Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

[_Livingstone22]

It turns out that bisexual tendencies positively correlates with promiscuity.

Considering that the base of available sexual partners is doubled for bisexuals, that's not surprising.

Well, that is a self evident fact that bisexuals are promiscuous. The only way someone could be bisexual and monogamous is if their partner were both a man and woman in one.

[_Blixa]

It turns out that bisexual tendencies positively correlates with promiscuity.

Considering that the base of available sexual partners is doubled for bisexuals, that's not surprising.

Well, that is a self evident fact that bisexuals are promiscuous. The only way someone could be bisexual and monogamous is if their partner were both a man and woman in one.

*snort*

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Well, that is a self evident fact that bisexuals are promiscuous. The only way someone could be bisexual and monogamous is if their partner were both a man and woman in one.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but to be bisexual just means to be potentially attracted to members of both sexes. You can be bisexual and only mate with one sex. That's often the case for people with only slight to mild bisexual tendencies. You also can practice serial monogamy.

[_Livingstone22]

Well, that is a self evident fact that bisexuals are promiscuous. The only way someone could be bisexual and monogamous is if their partner were both a man and woman in one.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but to be bisexual just means to be potentially attracted to members of both sexes. You can be bisexual and only mate with one sex. That's often the case for people with only slight to mild bisexual tendencies. You also can practice serial monogamy.

No, I wasn't joking...but you are correct if you use the word with that definition. For example: some dictionaries define "homosexual" as someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex, while others (it seems like most to me) define it as someone who has sexual relations to the same sex. And I suppose serial monogamy can work too, though I was just thinking about monogamy as it's practiced in the LDS church--where one mates with only one other for life--at least that's the ideal.

I was talking to a friend of mine who defines himself as bisexual, and he says that it seems more difficult to be bi than even gay. I asked why, and he said that it was so hard to commit to one or the other, but it seems to me no different than a homo or hetero sexual who would have trouble commiting to one particular woman/man.

[_beastie]

I was talking to a friend of mine who defines himself as bisexual, and he says that it seems more difficult to be bi than even gay. I asked why, and he said that it was so hard to commit to one or the other, but it seems to me no different than a homo or hetero sexual who would have trouble commiting to one particular woman/man.

It seems to me your friend is correct.

It's not the same as a hetero or homosexual committing to just one particular man and woman, because there's still a craving that cannot be satisfied. In other words, does the yearning to be with a woman go away just because a bisexual is with a man?

I think the only way that it could be the "same" would be if the bisexual had both a male and female partner to whom he/she was committed.

[_harmony]

I think the only way that it could be the "same" would be if the bisexual had both a male and female partner to whom he/she was committed.

Which could only work by redefining the word commitment.

[_guy sajer]

Sadly, BCSpace is cherry picking quotes from studies, some legitimate, some not, that are compiled on popular conservative apologetics sites with an agenda against homosexuality. As a result, the statistical realities surrounding homosexuality in America becomes clouded. An unfortunate consequence of this is that the legitimate numbers BCSpace references lose crediblity in the eyes of those skeptical of anything he would say. As far as the challenge to my claim that lesbians have more sexual partners on average than heterosexuals is concerned, the reality is a bit more complex. It has to do with the fact that how "lesbian" is defined for research purposes can vary. More specifically, exclusively lesbian individuals tend to have about the same amount of sexual partners on average as heterosexuals and more than hetereosexual women alone. In other words, they are no more promiscuous than men and women together, but are about twice as promiscuous as their hetero gender counterpart. They're less promiscuous than hetero men. However, a significant % of the population has some bisexual tendencies, and if you define lesbian as "near exclusively attracted to women" or "predominately attracted to women" (Adding in 5's and possibly 4's from the Kinsey Scale) you end up with higher promiscuity numbers. It turns out that bisexual tendencies positively correlates with promiscuity. As a result the research offers a range in numbers based on some subtle distinctions.

Oh no, he has a "preponderance" of evidence based on a thorough and exhaustive research on the topic.

Yeah, right.

One thing this thread points out is the importance of separating ideology from science when considering the health implications of "behaviors", "lifestyles," or however we choose to label them. One can be thoroughly open-minded and tolerant but still be open to the possibility that there are important health implications to an "alternative" lifestyle, such as homosexuality. On the one hand, there are biggots like bcspace who want to link health implications to some kind of judgment of God (just fruits) (I suspect bcspace takes secret delight in thinking there's a link between lesbianism and health problems), on the other hand are others who want to label any legitimate suggestion of a link between the two as evidence of biggotry. Either of these approaches is a significant disservice to homosexuals, who both deserve our tolerance and accurate health information.

[_Ren]

on the other hand are others who want to label any legitimate suggestion of a link between the two as evidence of biggotry.

Well, I don't know exactly who you are referencing here, but...
...I don't deny there are links there.

But as Zoidberg pointed out, the important question here is correlation, or causation.

The idea that - simply because one is a homosexual - one is more 'inately' driven to do such things as :

* Abuse their partner (That assertion was completely bogus - as was demonstrated...)
* Take drugs, or other forms of substance abuse
* Die in 'traffic accidents' (Jesus...)

...is simply ludicrous. There is no data to support such absurd conclusions.

What CAN be shown is that placing stress on homosexuals, and declaring them 'outcasts' of society WILL have reprocussions. Why this should be a surprise to anybody...? Who knows - people never cease to amaze me.
Why should it be a surprise that if society 'gives the finger' to homosexuals, that many, many homosexuals will - in return - 'give the finger' to society? And their 'rules'?
Why would any rational, thinking person be in any way shocked by this...?

All these kinds of 'negative' consequences that surround homosexuality are produced by the bigotry of surrounding society.
This couldn't have been made any more obvious when bcspace's own reference made that clear...


One of the 'ace up the sleeves' for the 'neanderthals' - or so they percieve it - is data from 'homosexual-tolerant' countries that still show discrepancies between homosexual groups, and hetrosexual groups.
Of course, what painfully flies over these people's heads is that:

1. Showing that the countries goverment's have taken a homosexual-tolerant stance DOES NOT MEAN that grass-roots bigotry has been eradicated from the population.
...exactly who is dumb enough to beleive that an entire countries population - universally - thinks just like it's goverment? OR are dumb enough to try and fob such a lie onto anybody else?!

I'm still waiting for the 'neanderthals' to demonstrate that there isn't any significant levels of homosexual intolerance still existing within said countries.
...I've asked many times, but never seen it. (The obvious reason being that no such data exists...)

2. Why ignore the great improvements that are realised amongst homosexual groups when bigotry and intolerance IS directly tackled by goverments?!
Well, of course - the reason is obvious...


As beasite correctly pointed it, this is all just a re-run of the racial issues of yester-year.
And anybody who ends up surprised 'by the result' had their head buried in the sand.

[_asbestosman]

I'm still waiting for the 'neanderthals' to demonstrate that there isn't any significant levels of homosexual intolerance still existing within said countries.
...I've asked many times, but never seen it. (The obvious reason being that no such data exists...)

I vaguely recall a conversation I had with Confidential Informant about that. He agreed that those countries may indeed still have significant levels of homosexual intolerance, but that the data from those countries was the best he had to go on at the time. It's kinda hard to make people be nice to each other ya know.

2. Why ignore the great improvements that are realised amongst homosexual groups when bigotry and intolerance IS directly tackled by goverments?!
Well, of course - the reason is obvious...

I'm not sure if it's being purposely ignored or if people just aren't aware of it. I myself wonder what improvements you're talking about. It's not that I doubt that any improvements could be made--I might easily expect a decrease in suicidal tendancies amoung that group--but rather that I hadn't really heard of any from either side.

[_guy sajer]

on the other hand are others who want to label any legitimate suggestion of a link between the two as evidence of biggotry.

Well, I don't know exactly who you are referencing here, but...
...I don't deny there are links there.

But as Zoidberg pointed out, the important question here is correlation, or causation.

The idea that - simply because one is a homosexual - one is more 'inately' driven to do such things as :

* Abuse their partner (That assertion was completely bogus - as was demonstrated...)
* Take drugs, or other forms of substance abuse
* Die in 'traffic accidents' (Jesus...)

...is simply ludicrous. There is no data to support such absurd conclusions.

What CAN be shown is that placing stress on homosexuals, and declaring them 'outcasts' of society WILL have reprocussions. Why this should be a surprise to anybody...? Who knows - people never cease to amaze me.
Why should it be a surprise that if society 'gives the finger' to homosexuals, that many, many homosexuals will - in return - 'give the finger' to society? And their 'rules'?
Why would any rational, thinking person be in any way shocked by this...?

All these kinds of 'negative' consequences that surround homosexuality are produced by the bigotry of surrounding society.
This couldn't have been made any more obvious when bcspace's own reference made that clear...


One of the 'ace up the sleeves' for the 'neanderthals' - or so they percieve it - is data from 'homosexual-tolerant' countries that still show discrepancies between homosexual groups, and hetrosexual groups.
Of course, what painfully flies over these people's heads is that:

1. Showing that the countries goverment's have taken a homosexual-tolerant stance DOES NOT MEAN that grass-roots bigotry has been eradicated from the population.
...exactly who is dumb enough to beleive that an entire countries population - universally - thinks just like it's goverment? OR are dumb enough to try and fob such a lie onto anybody else?!

I'm still waiting for the 'neanderthals' to demonstrate that there isn't any significant levels of homosexual intolerance still existing within said countries.
...I've asked many times, but never seen it. (The obvious reason being that no such data exists...)

2. Why ignore the great improvements that are realised amongst homosexual groups when bigotry and intolerance IS directly tackled by goverments?!
Well, of course - the reason is obvious...


As beasite correctly pointed it, this is all just a re-run of the racial issues of yester-year.
And anybody who ends up surprised 'by the result' had their head buried in the sand.

I don't disagree. My point is that the hypothesis that homosexual behavior/lifestyle has specific health implications (and perhaps negative) ought not be dismissed out of hand as evidence of biggotry. The one article I cited suggests that there MAY in fact be some health implications of lesbianism. We ought not let ideology or political correctness prohibit us from considering this possibility. It is an empirical, not an ideological question.

That said, the context in which one chooses to interpret/understand these issues is a different issue. bcspace appears to want to interpret this in the context of "fruit of their sins," which I think most the rest of us this is deplorable.

I am not refering to canards such as hypotheses linking homosexuality to proclivity for child molestation, etc., but well reasoned hypotheses proposing credible theoretic links between certain behaviors/lifestyles and health outcomes. That is why I asked bcspace to share with us his hypothesis and the basis behind it. As the great researcher he his, he surely understands that our research should be driven by some theoretical framework and correspponding hypotheses. He, of course, did not share his theory or hypotheses. I suspect he has one, though I also suspect that it is not driven by sound inductive theory building but by a homphobic ideology.