Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

UrielsFyre wrote: 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.

[Sarcasm]
I thought all gay men lived in San Francisco.
[/Sarcasm]

[mattwa33193]

Wallie_x wrote: The clamor for 'equal rights' by liberals and gays for their lifestyles and views has more than captured its share of media attention these last few years. And with the fallacious idea of moral relativism sweeping a 'dumbed down' and P.C. Americana academia, the most recent under 25 generation has shown more acceptance of gays than any preceding one. To the credit of the gay propaganda machine, it looks like the gay community may well be pulling off their play on morals and facts.



Moral relativism? I am a moral absolutist, and the one and only moral I believe in is this:

If what you are doing does not impinge on the rights of another, it is moral.

Homosexuality doesn't deprive anyone of anything to which they are entitled. Therefore, it is moral.

On the other hand, your morality is relative to your intrepretation of the Bible. It is subject to change for as long as you are willing to accept that you are still capable of learning from the scriptures.

But it's OK, because you fooling yourself doesn't impinge on any of my rights :)

[Wallie_x]

mattwa33193 wrote: If what you are doing does not impinge on the rights of another, it is moral.

So its acceptable for a person to engage in watching child porno or any other thing society considers amoral? What happens after the person has so polluted their spirit that they go out and rape or kill a child, is it only then that their behavior is amoral?

Get real, your logic is an adamant denial of what a human being is: a spiritual entity. We have two psycho-spiritual sides: one that is animal, and tends toward nothing but self-centered gratification; and the other with is spiritual, capable of love and becoming born into Gods image. Which ever you feed you become. There is nothing neutral about any behavior that feeds the animal. Or do you think child molesters are born that way?

UrielsFyre wrote: 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.

Are we fishing for straws here? Gays in Frisco are more open about who they are and more likely to be truthful about their behavior, not less. If anything this is a better cross section of what true gay sexuality would be like in a less restricted milieu if left to their own devices.

[Zoot]

Quote: So its acceptable for a person to engage in watching child porno or any other thing society considers amoral? What happens after the person has so polluted their spirit that they go out and rape or kill a child, is it only then that their behavior is amoral?

What society considers amoral changes from time to time, society to society. The concern with child porn, however, is not the child porn itself, but the fact that it encourages an industry that impinges on children's rights and (much more debatably) encourages sexual assault, which impinges on children's rights.

So Wallie, you're basically conceding his point by bringing up impingements of rights as an argument against his point that rights-impingement is the standard of morality.


Quote: Get real, your logic is an adamant denial of what a human being is: a spiritual entity. We have two psycho-spiritual sides: one that is animal, and tends toward nothing but self-centered gratification; and the other with is spiritual, capable of love and becoming born into Gods image. Which ever you feed you become. There is nothing neutral about any behavior that feeds the animal. Or do you think child molesters are born that way?

Interesting, yes. The animal side and the spiritual, love-capable side. Okay, that's one theory.

Now, I'm going to posit a different, though very similar, theory. Basically, people are whole, not split in two, but have two invisible alien unicorns floating above their heads - one that makes people love, and the other that makes people molest children. And the invisible alien unicorns, they're the ones... One of the invisible alien unicorns tries to get the person to love and serve the invisible alien dragon, which very much loves the person and created all of the world with magic. And the other invisible alien unicorn just plain hates the Great Invisible Dragon out of pure spite because it's a naughty naughty bad invisible alien unicorn.

So... just throwing it out there. That's an alternative theory of human nature. I guess, you know, whichever one you arbitrarily pick is up to you, but it surely has a big impact on this debate.

[mattwa33193]

Wallie_x wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: If what you are doing does not impinge on the rights of another, it is moral.

So its acceptable for a person to engage in watching child porno or any other thing society considers amoral? What happens after the person has so polluted their spirit that they go out and rape or kill a child, is it only then that their behavior is amoral?

Get real, your logic is an adamant denial of what a human being is: a spiritual entity. We have two psycho-spiritual sides: one that is animal, and tends toward nothing but self-centered gratification; and the other with is spiritual, capable of love and becoming born into Gods image. Which ever you feed you become. There is nothing neutral about any behavior that feeds the animal. Or do you think child molesters are born that way?



Nonsense.

Child porn violates the rights of the child. It is, therefore, immoral. Same with pedophilia.

BTW, until such time as anyone can show that they can "cure" pedophilia, I would agree that they are born that way. If pedophilia was learned behavior, it could be unlearned. It can't, so it isn't. I can make a very strong case that faith in God can't cure pedophilia - see "Catholic Priests". That being the case, the only viable options for dealing with child molesters is incarceration for life (which is contrary to the goal of our prison system, "rehabilitation"), or death.

[Prole]

Wallie_x wrote: Are we fishing for straws here? Gays in Frisco are more open about who they are and more likely to be truthful about their behavior, not less. If anything this is a better cross section of what true gay sexuality would be like in a less restricted milieu if left to their own devices.
No one is denying that the gay males are being dishonest about their sexual habits, but that gay males in San Francisco are indcitive of ALL gay males.

The sexual habits of people, whether male or female, gay or straight, in San Francisco may (and certainly does) differ from those in Minneapolis, rural Texas, and everywhere else. This is statistics 101; if you are trying to make an assertion about an entire population, you take a sample from the entire population.

mattwa wrote: BTW, until such time as anyone can show that they can "cure" pedophilia, I would agree that they are born that way. If pedophilia was learned behavior, it could be unlearned. It can't, so it isn't. I can make a very strong case that faith in God can't cure pedophilia - see "Catholic Priests". That being the case, the only viable options for dealing with child molesters is incarceration for life (which is contrary to the goal of our prison system, "rehabilitation"), or death.
Child molestation has an extremely strong link with sexual repression and (I believe, though am not quite as certain) family issues especially related to child abuse.

The former reason is why child molestation among Catholic priests has become so disgustingly common. Complete celibacy and sexual repression wrecks havoc on metal health. Humans have been evolved for hundreds of millions of years to be sexual creatures, it is one of our strongest desires, and merely ignoring those desires don't make them go away; they make them manifest elsewhere.

[Enoch]

Wallie_x wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: 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.

Are we fishing for straws here? Gays in Frisco are more open about who they are and more likely to be truthful about their behavior, not less. If anything this is a better cross section of what true gay sexuality would be like in a less restricted milieu if left to their own devices. It appears that you have a misunderstanding about how quantitative research works. To draw conclusions about a whole population based on an isolated sample is inappropriate and a generalization.

Using one city, and the sample drawn there from, to make conclusions about a whole population is faulty research, plain and simple.

[Drake]

43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers

I must agree, Wallie, that these numbers are staggering. You've really struck a chord with a few here. I'm surprised by the viciousness of the response from the forum(particularly the normally mild-mannered Prole). I'm not here to attack you. Rather, I think your information needs to be considered seriously. Even if the poll is less than adequate, the stats are disturbing and indicative of a problem. Gays and those who care about them ought to be most concerned about the data offered.

Thanks for your post.

[Prole]

Drake wrote: 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers

I must agree, Wallie, that these numbers are staggering. You've really struck a chord with a few here. I'm surprised by the viciousness of the response from the forum(particularly the normally mild-mannered Prole). I'm not here to attack you. Rather, I think your information needs to be considered seriously. Even if the poll is less than adequate, the stats are disturbing and indicative of a problem. Gays and those who care about them ought to be most concerned about the data offered.

Thanks for your post.
Being gay incoporates many things for people. Sexual orientation is the definitive factor for all, but being part of a social group is important to people to varying extents.

Homosexuality is somewhat unique, in that gays make up only about 2% of the population. There is a drive for some element of social cohesion, if for nothing else than to meet other gays; like heterosexuals, gay people are to varying extents picky about whom they prefer to date, and merely being gay alone does not mean mutual attraction any more than having a heterosexual male and female meet each other. Additonally, gay rights have become a central issue to get behind. Being gay, then, involves to some degree becoming involved in gay culture and part of a gay social unit.

But that does not mean that they should all really care about the decisions of other gays. I am by no means accepting the absolute tripe that Wallie continues to spout about promiscious sexuality being mentally unhealthy or damaging one's spiritual self, but can acknowledge that if nothing else, it is physically dangerous in terms of STIs.

We all know that it is the choice of gays to engage in whatever consenting behavior they so choose; I do not believe that ability is in contention. Is it physically dangerous? Most certainly yes, in terms of STIs, and I don't think promiscuous sexuality is for everyone; then again, this poll is indicative only of a small cross-section of gays in a fairly culturally unique city (especially as it pertains to gays), so I don't think it is indicative.

Should gays be worried about the actions of other gays? Sure, in the same way that blacks should be worried about other blacks, Oregonians should be worried about other Oregonians, etc. It is an identity that people have no control over, but one which on both a personal and social level can be given as much weight as they want.

As far as actually being able to do anything, though, a whether gay or straight, a person really can't do much to impact other's promiscuity than regulate their own behavior, and perhaps offer their own opinion.

But there are more religious activists denouncing ANY gay sexuality as "sinful" then there are gays at all; I seriously doubt that a few people trying to discourage promiscuity will make any difference to about how individual gays feel about their own sexual habits.

[Drake]

Prole wrote:

But that does not mean that they should all really care about the decisions of other gays. I am by no means accepting the absolute tripe that Wallie continues to spout about promiscious sexuality being mentally unhealthy or damaging one's spiritual self, but can acknowledge that if nothing else, it is physically dangerous in terms of STIs.

So, you honestly don't believe that someone who is promiscuous to that degree would likely have emotional issues he is suffering from?

Prole wrote:
As far as actually being able to do anything, though, a whether gay or straight, a person really can't do much to impact other's promiscuity than regulate their own behavior, and perhaps offer their own opinion.


How about promoting awareness and offering help? To do these things would of course include recognizing that it is a problem beyond the danger of STIs. Are you willing to do that? Is the entire gay community willing to do that?

[spearsy23]

Drake wrote: Prole wrote:

But that does not mean that they should all really care about the decisions of other gays. I am by no means accepting the absolute tripe that Wallie continues to spout about promiscious sexuality being mentally unhealthy or damaging one's spiritual self, but can acknowledge that if nothing else, it is physically dangerous in terms of STIs.

So, you honestly don't believe that someone who is promiscuous to that degree would likely have emotional issues he is suffering from?

Prole wrote:
As far as actually being able to do anything, though, a whether gay or straight, a person really can't do much to impact other's promiscuity than regulate their own behavior, and perhaps offer their own opinion.


How about promoting awareness and offering help? To do these things would of course include recognizing that it is a problem beyond the danger of STIs. Are you willing to do that? Is the entire gay community willing to do that?
Wheres your proof that it is a problem beyond std's?

[Prole]

Drake wrote: Prole wrote:

But that does not mean that they should all really care about the decisions of other gays. I am by no means accepting the absolute tripe that Wallie continues to spout about promiscious sexuality being mentally unhealthy or damaging one's spiritual self, but can acknowledge that if nothing else, it is physically dangerous in terms of STIs.

So, you honestly don't believe that someone who is promiscuous to that degree would likely have emotional issues he is suffering from?
Interesting question. If this were true of the entire gay community, I might be a bit more worried. However, consider for a moment what San Francisco is, and the nature of the gay community there. Now, I'm going to make a few leaps, because as neither a San Francisco resident nor a gay I'm quite ignorant about gay culture in San Francisco. But I'll put forward a few plausible notions; please, if anyone knows better, please correct me.

First, the gay culture in San Francisco is different from that of most other places in America and indeed the world. San Francisco is a city more tolerant of gays, has a stronger gay culture presence, and has many gays who choose to live in this city precisely because of this culture. There are a lot of gays in San Francisco who choose to live there because it is so much more accomodating for gays who wish to have promiscuous sex lives. So I really wouldn't take it as much of an model for gays in general.

Am I worried about promiscuity being indicative of emotional or psychological problems? Well, no. I'm pretty young at 19, but out of a pretty diverse cross section of friends in terms of sexual experience, I've not found the more promiscuious ones to be any less mentally healthy. Then again, I've no formal knowledge on such matters, so could easily be missing something.

I believe it is quite possible that many people, regardless of sexuality, use promiscuious sex to fill some void in their life. But people do the same thing with religion, by having pets, etc. And like most religious people and petowners, I believe that people are promiscuious not because they need it to give their life focus, but simply because it is something that they enjoy and believe is right for them.

Drake wrote: Prole wrote: As far as actually being able to do anything, though, a whether gay or straight, a person really can't do much to impact other's promiscuity than regulate their own behavior, and perhaps offer their own opinion.


How about promoting awareness and offering help? To do these things would of course include recognizing that it is a problem beyond the danger of STIs. Are you willing to do that? Is the entire gay community willing to do that?
There is a lot of effort being made, actually, to increase awareness and prevention of STIs within the gay community. And I don't see any proof of promiscuiouty having any dangers beyond STIs; which are you referring to?

I'd like to think I'm promoting awareness just by contributing to PCF, though I'm sure I could probaly do more good in the real world. To be honest, I'm not going to do any real world volunteering, nor do I think everyone in the gay community is, because I believe many other issues deserve more attention. I don't think it is an unworthy cause, there just seem to me to be bigger fish to fry.

[Drake]

Prole wrote:
I believe it is quite possible that many people, regardless of sexuality, use promiscuious sex to fill some void in their life. But people do the same thing with religion, by having pets, etc. And like most religious people and petowners, I believe that people are promiscuious not because they need it to give their life focus, but simply because it is something that they enjoy and believe is right for them.

And if someone spent an inordinate amount of time practicing religion or owned 300 pets, don't you think that's indicative of a problem? The stats we're talking about reflect extreme promiscuity.

Prole wrote:
There is a lot of effort being made, actually, to increase awareness and prevention of STIs within the gay community. And I don't see any proof of promiscuiouty having any dangers beyond STIs; which are you referring to?

I'm talking about recognizing that promiscuity is indicative of a bigger problem. That is, the gay community must admit this is true if they want to address solutions.

[Prole]

Drake wrote: Prole wrote:
I believe it is quite possible that many people, regardless of sexuality, use promiscuious sex to fill some void in their life. But people do the same thing with religion, by having pets, etc. And like most religious people and petowners, I believe that people are promiscuious not because they need it to give their life focus, but simply because it is something that they enjoy and believe is right for them.

And if someone spent an inordinate amount of time practicing religion or owned 300 pets, don't you think that's indicative of a problem? The stats we're talking about reflect extreme promiscuity.
Sleeping with 500 people over the course of decades, especially if most of these encounters are one time meetings (which it does sound like), doesn't reflect on overwhelming focus on a single thing.

Members of most major religions go to some kind of worship on a weekly basis, in addition to personal prayer. Dog owners, for instance, should walk their dog at least every other day, in addition to time on additional errands for the dog.

500 may sound like a lot by itself, but it really isn't anything beyond sleeping with 1 person a week for 10 years; there doesn't have to be a huge time investment to reach that number. How many hours many a person spend observing religion, or looking after their pet, surely rivals the amount of time even the most promiscious of homosexuals spend pursuing/having sex.


Drake wrote: Prole wrote: There is a lot of effort being made, actually, to increase awareness and prevention of STIs within the gay community. And I don't see any proof of promiscuiouty having any dangers beyond STIs; which are you referring to?

I'm talking about recognizing that promiscuity is indicative of a bigger problem. That is, the gay community must admit this is true if they want to address solutions.
This is not the gay community; this is a dated study of San Francisco male homosexuals.

And what problem is promisuciouty indicative of?

[Drake]

Prole wrote:
Sleeping with 500 people over the course of decades, especially if most of these encounters are one time meetings (which it does sound like), doesn't reflect on overwhelming focus on a single thing.

Members of most major religions go to some kind of worship on a weekly basis, in addition to personal prayer. Dog owners, for instance, should walk their dog at least every other day, in addition to time on additional errands for the dog.

500 may sound like a lot by itself, but it really isn't anything beyond sleeping with 1 person a week for 10 years; there doesn't have to be a huge time investment to reach that number. How many hours many a person spend observing religion, or looking after their pet, surely rivals the amount of time even the most promiscious of homosexuals spend pursuing/having sex.

You're talking about time investment. It is common for pet owners and others to spend a certain amount of time on their interests. It would not be common for them to have an inordinate number of pets, 300 for instance. It is not common for people to have 500 -1000 sexual partners in the course of a lifetime, not even close. It's a large number, no matter how you look at it.

Prole wrote:
This is not the gay community; this is a dated study of San Francisco male homosexuals.

And what problem is promisuciouty indicative of?

I'm not sure that it is indicative of a problem. That's what we're discussing, whether it is or isn't. FWIW, many psychologists believe sexual promiscuity is used to mask more serious issues; low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, etc.

[mattwa33193]

Choosing gays in San Francisco as the study group is somewhat like choosing pot smokers in Amsterdam. A lot of the people being studied chose to move there because a large part of the culture is based on that aspect of their lives, which would tend to put them at an extreme end of the spectrum. Of course, San Francisco is the obvious choice because you are likely to get less guarded responses and you have a large target group.

It would be interesting to see what a similar study would show in a city with an extremely large gay population where the level of acceptance isn't so high, like Orlando.

So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates extreme promiscuity among gays is any more or less of a problem, or any more or less rooted in other pschological issues than it is among heterosexuals. So is it the combination of promiscuity and the "wrong" sexual preference that makes it an issue?

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: FWIW, many psychologists believe sexual promiscuity is used to mask more serious issues; low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, etc.
I'm going to offer my experiences, as a gay man.

First, the magical 500 figure, as offerred in the study, can not be applied to the whole of the gay male population. It is faulty research to take an isolated sample and use it to draw conclusions about a wide population.

That being said; I used to have meaningless sex myself. I never got anywhere close to the 500 mark, though. In fact, if I were to run the numbers, I might be approaching 20 (over the last 7 years), a number that a lot of straight men probably get to themselves.

I admit that the sex was used as a way to compensate for low self-esteem; which derived from the constant onslaught of messages, such as this "study," saying that gay men were "sick, abnormal, disgusting, heathens," and much more.

Having a constant barrage of messages indicating that so many feel you are less than desirable can take a severe toll on your self-esteem.

So, perhaps, some people should look to themselves to discover why gay men have such low self-esteem, before instantly casting all of the blame on us.

[Prole]

Drake wrote: Prole wrote:
Sleeping with 500 people over the course of decades, especially if most of these encounters are one time meetings (which it does sound like), doesn't reflect on overwhelming focus on a single thing.

Members of most major religions go to some kind of worship on a weekly basis, in addition to personal prayer. Dog owners, for instance, should walk their dog at least every other day, in addition to time on additional errands for the dog.

500 may sound like a lot by itself, but it really isn't anything beyond sleeping with 1 person a week for 10 years; there doesn't have to be a huge time investment to reach that number. How many hours many a person spend observing religion, or looking after their pet, surely rivals the amount of time even the most promiscious of homosexuals spend pursuing/having sex.

You're talking about time investment. It is common for pet owners and others to spend a certain amount of time on their interests. It would not be common for them to have an inordinate number of pets, 300 for instance. It is not common for people to have 500 -1000 sexual partners in the course of a lifetime, not even close. It's a large number, no matter how you look at it.
Let's keep in mind the data we're dealing with is, for all intents and purposes, purely hypothetical; it is dated, limited to an extremely small cross-section, and I seriously doubt its accuracy even then.

That said, no, I don't think it is a huge time investment. A married couple might have sex 500 times in a year without seriously disrupting their life; what's to prevent a homosexual from having 500 partners over the course of a lifetime?


Drake wrote: Prole wrote: This is not the gay community; this is a dated study of San Francisco male homosexuals.

And what problem is promisuciouty indicative of?

I'm not sure that it is indicative of a problem. That's what we're discussing, whether it is or isn't. FWIW, many psychologists believe sexual promiscuity is used to mask more serious issues; low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, etc.
I'm unfamiliar with FWIW; what does it mean?

Regarding promiscuity being indicative of some other psychological problems, I think that is valid. However, I believe that using sex for attention is more of a psychological problem in females than in males. And I really couldn't make much of an assertion either way without an understanding of gay culture in San Francisco; what does sex mean for those involved?

[Drake]

mattwa33193 wrote:
It would be interesting to see what a similar study would show in a city with an extremely large gay population where the level of acceptance isn't so high, like Orlando.

I agree. I think more studies would help.

mattwa33193 wrote:
So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates extreme promiscuity among gays is any more or less of a problem, or any more or less rooted in other pschological issues than it is among heterosexuals. So is it the combination of promiscuity and the "wrong" sexual preference that makes it an issue?

I don't know that the sexual preference makes it any more of an issue. But if we're willing to agree that promiscuity is rooted in psychological issues, can we conclude that gays suffer from these issues to a greater extent than heterosexuals given their higher proclivity towards promiscuity?

[mattwa33193]

Drake wrote: mattwa33193 wrote:
It would be interesting to see what a similar study would show in a city with an extremely large gay population where the level of acceptance isn't so high, like Orlando.

I agree. I think more studies would help.

mattwa33193 wrote:
So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates extreme promiscuity among gays is any more or less of a problem, or any more or less rooted in other pschological issues than it is among heterosexuals. So is it the combination of promiscuity and the "wrong" sexual preference that makes it an issue?

I don't know that the sexual preference makes it any more of an issue. But if we're willing to agree that promiscuity is rooted in psychological issues, can we conclude that gays suffer from these issues to a greater extent than heterosexuals given their higher proclivity towards promiscuity?

If that proved to be the case, I would agree. However, can we agree that one study in San Francisco (or even several studies in San Francisco) doesn't prove that gays are more promiscous than heterosexuals?