Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

Hey, Wallie, here's another quick debate lesson.

Debate is based upon logic, and thus upon observable evidence. Faith does not rely upon evidence; it is by definition, belief without evidence. So therefore referring to faith is invalid for the purposes of logical debate.

But if you want to rant and yell without anything other than passion on your side, by all means, go ahead. To your wall, or some other inanimate object. Those of us concerned without actual intellectual debate will remain here, patiently ignoring you. I don't suspect we'll miss you much.

And still, what is your point? Even if homosexuals were as promiscuous as your sources claim (and I've got a great deal of confidence in the scientific authority of the Catholic church :roll: ), so? Should marriages be denied to people based on whether some people with similar characeristics to them. Marriages might or might not be monogamous, or last, or anything else; so? Does this make people somehow less deserving of having a shot at them?

Wallie wrote: Over indulgence in anything (especially sex) is a sign of deeply unfulfilled needs. The person uses whatever tool (usually one that temporarily alters their reality) as a means of gratification to quiet the voice of dissatisfaction within their soul
No, it is a sign of different desires. Desires are not subject to rationality. Michael Smith and I rock your socks.

And logically prove that a soul exists, that it voices dissatisfaction, and that this is reflected by homosexual promiscuity. Until then, do consider perhaps how fantastically ridiculous your position is.

[Wallie_x]

The fact is homosexuality has strong psycho-spiritual affinity with the same attributes of an addiction.

As far as using a Catholic source, why would a catholic web page, that represents a church that is viciously attacked in the secular press, post falsified statistics? You mean no one scrutinized the studies to see if what was said was statistically correct? Get real. The leftist feces machine would relish the find and blast it all over the air waves; the stats are real. But worse for gays and the ignorant liberals who support them, the stats speak for themselves about a stark revelation. The Mary-Fairy beliefs by liberals about homosexuality are utterly false.

As shown by these statistics, homosexuality has a very strong showing of clinical pathology. It is only the Mary-Fairy lefties and the gays themselves who play ostrich to these stark facts. You want to play ostrich go ahead.

It is the spiritual "dead heads" who are the ones who are as so out of touch with your inner selves that they erroneously believe that sexual promiscuity does not affect the person who indulges in it adversely. Like I said, you want to play ostrich? Go ahead.

[Prole]

The reason, Wallie, that your source's shortcomings are so apparent (besides the "Catholic" in it's name) is that saying "People with X characteristic often exhibit Y characerstics of mental health, therefore having X characteristic alone makes one mentally unhealthy" is sheer idiocy.

Males, for example, have higher rates of alcoholism, of suicide and tendencies towards suicide, and of nearly any mental problem. Does being male make one mentally ill? If so, can I start calling you a retard? Not because I'm being somehow un-PC, but because you are holding back intelligent discussion with your willful ignorance. Words are fun.

Furthermore, did you even take the care to look at the research your source is based upon? They all are concerned only with male adolescents, intentionally narrowing the scope of their study, and thus not suitable for assertions about the average homosexual.

As for spirituality, again I reiterate that there is no proof that a spiritual presence exists, nor does spirituality somehow improve one's mental health.

My gosh, I realize now what I've done. I apologize for my rudeness. Next time, I'll bring an umbrella for your parade.

Edited for clarity.

[Enoch]

Wallie_x wrote: The fact is homosexuality has strong psycho-spiritual affinity with the same attributes of an addiction.

As far as using a Catholic source, why would a catholic web page, that represents a church that is viciously attacked in the secular press, post falsified statistics? You mean no one scrutinized the studies to see if what was said was statistically correct? Get real. The leftist feces machine would relish the find and blast it all over the air waves; the stats are real. But worse for gays and the ignorant liberals who support them, the stats speak for themselves about a stark revelation. The Mary-Fairy beliefs by liberals about homosexuality are utterly false.

As shown by these statistics, homosexuality has a very strong showing of clinical pathology. It is only the Mary-Fairy lefties and the gays themselves who play ostrich to these stark facts. You want to play ostrich go ahead.

It is the spiritual "dead heads" who are the ones who are as so out of touch with your inner selves that they erroneously believe that sexual promiscuity does not affect the person who indulges in it adversely. Like I said, you want to play ostrich? Go ahead.

I read through the statistics you provided. And, while they do provide numbers on how promiscuous many, but not all in the gay community are, it failed to take in to consideration how those same people respond to it.

You claim that it is erroneous to believe that sexual promiscuity does not effect people who indulge in it. However, what effects are you referring to? True, there is a much higher risk of STDs/HIV with the promiscuous (gay or straight). However, when dealing with the possible emotional ramifications, it is difficult to generalize given the fact that each person has unique emotional responses to the same stimuli. Emotion and psychology are not universal. While possible to find or indicate possible trends in emotional or psychological responses, it is fallacious to assume that those responses will be felt by everyone in the group.

And, while the statistics and evidence you gave do not make such a claim of universality, I fear that you may be doing so, based on your responses.

Quote: It is only the Mary-Fairy lefties and the gays themselves who play ostrich to these stark facts.
Some may be ignoring the facts, but not all of us. Many of us are perfectly aware of the statistics about promiscuity. However, we understand that there is no universal emotional or psychological response, no matter who is involved or what the situation is.

[Wallie_x]

UrielsFyre wrote: You claim that it is erroneous to believe that sexual promiscuity does not effect people who indulge in it. However, what effects are you referring to?

The most obvious ones:
1) promiscuity leads a large number of people to have future unstable relationships
2) sexual promiscuity is habit forming and hard to break.
3) promiscuity leads a large number of people to have an overall dissatisfaction with their lives and can be a vector toward which depression, suicidal tendencies can easily enter.
4) the spiritual reality is: promiscuity is a maladaptive way of coping with a general interior emptiness and dissatisfaction with life. The person indulges in promiscuity trying to fill the spiritual void in one's life with sex. Sex can never satisfy what the person really hungers for (but is likewise deathly afraid of): intimacy

(The above follows for both hetero and homosexuals. Though with gays there are even more dismal reasons not to engage in it. The above, however, is sufficiently enough reasons to say promiscuity is maladaptive, period.)

UrielsFyre wrote: And, while the statistics and evidence you gave do not make such a claim of universality, I fear that you may be doing so, based on your responses.
Explanation is quoted below:
Quote: " The liberal's greatest tendency seems to be his remarkable ability to confuse wish with reality" - excerpts from the book, "When Wish Replaces Thought" Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York
I am doing no such thing. :roll:

You guys make me laugh. Instead of looking for what might be true in what someone posted, you look for possible explanations to dismiss what you don't believe in. :lol: People like that stay unwilling to accept what they don't believe in (despite valid contradictory evidence which trashes there beliefs) and don't grow, either intellectually or spiritually.

Like I said, you want to play ostrich along with all the other Mary-Fairies out there: Go Ahead!

The secular progressive prospective on life:
Ashleigh Brilliant wrote: Life may have no meaning. Or even worse, it may have a meaning of which I disapprove. :lol:

[connermt]

Wallie Wallie Wallie..... :roll:
There is so much wrong with these words you used:
'proven excessive promiscuity 'normal''
Proven: Nothing has been positively proven in regards to homosexuality to date (one might even point out that the term homosexuality is relative in the fact that people run a gamet of sexual preferences).
Excessive: A relative term. I thought the info included in your post wre excessive, it appears you didn't
Promiscuity: Something that is apparent regardless of your sexuality. There is no more promiscuity in the gay lifestyle than in the straight lifestyle as a whole.
Normal: Again, a relative term

After reading those 4 words, I wonder why anyone would even read more of this post? :think:
But to each his own I suppose

[Enoch]

Wallie_x wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: You claim that it is erroneous to believe that sexual promiscuity does not effect people who indulge in it. However, what effects are you referring to?

The most obvious ones:
1) promiscuity leads a large number of people to have future unstable relationships
2) sexual promiscuity is habit forming and hard to break.
3) promiscuity leads a large number of people to have an overall dissatisfaction with their lives and can be a vector toward which depression, suicidal tendencies can easily enter.
4) the spiritual reality is: promiscuity is a maladaptive way of coping with a general interior emptiness and dissatisfaction with life. The person indulges in promiscuity trying to fill the spiritual void in one's life with sex. Sex can never satisfy what the person really hungers for (but is likewise deathly afraid of): intimacy
(The above follows for both hetero and homosexuals. Though with gays there are even more dismal reasons not to engage in it. The above, however, is sufficiently enough reasons to say promiscuity is maladaptive, period.)

You know, you seem to have conveniently overlooked where I said that psychological and emotional responses are NOT universal. I have noticed a trend of yours to pick and choose what you wish to quote, so that it appears as though your critics are not bringing up anything. You conveniently ignore everything that you can't argue with.

Yes, I know that the aforementioned effects of promiscuity are possible. However, like I have said before, I also know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim universality with psychology.

Wallie_x wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: And, while the statistics and evidence you gave do not make such a claim of universality, I fear that you may be doing so, based on your responses.
Explanation is quoted below:
Quote: " The liberal's greatest tendency seems to be his remarkable ability to confuse wish with reality" - excerpts from the book, "When Wish Replaces Thought" Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York
I am doing no such thing. :roll:

You guys make me laugh. Instead of looking for what might be true in what someone posted, you look for possible explanations to dismiss what you don't believe in. :lol: People like that stay unwilling to accept what they don't believe in (despite valid contradictory evidence which trashes there beliefs) and don't grow, either intellectually or spiritually.
If you look to THIS post, you are giving off the impression that you are claiming universality. If that is not the case, and you DON'T believe that the aforementioned effects are universal, than please state so. I pointed out why I believed, and still believe, you are attempting to claim universality, and all without emoticons. If I am wrong, then point out where I am wrong. Point out where I missed something you said to the contrary. Point out my mistake. If you can do so, I will, gladly, admit to being wrong as to your stance. Until that point, I have to conclude that you DO support a claim that psychological and emotional responses to promiscuity are universal. That idea is simply reinforced by the fact that your posts are filled with several generalizations and stereotypes.

Wallie_x wrote: Like I said, you want to play ostrich along with all the other Mary-Fairies out there: Go Ahead!

The secular progressive prospective on life:
Ashleigh Brilliant wrote: Life may have no meaning. Or even worse, it may have a meaning of which I disapprove. :lol:

Look...I can quote people too!

Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote: A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.
And, you know what? The FDR quote and the Ashleigh Brilliant quote both are interesting, but neither does anything to actually back up claims. They are strictly emotional appeals with no substance.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
wrong. since homosexuality is observed in nature, it is natural.

not to mention, homosexual behavious(both sexual and relationship wise) have been observed in more than 1500 different species in nature....

Wrong. That is irrelevant. Natural does not mean "observed in nature". It means used for its intended purpose. We did not evolve sex organs for fun; it was for reproduction.

Quote:
So? Sex is also for pleasure and enjoyment. Something’s purpose is what it can be used for. It is natural for us to develop new means to utilize that which already exists. As Galt once said, humans building tankers to carry oil is also natural, because out ability to reason allows us this ability.

Yes, but depending on what the oil is used for, it could be for our survival. Since we have reason for the purpose of survival, using it for that purpose is natural. Any other is not.


Quote:
Then again, whether it is natural is wholly irrelevant

Yup.

[Wallie_x]

connermt wrote: Normal: Again, a relative term

Wrong: In behavior, normal means not deviating very much from the average -Wikipedia.
Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of social norms. Formal and informal social controls attempt to prevent and minimize deviance. One such control is through the medicalization of deviance. - Wikipedia.

A VERY LARGE percentage of the population considers sexual promiscuity as deviant behavior.

UrielsFyre wrote: You know, you seem to have conveniently overlooked where I said that psychological and emotional responses are NOT universal.
No one is saying any such thing. We are talking about percentages. As to indulging in promiscuity, the things I out lined happen to a greater majority of those people who indulge in such.
later UrielsFrye wrote: Yes, I know that the aforementioned effects of promiscuity are possible. However, like I have said before, I also know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim universality with psychology.

Again universality is a red herring; it has nothing to do with what I am referring to.

As an example, not all people who indulge in taking drugs recreationally become addicts. So why do we then discourage the use of such? Easy, the same reason applies to many behaviors of homosexuals, they harm a large percentage of those who indulge in them.

Notice, all addictions have a very strong element of denial. To quote 'The Big Book of A.A. wrote: Most of us have been unwilling to admit we were real alcoholics...Therefore, it is not surprising that our drinking careers have been characterized by countless vain attempts to prove we could drink like other people. The idea that somehow, someday, he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death. (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1976, p. 30)

This outlines addiction in an encapsulated form:
1) adamant denial of the problem "What, promiscuity a problem"
2) vain attempt at controlling the impulse (actually the addict is a slave to his/her addiction)
3) controlling becomes an obsession (which in turn causes greater compulsivity, and oddly, more indulgence in the activity)
4) "The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death." The only cure for addiction is to admit we are one.

With the advent of graphic sexually explicit images readily available on the Internet, sexual addiction is sky rocketing, particularly among men.
Why men? Just as most alcoholics are men, most sex addicts are likewise men. Men are more inclined to seek sex for gratification than women. And in a statistical sense, men crave sex more often than women.

By such one might infer that promiscuity should thus be equal (as a statistical percentage) for both hetero and homosexual men.
WRONG:
Quote: Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals.

That IS NOT NORMAL sexual behavior! It is addictive behavior.

AND:

Quote: The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

[Skippy]

wallie,

Whilst you've made some interesting arguments... WHO CARES! You've bagged the crap out of Homosexuals and made me feel really sad for a few of them but I dont see why it was worth the effort you put in. Sure it's interesting but it does'nt have any real consequence for sociaty.

There are plenty of non-gays who are narssacistic and engage in drugs. A higher liklyhood of suicide is attributable to the rejection they face from sociaty and at the end of the day you've only really argued that they face a higher likelyhood of having these attributes, not that there is an indisputible link between homosexuality and the problems mentioned.

LIVE AND LET LIVE! Mind your own buisness

[ieatfood]

Wallie_x wrote:

Wrong: In behavior, normal means not deviating very much from the average -Wikipedia.

Normal is a relative term.

According to one definition, normal is lack of deviation from the average.

Well, in the world, the average person is a poor asian.

Thus, americans are abnormal. Is that a good thing? i dunno.
In America, the average person is white anglosaxon protestant. Thus, by that definition, black people are abnormal. Is that bad? I dunno.

Why is normal good anyway?

1000 years ago, the life expectancy was like 40. That is what is physiologically "normal" for humans.

From my perspective, being normal isn't always good. It isn't always bad either. We shouldn't make judgements on people based on whether they are normal or not.

Wallie--what you are spouting is nothing but bigotry. You are saying that gays, on average, tend to be more promiscuous. That is true. But not all gays are promiscuous. Take black people, for example. Black people, on average, are also more promiscuous. But that does not mean that being black is immoral. Does it?

Wallie_x wrote:


The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

many things were not "designed" the way we would like it.
Our hips were not designed to undergo hip replacement. Does that mean we should stop doing hip replacements?

Humans were not designed to be in the water. Does that mean we should make swimming illegal?

What something was "designed" for is irrelevant to what we should actually use it for.

[connermt]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
wrong. since homosexuality is observed in nature, it is natural.

not to mention, homosexual behavious(both sexual and relationship wise) have been observed in more than 1500 different species in nature....

Wrong. That is irrelevant. Natural does not mean "observed in nature". It means used for its intended purpose. We did not evolve sex organs for fun; it was for reproduction.

Quote:
So? Sex is also for pleasure and enjoyment. Something’s purpose is what it can be used for. It is natural for us to develop new means to utilize that which already exists. As Galt once said, humans building tankers to carry oil is also natural, because out ability to reason allows us this ability.

Yes, but depending on what the oil is used for, it could be for our survival. Since we have reason for the purpose of survival, using it for that purpose is natural. Any other is not.


Quote:
Then again, whether it is natural is wholly irrelevant

Yup.

For one to say somthing is natural (& meaning being found in nature) you have to look to nature to see if it exists. If it DOES exists, then it is natural, if NOT, then it is NOT natural.
Saying something is or is not used for its intended purpose is a 'part' of being natural, but doesn't include naturality as a whole. A dolphins mouth is a mouth, used to eat. That is natural. But it is also used as an exploratory tool. So does that make the dolphin using its mouth as a tool unnatural? Of course not.

[connermt]

Wallie_x wrote: connermt wrote: Normal: Again, a relative term

Wrong: In behavior, normal means not deviating very much from the average -Wikipedia.
Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of social norms. Formal and informal social controls attempt to prevent and minimize deviance. One such control is through the medicalization of deviance. - Wikipedia.

A VERY LARGE percentage of the population considers sexual promiscuity as deviant behavior.

UrielsFyre wrote: You know, you seem to have conveniently overlooked where I said that psychological and emotional responses are NOT universal.
No one is saying any such thing. We are talking about percentages. As to indulging in promiscuity, the things I out lined happen to a greater majority of those people who indulge in such.
later UrielsFrye wrote: Yes, I know that the aforementioned effects of promiscuity are possible. However, like I have said before, I also know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim universality with psychology.

Again universality is a red herring; it has nothing to do with what I am referring to.

As an example, not all people who indulge in taking drugs recreationally become addicts. So why do we then discourage the use of such? Easy, the same reason applies to many behaviors of homosexuals, they harm a large percentage of those who indulge in them.

Notice, all addictions have a very strong element of denial. To quote 'The Big Book of A.A. wrote: Most of us have been unwilling to admit we were real alcoholics...Therefore, it is not surprising that our drinking careers have been characterized by countless vain attempts to prove we could drink like other people. The idea that somehow, someday, he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death. (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1976, p. 30)

This outlines addiction in an encapsulated form:
1) adamant denial of the problem "What, promiscuity a problem"
2) vain attempt at controlling the impulse (actually the addict is a slave to his/her addiction)
3) controlling becomes an obsession (which in turn causes greater compulsivity, and oddly, more indulgence in the activity)
4) "The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death." The only cure for addiction is to admit we are one.

With the advent of graphic sexually explicit images readily available on the Internet, sexual addiction is sky rocketing, particularly among men.
Why men? Just as most alcoholics are men, most sex addicts are likewise men. Men are more inclined to seek sex for gratification than women. And in a statistical sense, men crave sex more often than women.

By such one might infer that promiscuity should thus be equal (as a statistical percentage) for both hetero and homosexual men.
WRONG:
Quote: Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals.

That IS NOT NORMAL sexual behavior! It is addictive behavior.

AND:

Quote: The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

There are other things to be considered when you classify something as normal. Deviating from the average to show what is normal, you must first agree that on what the average considered normal is indeed normal - you must have a starting point. Not everyone agrees on that 'starting point'. See how normality is a viscious cycle?

[Prole]

Wallie, I'm still waiting to see if you think being male is a mental disorder. After all, males have higher crime rates, higher suicide rates, higher rates of drug addictions, and in every way are pretty much statistically worse off that females.

Furthermore, being a sex addict and being sexually promiscuous are not synonymous. Not all sex addicts are promiscuous, nor are all promiscuous people sex addicts.

Wallie wrote: A VERY LARGE percentage of the population considers sexual promiscuity as deviant behavior.
Well, yeah, depending on where you choose to draw the line at "normal" and "abnormal." Being any religious denomination other than Christian is also deviant. As being male. Your point?

Wallie wrote: 4) the spiritual reality is: promiscuity is a maladaptive way of coping with a general interior emptiness and dissatisfaction with life. The person indulges in promiscuity trying to fill the spiritual void in one's life with sex. Sex can never satisfy what the person really hungers for (but is likewise deathly afraid of): intimacy
"Spiritual reality" is an oxymoron. Much like yourself, but with added oxy.

[George W Bush]

People who have this opinion tend to think they are PERFECT.

Why do you, wallie-x, think you are PERFECT?

[StrangerWitCandy]

I'm a 21 year old gay man who's been in a monogamous relationship for over 2 years. Your generalizations do not apply to me or many of the homosexual people I know.

You want to talk about promiscuity in gays? How about you look at how promiscuous lesbians are. Maybe then you'd realize it has everything to do with gender and nothing to do with sexual orientation. And even so, it still does not apply to a great number of homosexual men such as my boyfriend and I.

[sgtshortness]

Oops, blacks are more likely to be involved with drugs and get into jail.

Guess we should discriminate against them too.

[Wallie_x]

Skippy wrote: Whilst you've made some interesting arguments... WHO CARES! You've bagged the crap out of Homosexuals and made me feel really sad for a few of them but I dont see why it was worth the effort you put in.

Informed Choice: a medical term for telling a person both the benefits and consequence of an action e.g. prior to surgery, starting a new drug etc. After discussing the pro's and con's it is then up to the person to decide what they will choose.

Why my effort? Knowledge dispels ignorance. I was doing research on an issue related to gay sexual behavior and came across these resources. Even I was taken aback.

Most people don't know these dismal statistics (perhaps neither do a lot of gay's). The liberal propaganda machine has never mentioned them to my reckoning. At any rate, the stats are what they are. Let the readers decide for themselves.

Besides, the normalcy is relative is nonsense.


George W Bush wrote: People who have this opinion tend to think they are PERFECT.

Why do you, wallie-x, think you are PERFECT?

Fully, an illogical premise and conclusion. If I thought I was perfect, why would I often pray and ask God to help me be a better father to my beautiful daughter, and a better husband to my equally beautiful wife?

sgtshortness wrote: Oops, blacks are more likely to be involved with drugs and get into jail.

Guess we should discriminate against them too.

Another fully irrational statement. Please show me where and how I have discriminated against anyone? I am not a prejudice person. What I have stated here is what I believe are facts. I do not dislike gays. I dislike certain of their behaviors.

CONTINUITY

Eating excessively is abnormal and undesirable
Drinking excessively is abnormal and undesirable
Talking excessively is abnormal and undesirable
Passing an excessive amount of flatulence is abnormal and undesirable
Sexual promiscuity e.g. 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers is normal and desirable?

Using another person solely for the purpose of sexual gratification has nothing to do with intimacy and love. It is a sign of hedonism gone berserk, and a deep spiritual dissatisfaction with one's life.

[sgtshortness]

Quote: Another fully irrational statement. Please show me where and how I have discriminated against anyone? I am not a prejudice person. What I have stated here is what I believe are facts. I do not dislike gays. I dislike certain of their behaviors.

Sorry, misunderstood your posts.

You said that because homosexuality and promiscuity are corrolated, homosexuality causes promiscuity. However, couldn't it be the way society treats homosexuals that brings on mental problems?

And what about homosexuals that have a loving relationship? We don't want to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater.

[Enoch]

Wallie_x wrote: I do not dislike gays.
You honestly expect us to believe that?

Wallie_x wrote: Sexual promiscuity e.g. 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers is normal and desirable?

Using another person solely for the purpose of sexual gratification has nothing to do with intimacy and love. It is a sign of hedonism gone berserk, and a deep spiritual dissatisfaction with one's life.
Calling the sexual practices of some homosexual men hedonistic indicates that you do dislike gays. But, really, it doesn't matter what your motivation is.

You have on thing correct, and that is "using another person solely for the purpose of sexual gratification has nothing to do with intimacy and love." Straight or gay, that is true. There are a lot of straight men who have meaningless one night stands with women. Where is your vocal condemnation of them?

Or are you only condemning gay men because of the numbers found in that ONE poll taken in San Francisco? Using an isolated sample, such as men only from ONE city, to draw conclusions about the whole of a population, gay men, is nothing more than a hasty generalization.

Do not state it as fact that all gay men, or even a majority of gay men, are rampantly promiscuous until you can find data to support that contention. The poll you have been citing may be accurate for the men in one city, but it is fallacious to try to use that to make assertions for the homosexual population as a whole.