Gay” icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authors of the homosexual manifesto After the Ball admitted, “The cheating ratio of ‘married’ (committed) ‘gay’ males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”

http://barbwire.com/2014/06/06/myth-gay-male-monogamy/

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have a news flash for you, Sunshine:

There have been studies which compare the 2 groups (heteros and homos) and it still comes out the same way.

I notice when severe methodology and control sample flaws are pointed out in pro-gay studies, you could not care less. But you keep insisting that virtually ALL studies which do not come out the way you want them to are flawed.

And there have been studies which show say, a group of menopausal women reacting to anti-depressants, etc. and not using young women as a control. You can still glean statistics.

You will not accept this because it is on the website of a big, bad "hate" group (says you) but that does not negate it's truth: Yes, they are using the same researchers but they did compare the rates to those of heterosexual groups. And gay monogamous men were questioned.

It would appear that you have selective blindness.

Somehow pro-advocacy studies are good, and pro-traditional studies are nothing but full of methodology flaws and lies. I wonder why you would see it that way? Perhaps you yourself are biased? :think:


http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

And disclosures such as these stand alone and robust to those of us who have had long and wide-ranging experience with gay males and their culture:

Why would the founder of the FRC have to fiddle research in the first place? "Dr" Paul Cameron did just that and was thrown out of his profession because of it. When it went to court his misappropriation of findings held up and he lost.

Why would you take this guy and his foundation seriously on an honest intellectual level?

I don't know what 'long and wide ranging' experiences you've had with gay men but most of the ones I've known reflect heterosexual ones, positive and negative traits both. Some have been outright promiscuous, others not at all.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...yet where it comes to attractive women being together it barely gets a mention.

With attractive women there's nary a thing from you, or from plenty others where it comes to the subject. For sure, you'll post the odd picture of the 'butch' lesbian but you've never really commented on the glamorous side and it's pretty obvious as to why in general.

It's no wonder you shy away from one of the most commonplace male heterosexual fantasies aka 'lipstick lesbianism' as you're not remotely honest on this subject.

It appears that you're quite interested in lesbian women Art. That being said:

Is 'lipstick lesbianism' anything like lesbian mudwrestling?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It appears that you're quite interested in lesbian women Art. That being said:

Is 'lipstick lesbianism' anything like lesbian mudwrestling?

Hmm, makes a change for you not to be showing pics of gay blokes at pride parades or on occasion the 'butch' variety of lesbian...

Not quite sure why you felt the need to bring mud wrestling into this exactly although I'm sure you have your 'reasons'...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Hmm, makes a change for you not to be showing pics of gay blokes at pride parades or on occasion the 'butch' variety of lesbian...

I think people following this thread are quite familiar with the homosexual 'culture' by now, so I thought I'd give the promiscuity aspect of it a rest (for now).

Not quite sure why you felt the need to bring mud wrestling into this exactly although I'm sure you have your 'reasons'...

You brought up lesbian sex 3 times Art, but come to think of it, if lesbians getting it on is a turn on to some heterosexual guys, it's obviously not your "thing".

 

[Omniskeptical]

typical conservative Christian misinformation presented for people to lazy to do any sort of fact checking

I don't think you like the truth.

 

[alwight]

You brought up lesbian sex 3 times Art, but come to think of it, if lesbians getting it on is a turn on to some heterosexual guys, it's obviously not your "thing".

You claim this kind of thing "perverted" so perhaps given your more usual choice of material we should wonder exactly which side of your bread is buttered? Maybe both?

 

[TracerBullet]

Ok. Gays are as chaste and pure as the driven snow.:sigh: Including Andrew Sullivan. And there are no health risks to gay sex. All is well.......

If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

 

[TracerBullet]

I have a news flash for you, Sunshine:

There have been studies which compare the 2 groups (heteros and homos) and it still comes out the same way.

yes studies directly comparing the number of sexual partners of gay to straight men.

In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to twenty partners, and 25% had more than twenty partners giving heterosexual men a mean of 7 lifetime sexual partners. Billy, J.O. et al (1993)the sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives


When compared side to side we find heterosexuals are slightly more promiscuous than homosexuals. An early study found heterosexuals has a mean number of 7.3 sexual partners per lifetime and homosexuals had a mean of 4.4 sexual partners per lifetime.
Fay, R. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 1989 (243): 338-348.

I notice when severe methodology and control sample flaws are pointed out in pro-gay studies, you could not care less. But you keep insisting that virtually ALL studies which do not come out the way you want them to are flawed.

the studies are not flawed. the conclusions attributed to them are.

And there have been studies which show say, a group of menopausal women reacting to anti-depressants, etc. and not using young women as a control. You can still glean statistics.

You will not accept this because it is on the website of a big, bad "hate" group (says you) but that does not negate it's truth: Yes, they are using the same researchers but they did compare the rates to those of heterosexual groups. And gay monogamous men were questioned.

how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

 

[TracerBullet]

I don't think you like the truth.

how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GFR7
Ok. Gays are as chaste and pure as the driven snow. Including Andrew Sullivan. And there are no health risks to gay sex. All is well.......

If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

While a person need only look at the "homosexual culture" segment in part 1 of the thread (refer to the table of contents)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3391482&postcount=2

to see that promiscuity is a huge part of the homosexual lifestyle, it's the act of homosexuality itself that is the danger (to be brunt Traci, the anal sphincter muscle wasn't meant to be penetrated by 1 or 100 guys).

On that note: I'll be returning to the segment on homosexual violence shortly, showing how serial killers are disproportionately those that engage in homosexual behavior.

 

[Nazaroo]

Always remember the cost of your decisions:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Always remember the cost of your decisions:

Spoiler

Freddy Mercury's obituary:

http://70.90.168.99/olo/imagedb/1991/11/27/19911127_Mercury_Freddie/m19911127_0.jpg

Dead at the ripe old age of 45 from AIDS

 

[Nazaroo]