what is up with gays?

[Suburbanite]

Way to side step, but it wasnt me ignoring your proof after asking for it. What a cop out, why do I bother?

[andru]

Firstly, I just want to kick the whole aids argument brought up a few pages back to the kerb by quoting some statistics (source):
While the number of reported infections in gay men has steadily dropped from 1987 to now, they have dramatically risen in homosexual couples, to the point where infection levels are around double the rate in homosexual men.
(Taken from statics from the UK by exposure catagory)

Anyway, on to the larger issue. As a gay man, I can say I was not assaulted, sexually or otherwise, while growing up. I grew up in a good home, and had a great childhood. I exhibited signs of homosexuality from a very young (prepubescent) age with idolisation of male celebrities, but didn't actually feel recognisable attraction to the same sex until puberty.
I don't force my sexuality in other peoples faces and if I didn't tell you I was gay you'd have no idea. I have no desire for gay marriage - I think the premise is ridiculous - Marriage is a religious ceremony which, in my opinion, homosexual couples have no need for. I believe a true state union is the answer.
What people often overlook in this "why do they even want to get married?" argument is the legal differences marriage brings about. Under current law, a gay man coule have been living with his partner for 50 years, but should that partner die, he's have no legal rights to anything they shared, to funeral arrangements, to life insurance. It's all go to the closest family. That's a very big deal, and even the unions recently brought in in the UK fail to deal with this, and are little more than a sentimentality.

Anyway, back to the main issue. While I'm not hugely learned on this subject, I know there have been numerous studies using sheep brains that show a physiological difference between males exhibiting homosexual and heterosexual behaviour.
The only studies I've read that blame upbringing are either prehistoric, or only cite prehistoric references. Aside from that, I can only talk from personal experience, and say that sexuality is far too much of a complicated issue for people to understand. I have no idea why I'm gay anymore than other people will know why they're heterosexual. Here's the clincher though - it doesn't fucking matter.
You want to screw men? Fine. Women? Fine! Both? Great! Seriously, good for you. Just as long as nobody goes round telling other people what they should and shouldn't be doing then everyone'll get along just great.
The problem arises when people take offense at things other people are doing. It's this reason that I couldn't, if I chose to, walk hand-in-hand down the street with another man or, heaven forbid, kiss another man in public. I can't do this because it would, of course, be rubbing other people's faces in the fact that I'm gay. Just like all those dirty heterosexual couples walking around, next time I see them daring to be affectionate in the street, I'm going to call them what they are - militant homosexuals.

Christ, I think I've used up todays allowance of sarcasm.

As a last tidbit of advice - If you don't like the sight of gay sex, don't watch gay porn. Personally I find the sight of a vagina pretty repulsive. The solution? I just avoid looking at vaginas. Logical, non?

[Mia]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Way to side step, but it wasnt me ignoring your proof after asking for it. What a cop out, why do I bother?

You'll need to elaborate. As he pointed out already, you asked for us not to focus so much on studies, etc., when they were presented to you.

All I did was correct your interpretation of Itali's post, which you misconstrued and responded to with refutaions that were not logical.

You have ignored this and made vague references to me and my debating in general. It would seem you are the one sidestepping.

If you have good arguments why are you focusing on attacking me instead of making them?

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Suburbanite Some Statistics showing the relationships between Homosexuality and Violence: [...] A 1994 study of 113 lesbians indicated that 41% of them had been physically abused in a same-sex relationship.

Ristock, J., "And Justice for All?...The Social Context of Legal Responses to Abuse in Lesbian relationships," (1994) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law.

The study addresses gaps in law enforcement and the legal system when dealing with abuse within same-sex relationships. Weak support for your assertion, at best.

[Mia]

I would say that would be 0 support. That lesbians abuse each other in relationships does not speak to whether abuse caused them to be lesbians in the first place.

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> As for citing proof, I'm not one to really get into all that. I find it bothersome on my part to do your research for you. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite,


I posted some information disproving what you've said, you might want to reference it, or counter with some proof.

[/quote]

When you make up your mind about what proof is and whether we're accepting studies already done, I will be happy to.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite, Way to side step, but it wasnt me ignoring your proof after asking for it.  What a cop out, why do I bother?

You'll need to elaborate. As he pointed out already, you asked for us not to focus so much on studies, etc., when they were presented to you.

All I did was correct your interpretation of Itali's post, which you misconstrued and responded to with refutaions that were not logical.

You have ignored this and made vague references to me and my debating in general. It would seem you are the one sidestepping.

If you have good arguments why are you focusing on attacking me instead of making them?[/b][/quote]

Try and keep my replies to Ital and to you seperate. You asked me to provide proof, reluctantly I did, and then ignored it, so why I bothered in the first place is beyond me.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite Some Statistics showing the relationships between Homosexuality and Violence: [...] A 1994 study of 113 lesbians indicated that 41% of them had been physically abused in a same-sex relationship.

Ristock, J., "And Justice for All?...The Social Context of Legal Responses to Abuse in Lesbian relationships," (1994) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law.

The study addresses gaps in law enforcement and the legal system when dealing with abuse within same-sex relationships. Weak support for your assertion, at best.[/b][/quote]

That was more something I came upon while looking for the other stats, not really a big argument. The law enforcement study is interesting though.

[Mia]

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some Statistics showing the relationships between Homosexuality and Violence: I’m really not too into doing research for other people when the information is available, but I guess I can do it for ya’ll A 1988 study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association found that 58% of boys who had been sexually abused described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Ninety percent of boys who had not been molested described themselves as heterosexuals. Clear, same-sex child molestation helps create homosexuals who then molest others.) [/b]

This is the only evidence I can find that you've posted. Care to provide the link so it can be examined?

<!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite,


A 1994 study of 113 lesbians indicated that 41% of them had been physically abused in a same-sex relationship.

The L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center reported in 1998 that approximately 25% to 33% of all homosexual relationships involve abuse.

[/quote]

You say this wasn't an argument for you case and yet you posted it as such.

You also said: "As for my “sources”, I’m not too proud of them, they all are used to claim outrageous things like homosexuals are destroying Western Civilization and the Nuclear Family, and continue to go on to blame other things. I don’t trust very many “scientific” studies on homosexuals because it is such a politically polluted idea. I really don’t want to keep getting into the “studies”..."

So I'm confused. You cited proof that you don't really give much merit to yourself, and want me to disprove it...with what, if you don't want to rely on "studies?"

If you could clarify maybe a discussion would be possible.

As far as separating based on who your posts were addressed to, there is no rule that we cannot respond to posts addressed to others, unless you do so in a PM.

This is a group debate forum.

[Suburbanite]

I don't want you to disprove it. You're welcome to ignore it. I just don't want you posting the opposite in lieu of any proof on your behalf. I posted it, and you claim the opposite without countering the proof, it isn't anything more than that.
I’m not talking about "rules" as to whom you can reply to. I am just saying I told Ital something, not you; it was specifically addressing his comments. I’m just sitting here thinking why did I even bother posting the proof in the first place, it would have served everyone much more to research it independently.

[Mia]

Sub, you didn't post any proof! What are you talking about? You said you're not impressed with your own source!

Itali already countered it, why do I need to parrot him?

Again, all I did was correct your misrepresentation of his words. Go back and look.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by andru Firstly, I just want to kick the whole aids argument brought up a few pages back to the kerb by quoting some statistics (source): While the number of reported infections in gay men has steadily dropped from 1987 to now, they have dramatically risen in homosexual couples, to the point where infection levels are around double the rate in homosexual men. (Taken from statics from the UK by exposure catagory)

I've read and reread the UK stats from the AVERT website you provided. I can't find a reference to "homosexual couples" anywhere. Based on my review of the data, perhaps you meant to say HIV rates in the UK "...have dramatically risen among heterosexuals, to the point where infection levels are around double the rate in homosexual men..." If so, you would be correct.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Suburbanite+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A 1988 study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association found that 58% of boys who had been sexually abused described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Ninety percent of boys who had not been molested described themselves as heterosexuals. Clear, same-sex child molestation helps create homosexuals who then molest others.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mia
This is the only evidence I can find that you've posted.  Care to provide the link so it can be examined?[/quote]I'm pretty sure he can't. I did an extensive online search, finding only an abbreviated cite, no abstract, no fulltext. However, I will have the fulltext version on paper in my hands this weekend thanx to ILL (Inter Library Loan). :)

[Mia]

I await the results, thanks for doing the legwork!

[Poetic_Justice]

Suburbanite, you say that "Curing" a gay male would be like trying to convince a black man that he isn't black. Regardless of the fact that if this analogy is true then indeed it is possible, I must ask, don't you think it would be much more analogus to say teaching a man to prefer small-breasted women rather than his natural inclination of lage-breasted women or teaching a woman to prefer black men to white men or teaching someone to prefer regular sex to S&M?

I would think those examples would show a lot more correlation than the racial example.

Oh and for that othe rguy, there is no evolutionary payoff for homosexuality because it reduces reproductivity. As evolution rests on the adaptation through survival of the fittest which means that genes must be passed on, homosexality is the least evolutionarily suitable trait. As a side effect of some toher trait which is evolutionarily selectable I could see it, but as a primary trait being selected, such a thing makes no sense. Of course, I see homosexuality in the same term as I see preferences among heterosexual males among different types of women, so that is probably why I differ.

[Poetic_Justice]

sorry, that was in response to the first page...

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Poetic_Justice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Poetic_Justice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh and for that other guy, there is no evolutionary payoff for homosexuality because it reduces reproductivity.[/b]

I disagree. The presence of homosexuality supports reproduction. Not among homosexuals, but among heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Poetic_Justice@ As evolution rests on the adaptation through survival of the fittest which means that genes must be passed on, homosexality is the least evolutionarily suitable trait.

Yet, the biological dead-end you speak of has persisted for thousands of years. <!--QuoteBegin-Poetic_Justice
As a side effect of some other trait which is evolutionarily selectable I could see it, but as a primary trait being selected, such a thing makes no sense.[/quote]Now you're beginning to get it. Consider this: The likelihood of homosexual expression in an individual female's offspring increases with each birth. This statistic remains true, even if that one female selects different males to mate with. I believe this is one important clue that points to the very survival adaptation you speak of.

[Comrade]

It could also be social influences, italian. I would have no problem believing in a little psychology dealing with younger siblings.

Also, would you mind saying where you got that, the probability of homosexuality increasing with each child?

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Comrade+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It could also be social influences, italian. I would have no problem believing in a little psychology dealing with younger siblings.[/b]

Could be. But why the correlation with birth order?<!--QuoteBegin-Comrade
Also, would you mind saying where you got that, the probability of homosexuality increasing with each child?[/quote]Certainly. Use the search engine at http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi, type "homosexuality birth order" with spaces in between each word, then press Go.

i think that all sex is a semi-voluntary behavior, with hardwired and chemical portions. voluntary activities and even some tendencies and chemical patters can be altered.

for example, you can convince yourself to like asian chicks and think they're really hot as a group. it depends on what that kind of sex comes to represent in your mind. sex is about exchanges of social energy as well as physical reproductive possibility, and the widely agreed social energy that goes with the physical characteristics.

gays live in a private culture that feels sex between males is physically attractive for its social results. personally i find that exchange disgusting and detrimental on many levels. socially it would be immensely inappropriate to harbor those feelings in the first place, and then to pursue them would be incredibly tumultuous and heap great shame upon the self. it is uncomfortable to have to be close to another male by force, but to do it voluntarily would be repulsive.

not only is homosexuality repulsive to me, but heterosexuality is quite attractive indeed and i often feel the strong desire to perform sexual acts with attractive females either seen or imagined. gays likely replace a female with a male in this context.

gays believe differently.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bob_Dobbs)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>i think that all sex is a semi-voluntary behavior, with hardwired and chemical portions. voluntary activities and even some tendencies and chemical patters can be altered.[/b]

If we can agree that a portion of the hardwiring comes from genetic sources, no argument there.

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs@ for example, you can convince yourself to like asian chicks and think they're really hot as a group. it depends on what that kind of sex comes to represent in your mind. sex is about exchanges of social energy as well as physical reproductive possibility, and the widely agreed social energy that goes with the physical characteristics.

Personally, I find that exchange disgusting and detrimental on many levels. Socially it would be immensely inappropriate to harbor those feelings in the first place. To pursue them would be incredibly tumultuous and heap great shame upon the self. It is uncomfortable to be physically intimate with a female since it goes against my romantic and sexual desires. Not only is performing heterosexual acts repulsive to me, but homosexuality is quite attractive indeed and i often feel the strong desire to perform sexual acts with attractive males either seen or imagined. Straights likely replace a male with a female in this context. <!--QuoteBegin-Bob_Dobbs
gays live in a private culture that feels sex between males is physically attractive for its social results.[/quote]Gay "culture" (whatever that is) is slowly becoming as public as straight culture is. The relationship between physical attractiveness and social results is every bit as prevalent in the heterosexual world.