For what it is worth, lesbians are on average significantly more promiscuous than heterosexuals. They aren't quite as promiscuous as their gay male counterparts, but they are one of the demographics that exceed the general heterosexual population. He might have just asserted this, and I might be doing so right now, but if you look into it, you'll find that this is what the research bears out. Exactly what that means and whether than has any impact on the same-sex marriage debate is a separate question, but this is a fact.
I'd like to see the research that supports this assertion. It's been a while since I've read books devoted to human sexuality, but, If I recall correctly, those books asserted that lesbians are not only the most faithful of all possible combinations, but also have the least sex. (which is not unrelated, I'm sure)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I find the comment that lesbians are more promiscuous than homosexual males as rather suspect. I could be mistaken as I'm only relying on personal knowledge.
Disclaimer: This post is not intended to be an argument for or against gay marriage. It is merely meant to provide possible alternate ways of viewing things. I provide this disclaimer because I know how heated this topic can get.
beastie wrote:And isn't it funny to see members of a religion once so persecuted for refusing to follow the majority-defined concept of marriage now insist that they have the RIGHT to define marriage for EVERYONE?
I think one significant difference between the past governmental fight against polygamy and the modern fight against gay marriage is that many who fight gay marriage are fine letting homosexuals do their thing so long as we aren't forced to recognize their relationships as legally binding through law. I think the early saints would have been happy to simply have been left alone with the government neither recgnizing nor prosecuting polygamy.
Of course one may contend that the difference is justified on the basis that polygamy is more dangerous, especially to children, but I'm just saying that the church may not be completely hypocritical on this issue.
Furthermore, one might say it's ironic that LDS are being condemned for trying to define marriage for everyone when in fact it appears that homosexuals are trying to define marriage in a way that many people find an abhorrent. It may or may not be the case that those who do not wish to call homosexual relationships "marriage" would yet be fine with letting others refer to it in that manner.
Last edited by Analytics on Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Lesbian couple are the happiest of all! The research is robust and consistent on this!
(In case anyone wanted to know)! ;-)
Also, since lesbian couples cannot get married, when discussing how long relationships last, they should not be compared to married couples but to unmarried couples...
IMHO! ;-)
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Noting the "average" or "most likely" behaviors of certain demographic groups does no use to determine what rights or privileges they recieve. First of all, and I think this is rather obvious, is that one should not be treated any differently because their "group" which they belong is more apt for a certain action. For instance: I've heard several times that statistically, Hispanics and other minority groups are more likely to be and are on average more likely to commit violent crimes. Does that mean that a certain person should be judged according to what on average their demographic group may do....or perhaps they should be judged as an individual and on the content of their character.
Secondly, when studying what certain most likely traits gay people (or any person of a group) exhibit, you should not jump to conclusions as to cause and effect. When I was attending therapy for my homosexual inclinations some years ago, I visited a fairly well-known Mormon psychotherapist here in Utah county who compiled research on the similarities that homosexual patients exhibited. He presented these evidences as traits that most likely were the causes of homosexual feelings. What was never taken into account was that these "similarities" that most gay people had may have been just as well behavior that was a reaction of having homosexual feelings in a conservative culture.
I have recently found that a gay friend of mine, whom I have known for a year, had been lying to me concerning his age, name, and other facts because he was so concerned that he would be found out in the community and the church for having such inclinations. This is actually nothing new amongst homosexual Mormons I have met. But, the question that would be good to address is: Is lying an innate quality that many homosexuals have, or is it a psychological response to the culture in which they live?
The same goes with marriage. If gay marriage was instituted in this country, would it cut down on promiscuity amongst homosexual men?--especially the married ones? And if it does or doesn't, does that even have any bearing on who should be able to marry? What is the purpose of marriage (legal marriage, in a secular society) anyway? Is it an attempt to help people be happier? Would the government really have place to help people be happier?
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Exactly what that means and whether than has any impact on the same-sex marriage debate is a separate question...
Exactly. I say, 'so what'?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
I think one significant difference between the past governmental fight against polygamy and the modern fight against gay marriage is that many who fight gay marriage are fine letting homosexuals do their thing so long as we aren't forced to recognize their relationships as legally binding through law. I think the early saints would have been happy to simply have been left alone with the government neither recgnizing nor prosecuting polygamy.
Of course one may contend that the difference is justified on the basis that polygamy is more dangerous, especially to children, but I'm just saying that the church may not be completely hypocritical on this issue.
Furthermore, one might say it's ironic that LDS are being condemned for trying to define marriage for everyone when in fact it appears that homosexuals are trying to define marriage in a way that many people find an abhorrent. It may or may not be the case that those who do not wish to call homosexual relationships "marriage" would yet be fine with letting others refer to it in that manner.
I'm sure they would have been happy to simply have been left alone. However, I have a hard time believing that they would prefer their marriages to remain nonlegal due to respecting other people's rights not to recognize their own marriages. Wives and children have very little rights or protections in such a situation, as they were well aware of.
I really do not see how you can argue the church isn't hypocritical - not just about gay marriage, but in the way they currently treat polygamists in their midst.
There are always segments of society that find progress towards legal equalization abhorrent. Segregationists in the south certainly felt that way about the idea of blacks and whites marrying, going to school together, etc. I'm sure many people were once abhorred at the idea of women voting and getting an education, too.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Has any person who opposes gay marriage ever really explained how gay marriages would threaten hetero marriages?
I'm tired, I'll try later.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo