Bestiality and Homosexuality go hand in hand

[tinybear]

See what I mean? All I did was post some statistics on homosexuality and promiscuity at the request of Cruella and I'm accused of bigotry. I bet no one paid any attention to those statistics. They are immediately ignored just because they were quoted by Christian groups.

[princessme23]

I did ignore them because, as I proved, when you look at religious statements you dont get straight answers.

I can go into an anti gay society and get statistics on what they think but what exactly would be the point?
We know the answers to what they would be!

Promiscuity?
I think you'll find we have a lot of that in the UK with single teenage mums, its in any aspect of life whilst anyone can have sex, not just in homosexuality.


As I found on the links i posted, in any religious theres many many different views on homosexuality, thats why it is not going to be a useful source.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear See what I mean? All I did was post some statistics on homosexuality and promiscuity at the request of Cruella and I'm accused of bigotry. I bet no one paid any attention to those statistics. They are immediately ignored just because they were quoted by Christian groups.

The fact is, tiny, googling "homosexual promiscuity" (as you evidently did, as shown by the tell-tale highlighted search words in the text of your links) - is hardly going to come up with an un-biased result, although it clearly betrays your agenda.

All three articles derive from a Catholic analyst - (one Dr. John R. Diggs) - who's views are so slanted that they are medically laughable.

For instance, his bias is seen even in the phraseology he employs - whenever a reputable scientific study relates the result of a survey, the words it invariably uses are judgementally neutral, which is as it should be... As in, say -- "the survey showed that 90% of the test group reported having engaged in oral sex" ----- compare this with the use of the highly-emotive word "admitted" (as in "they 'admitted' having oral sex") ---- which is the very revealing formula used on these religious sites of yours.

In other words - blatant slanting so as to prejudice the reader in favour of the judgement they are pushing - never a reputable trick.

If I could be bothered, tiny, I could deconstruct your links in great detail to show the other numerous methodological faults, but the fact is, such garbage isn't worthy of so much of anybody's time. Suffice to say, each and every statistical claim can easily be refuted using a more honest methodology.

Particularly ironic, too, that all this preaching on promiscuity comes from a Roman Catholic source - the very church that is anti-condom - need I say more?

[Cruella]

No one said you were bigoted, Tiny, just that your sources are. If you can't tell the difference between data and rhetoric, then you need to be aware that Google isn't your friend under those circumstances.

"Look at the numbers, ignore the commentary" isn't an excuse for using a biased source.

[tinybear]

Quote by: GeminiBrian The fact is, tiny, googling "homosexual promiscuity" (as you evidently did, as shown by the tell-tale highlighted search words in the text of your links) - is hardly going to come up with an un-biased result, although it clearly betrays your agenda.

Hey, what 'agenda' are you talking about? I was asked to provide statistics to show the relationship between homosexuality and promiscuity. So what search words did you expect me to use?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear Hey, what 'agenda' are you talking about? I was asked to provide statistics to show the relationship between homosexuality and promiscuity. So what search words did you expect me to use?

You are being disingenuous, tiny.

Quote by: tinybear Besides, you know why there is a dearth of similar statistics from gay-friendly websites which show that there is no connection between homosexuality and promiscuity, don't you? Surely, you can figure out why.

Yes, I can figure out why, and it has nothing to do with suppressing facts, as you seem to insinuate.

if you seriously looked at the "gay-friendly" sites you imply you have visited (and I know of plenty) - there is no shortage of sound medical facts and reliable statistics regarding sexual practices.

The difference between such sites and the ones you posted is that the gay sites aren't concerned with convincing everybody that gay sex is degraded and risky - it isn't either (and certainly not more so than hetero sex acts) when it is practised responsibly.

The other thing is the absence of deliberate religion-inspired scaremongering tactics, since all intelligent commentators are aware that no-one is going to give up sex entirely, and therefore tailor their advice so as to be more realistic.

So, regarding your "agenda" - all I will say is that you can usually be relied on to present the negative case in gay issues. As I try to show above, you tend to provide quotes and links from shamelessly biased sources.

Bearing this in mind, how are we not going to conclude, after a while, that you do indeed have an understated agenda going on, an impression that is reinforced by the absence of anything of a supportive nature from you, if only as a token gesture in the interest of balance?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: tinybear See what I mean? All I did was post some statistics on homosexuality and promiscuity at the request of Cruella and I'm accused of bigotry. I bet no one paid any attention to those statistics. They are immediately ignored just because they were quoted by Christian groups.

I read through them and they are the same tired, lame arguements that have been debated and shown to be worthless here on volconvo.

I agree with gemini, your disingenuous approach is all to obvious. You post bigotted links but make no comment or observation on them. Giving you the oportunity to display bigotry while being able to remain distant from the links.

[tinybear]

Who asked you to look at the arguments? Focus on statistics. Here's some more.

The Statistics on Homosexuality and its Effects

[Cruella]

Never mind the quality, feel the width, huh? Very poor argument, TB, very, very poor.

[tinybear]

What's the use? You asked for statistics and when you get them , you ignore them or say they are biased. I don't know why I still bother.

[Cruella]

Me either. You were asked for SCIENTIFIC UNBIASED sources for your assertions. What've you given us?

Certainly nothing either scientific or unbiased. I said before, if you do not know the difference between data and rhetoric - or why data from a biased source may itself be biased - then google is not your friend.

[tinybear]

Look at the link at #188, Cruella. Why are those statistics biased?

[Cruella]

You go look at that link again, tell me who carried it out, what were the sample sizes, how were they selected, and what was the statistical analysis used? What sources were used to put that data together? Who wrote them? When? etc etc ...

Where are the links to where the data came from? How do you know they haven't fudged the figures when they were transcribed onto Craigslist? (Craiglist, FFS!) Only a couple of those stats are attributed to the original studies, but how do you know it's correctly attributed and transcribed?

Why would you trust someone transcribing something on Craigslist to be accurate? Why would you use that as a SCIENTIFIC UNBIASED source?

[tinybear]

It's quite obvious that you guys don't keep an open mind. I dunno. Maybe your minds are being influenced by a lot of myths and propaganda you receive in your everyday lives. Here's an article which may dispel those myths.

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality–Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues « truth booth online

Remember. Free your minds.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear It's quite obvious that you guys don't keep an open mind. I dunno. Maybe your minds are being influenced by a lot of myths and propaganda you receive in your everyday lives. Here's an article which may dispel those myths. Myth and Reality about Homosexuality–Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues « truth booth online Remember. Free your minds.

You saved the best till last, tiny - what a nasty, misinformed rant that article is from start to finish, worthy of the propaganda the nazis were spewing out against the Jews in the 1930s.

There are so many blatantly wrong facts in it that I couldn't even finish reading it, and what you think it can possibly contribute to the debate is beyond my understanding - unless, as I pointed out earlier, you select the most poisonous material with a deliberate intention to antagonise.

Try thinking about it from my position - my whole identity is coming under attack, with the intention of making me and my fellow gays feel inferior and unworthy. All you have to do is substitute any ethnic group for 'gay' - say Chinese - and imagine how that person would feel if this thread was directed against the acceptance of all Chinese people into mainstream society....... and people might find all sorts of racist sites which 'prove' that Chinese people are intrinsically inferior to everybody else, using all manner of discredited, cruel and outdated arguments.

Would you call this being "open-mindedness" ??

No - certainly not - and you would be right to be outraged, and would probably throw all your weight into supporting those posters who challenged such bigotry.

All it takes is a little imagination on your part to see what I am saying.

[Maryjane]

Quote by: tinybear Well, just because statistics come from a conservative or Christian website doesn't mean they are inaccurate and should be ignored.

Yeah, sure, consult a right wing conservative christian site with a blind eye towards their own morality and agenda against gays and gay marriage. Makes perfect sense if one takes into consideration that a subset of a community doesn't include the entire community, right? It would be wise get information from a site that does research on human sexuality considering heterosexuals and homosexuals are both part of the HUMAN race and as such their promiscuity levels should be compared on an equal basis considering the OP of this thread.

Besides, you know why there is a dearth of similar statistics from gay-friendly web sites which show that there is no connection between homosexuality and promiscuity, don't you? Surely, you can figure out why.

There are? I wasn't aware..maybe you could sorce these sites and elaborate for us why that would be?

Read more: (keep an open mind; just read the statistics provided and ignore the commentary)

So you don't want people to read for content?


If you provided data to explain how the candidates were selected for these studies, I'd be more inclined to believe your statistics were unbiased. Information collected from people who frequent singles bars and bath houses is going to be skewed in a promiscuous direction, just as they would be if you were doing a study on promiscuous heterosexuals who hang out in places to meet other singles.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

The term "gay sex" is bantered about on christian sites AS IF heterosexuals don't engage in them as well. (wouldn't that would be a fun Sunday confession, Eh?) Anal and oral sex are a part of human sexuality. That does not mean all humans engage in them. Any form of non procreative (as well as procreative) sexual contact can be risky. There's the sin of spilling your seed if you engage in mutual masturbation. Don't want to go to hell now ..do we?

Statistics On The Homosexual Lifestyle S P E C I A L R E P O R T Creative Minority Report: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Heterosexuals can't be just as promiscuous as homosexuals?

Hmmm...perhaps you are unaware of the numerous married couples that swap partners?


swingers clubs - Google Search


Here's dating advice for men from Askmen.com about the pros and cons of dating multiple women.


Dating multiple women - AskMen.com


I don't watch much TV, but here's a commercial for a popular video you might have seen? Its target audience is men.


GirlsGoneWild.com, home to the HOTTEST Girls in America!

[Maryjane]

Quote by: tinybear It's quite obvious that you guys don't keep an open mind. I dunno. Maybe your minds are being influenced by a lot of myths and propaganda you receive in your everyday lives. Here's an article which may dispel those myths. Myth and Reality about Homosexuality–Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues « truth booth online Remember. Free your minds.

If we opened my minds and our entire brains emptied out on the floor your sources still wouldn't come close to hitting the mark of unbiased.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem All you have to do is substitute any ethnic group for 'gay' - say Chinese - and imagine how that person would feel if this thread was directed against the acceptance of all Chinese people into mainstream society....... and people might find all sorts of racist sites which 'prove' that Chinese people are intrinsically inferior to everybody else, using all manner of discredited, cruel and outdated arguments.

Could you explain in what way this doesn't apply equally to the link you posted on bestiality?

[Morality Games]

It is worth noting that homosexuals adopt in very high frequencies, when allowed. It has been speculated that one reason for the survival of homosexuality in mammal species is that they contribute to child care while not actually producing children themselves, therefore providing increased social stability and 'higher quality' physical and mental growth for children than would otherwise be the case. Homosexuality is a more plausible mutation for reducing the number of offspring than asexuality. In today's world of overly abundant populations and depressing large quantities of orphans, that function of homosexuals has much use.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Could you explain in what way this doesn't apply equally to the link you posted on bestiality?

The link I posted on bestiality doesn't rely on inciting hatred towards the practitioners of this aberration in a way comparable to how racist propaganda does. The material addresses itself chiefly to the possible harm sex with animals can do to both parties, which is a consideration rooted in compassion rather than in blind condemnation.

But all this has an air of deja vu about it, since I took the trouble to follow your arguments on this precise subject on another site, dating from over a year ago. There, one of your opponents listed a great many diseases it is possible to be transmitted to both humans and animals in the course of inter-species sex - just as I was prepared to do had I not been beaten to it - but your reply was characteristically dismissive, saying that "with care" these hazards might be avoided.

This further proves to me the futility of trying to get a person with your views to admit that there could be any possible harm in bestiality - your prejudice in favour of the practice amounting to a bias at least as pronounced as anything your opponents might say.

Even when it can be shown that there is an unacceptably high level of risk involved to the human instigator, you prefer to shut it out - presumably because these facts run directly counter to your no-holds-barred philosophy... and therein lies the difference between what I posted and what tinybear posted - my fact-sheet isn't superstitiously prescriptive in its motivation, and neither is it concerned to proselytise in any religious sense.

As I read it, I see far more concern for the abused creature than condemnation for the perpetrator, and even if the animal's welfare is of no concern to you, you have to admit that it is of great concern to some. All I see in tiny's link, by comparison is undisguised hostility. So you have to allow that that is a substantial difference at least.

IS IT REALLY ANIMAL ABUSE? Yes. Sexual molestation of animals by humans may physically injure or kill the animal victim. Cases of dogs with severe rectal tearing from anal sexual contact; cats killed by penetration by a human male; chickens decapitated to increase the abuser's sexual pleasure; animals beaten stabbed, or mutilated during or after sexual contact; and animals crushed for sexual gratification have been reported. Many animals are physically restrained during the abuse. Not all cases of animal sexual abuse will involve physical injury to the animal, but all sexual molestation of an animal by a human is abuse. In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that "bestiality may be considered cruel even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible)". This is because animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse. In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that "for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires. nmanimalcontrol.com

ps. Thanks for your good wishes yesterday.