Homosexuality: The Truth Will Set You Free (Yes, Even You)

[_hobo1512]

One simple thing you fail to realize is that studies of this nature are biased from the start.

You haven't read the study, have no intention of doing so, and no intention of thinking seriously about it in an intellectually honest manner if you did.

Move along...nothing to see here.

Boy, you really got me there. Ouch, how will I survive? (Sarcasm, just in case you can't figure it out)

Your obsession with homosexuality is quite telling actually.

Most people that react like you tend to have latent tendencies that they don't want to face.

You're the kind of individual that doesn't want a gay person to "hit" on them, but at the same time, you get pissed when they don't.

It's easy to come out of the closet droops, just turn that knob, and come on out to the light.

ETA: This "study" as you call it is nothing but regurgitating the same old crap that people like Focus on the Family have been spewing for years with no success.

Remember George Rekkers? The guy that was spewing all this stuff? Remember when he was caught with that Rent a boy coming back from vacation?

[_Stormy Waters]

For the sake of argument, let's suggest that this study is accurate. But let's say hypothetically that similar data was found on interracial couples. What then? Should we make marriage between different races illegal? What difference would it make?
Even if this study is accurate, it's wouldn't change anything.

[_Droopy]

Are you familiar with any of the social science work that was "used" to support this piece you posted?

Are you?[/quote]

Yes.

This demonstrates precisely nothing, as the statement the FRC authors used in this one, single instance was to verbal abuse

· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.

Yes, I know. It was sprinkled in there amidst a lot of citations that are meant to portray homosexuals in a bad light. The actual article makes it quite clear that there really isn't much difference in terms of abuse between homosexual and heterosexual couples. If anything, there is more violence and abuse in hetero couples, as the Kidd et al. article cited above indicates.

And the rest?

I can go through and look at them if you want. I'm guessing that I'd find something similar: i.e., that the citations have been lifted out of context, and that they don't really demonstrate what you want them to. It's clear that both you and the FRC piece want to "prove" that homosexual relationships are somehow "worse" or "more evil" compared with heterosexual relationships, but the social science just doesn't bear out that assumption.

But consider:

· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."

How does this measure up with women in heterosexual relationships? Why is that comparison (rather conspicuously) absent from the piece? The same question seems relevant to the other items you list:

· A study of lesbian couples reported in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."

This one:

The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."

...is bizarre. "[S]ponsored by the National Institute of Justice"? What does that mean, exactly? It sounds almost as if someone was paying the researchers to "get" these findings. But the even wierder thing is the "marital/cohabitating partner" thing for "same-sex" couples. Where did they get numbers for such a thing?

A Bureau of Justice Statistics (an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice) report found that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[51] Women who were not married to their "intimate partner" (i.e., were cohabiting), experienced a rate of violence four times higher than that of married women (11.3 per thousand vs. 2.6 per thousand).

This one isn't really relevant to your basic thesis, since this is more about marriage in general, rather than homosexuality per se.

In any case, if you are actually interested in "the truth," you'd be a lot better off going and chasing down the actual research.

Go try and fool someone else. I've had far, far too much experience with you for this.

I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, Droopy. I just think your article is misrepresenting the research.

An entire post of worthless diversionary drivel in which you made not one single logical counter-argument, and posted not a single shred of empirical data counter to what is in the study. Your entire post is a wall of assertion, period.

Try again Mr. Nowhere Man, and see what you can make stick on the wall.

[_Droopy]

Loran,

I'm not planning to go around in circles with you on this, know that in advance.

You're really trying hard to fudge it here, Jersey Girl, but no matter.

Please provide evidence for your assertion that I am "trying hard to fudge it", and I mean evidence, not more assertions. Or here's a suggestion, how about address exactly what I said instead of characterizing it?

After all these years, you should know that I when I attempt to engage you, my rhetoric alarm is functional and fast.

Deal with my words.

A major aspect of the empirical evidence here is the very clear (and long known) fact that the vast majority of male homosexuals never have, and never will, avail themselves of marriage, whether or not it is legally available. It is not a part of the homosexual culture, mindset, and sexual orientation itself.

Your basis for this is what, European stats going back to 1995? And we're doing what with this, making predictions about US culture?

Let's talk about the effects of the civil rights movement in the US compared to racial attitudes in, oh, England, okay? Or not.

Homosexual relationships are substantially different then heterosexual relations along a number of dimensions, the most salient being the brevity of such relationships, the number of relationships per individual, the extreme promiscuity as a norm in Gay culture, and the dearth of formation of long term partnerships and marriages vs. heterosexual.

You know, I would really like to address the reason for the high rate of promiscuity in gay males, but you'll just have to use your brain, which if you are male, is located just below your belt line and any hetero male who is honest with himself, knows good and well that he, too, would maintain a high rate of promiscuity were it not for societal expectations and opportunities for the right (or curse, you decide) to be legally married which is just now being afforded to gay men in the US.

Take from that what you will.

These are empirical data from a wide variety of scholarly social science sources.

You cannot attempt to compare apples to Honda's. One of them is still food and other is still a car. Until you've got comparable apples in both baskets or comparable Honda's in each garage, you've got literally nothing, Loran. I can rip stats out of a multitude of sources and you still wouldn't make the apple road worthy.

One may weep when one reads, but wipe the tears away and read on.

Rhetoric alarm.

The truth, as the title of the thread suggests, will set you free.

More rhetoric.

If you want truth, Loran, go to some place besides a faith promoting website for your material. It's biased for a reason.

What a pathetic cavalcade of intellectually vacant twaddle. Typical liberal, typical secularist liberal drone, typical product of the pop cultural fun house mirror society created by the Ruling Class, unable to tell right from wrong, light from darkness, the bottom of a mine shaft from the top of a mountain on a clear winter's day.

I have no, utterly no use for this outhouse any longer.

[_Doctor Scratch]

An entire post of worthless diversionary drivel in which you made not one single logical counter-argument, and posted not a single shred of empirical data counter to what is in the study.

Actually, I did:

Brand and Kidd (1986) studied the extent of physical aggression experienced by 75 heterosexual women and 55 lesbians to determine whether men or women were more abusive in their intimate relationships. The results of their study indicated that men (76%) were more abusive against their female partners more often than were females (51%) in their lesbian relationships. Brand and Kidd also found that physical abuse occurred more frequently in heterosexual relationships than in lesbian relationships.
(pp. 471-472)

Your entire post is a wall of assertion, period.

Try again Mr. Nowhere Man, and see what you can make stick on the wall.

Pick one of the cited sources, Droopy, and we'll go through it together. Let's see whether the social science sources actually support what your article is saying. I've already shown that one of the citations was used in quite a tendentious (and arguably dishonest) way. That alone ought to be enough to give you pause re: your assumptions.

[_just me]

I have no, utterly no use for this outhouse any longer.

Does this mean you will stop crapping here???

One can only hope.

[_Darth J]

There are not enough homosexual marriages, and never will be, to do anything but use homosexual relationships and rates of initial entrance into civil unions as proxies.

By a show of hands, who thinks he is self-reflective enough to realize that he just admitted the article he copied and pasted is complete b***s***?

[_Darth J]

Clear empirical evidence corroborated in study after study is "deceptive?"

Oh, look: someone who believes in a vast, thousand-year pre-Columbian Hebrew civilization and Egyptian funerary documents relating the story of Abraham teaching Mormonism to a Negro Egyptian king wants to talk about empirical evidence.

[_Yoda]

There is a very good reason the study places married heterosexual relationships alongside "committed homosexual" relationships, and that is because so few of them ever actually exist among male homosexuals. "Marriage" is a committed sexual relationship, and as committed sexual relationships are a traditional rarity among male homosexuals, there is no reason to believe homosexual marriage is not a perfectly acceptable proxy for heterosexual marriage.

Look, there are also heterosexual marriages where one or the other partner cheats. Right now, there is still a 50% divorce rate among married heterosexual couples.

Even giving credence that the study is balanced, why shouldn't homosexual couples have the opportunity to marry, and be involved in a committed relationship? Wouldn't legal marriage at least be a step toward promoting longer commitment? Let's face it, one of the biggest aspects of a marriage contract today is the financial end. In the case of divorces, you are dealing with property division, personal asset division, custody rights, etc. If gay couples knew going into a marriage, or long-term committed relationship, knowing that it was "serious business" from a financial and legal stance, wouldn't this be a good thing? It would promote responsibility in the gay community, not promiscuity.

I am also curious as to why the study that you mentioned did not include examples of female homosexual couples. They do exist, and female couples tend to be as committed, if not more, in many cases I have personally seen.

And, as far as male homosexual couples are concerned, I am close friends with two male homosexual couples who are committed to long-term relationships, and would be married, if marriage was an option. One couple has been together for five years, and the other couple has been together for 20 years. Both couples own homes, hold down professional full-time jobs, and are contributing to the economy.

[_Yoda]

What a pathetic cavalcade of intellectually vacant twaddle. Typical liberal, typical secularist liberal drone, typical product of the pop cultural fun house mirror society created by the Ruling Class, unable to tell right from wrong, light from darkness, the bottom of a mine shaft from the top of a mountain on a clear winter's day.

I have no, utterly no use for this outhouse any longer.

I am not going to let you get away with this, Droopy, because you are smarter than this. Don't live up to the charactature that many posters here have made of you. Rather than throwing out open, meaningless insults, why not deal with the actual argument? Jersey Girl did not personally attack you. She gave a solid argument based on the actual statistics of the study you posted. If you believe that the study is valid, then defend it!

I would also appreciate a response to my post.

Thanks in advance.