Born a Homo? Part II.

[nosarcasm]

Ummm, this is exactly what I said. However, the total number of Homosexual males is so much smaller (1/25th) than the total number of hetro's that there are still more higly promiscuous hetro's than homo's. Get it?

Wade.

What is the percentage of homosexuals in the Us, is there a study about it

Spains leftist government recently stated it assumes 10% of all Spaniards
are homosexual.

 

[007]

If you just said you're not a doctor or psychaitrist, how can you make that claim?

Well golly gee DK... lets just look at that then. No I'm not a "doctor", but if I see someone fall off a ladder and break his arm, with bones sticking through the skin, gee, I MIGHT be able to tell he's got a broken arm.

And if I saw a man kissing, then sucking dick, then sticking his penis up another mans ass, no, I'm not a doctor, but again, I KNOW THAT'S FUCKING SICK! And if you DON'T think that behavior is sick DK, then you're beyond seeing or admitting reason, and not worth debating the issue with.

 

[007]

The empircal evidence from study of mamals indicates that about 1-2% of the population is "born gay". This leaves the remaining 2-5% of population who are gay, and for these individuals, it is a "choice" (well, at least it is not congenital).

For the non-congenital gays, a "cure" is probably possible. But that does not mean that a "cure" is possible for all gays.

Wade.

Aside from your comment on ANIMALS, which has exactly ZERO relavence to HUMAN BEINGS, your other assertion is the most sensible thing you've said in this thread. I actually agree with it.

 

[wade]

What is the percentage of homosexuals in the Us, is there a study about it

Spains leftist government recently stated it assumes 10% of all Spaniards
are homosexual.

It depends on what the population of the figures are. In general, if you look at the sexually active age bracket of about 16-60, then about 8-12% is probably an approximately accurate figure for the number of homosexual and bi-sexuals in America, depending somewhat on the definitions used. If you figure it against the total population, the figures are probably more in the 5-7% range.

Furthermore, it depends a lot on who is doing the statistics and what kind of area they are being done in. Typically, studies are done by polls, and cities show much higher rates of homosexuality than rural areas. This might be because cities simply have much higher sexual activity levels than rural areas, or it might simply be that city dwellers are more likely to answer the polls honestly than rural populations.

Finally, it depends on the definition of "homosexual". Many surveys simply ask "have you enaged in sexual relations with a member of the same sex in the last year?", and if the answer is yes the person is considered homosexual, if no then they are assumed heterosexual. It is obvious that niether assumption is necessarily correct.

"In 1994, when a University of Chicago survey team asked 3,432 men and women between the ages of 18 and 59 about their sexual behavior, 10.2% of the men and 2.1% of the women in the country's top twelve largest cities acknowledged having had sex with someone of the same sex in the year preceding the survey. Asked about their entire adulthood, 16.4% of the men and 6.2% of the women said they had had at least one sexual partner of their own sex. In rural areas, the figures drop considerably... "

----------

"In 1994, when a University of Chicago survey team asked 3,432 men and women between the ages of 18 and 59 about their sexual behavior, 10.2% of the men and 2.1% of the women in the country's top twelve largest cities acknowledged having had sex with someone of the same sex in the year preceding the survey. Asked about their entire adulthood... 6.2% of the women said they had had at least one sexual partner of their own sex. "
http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_309.html

If you look at the charts at the above page, and try to come up with a realistic figure, I think 4-5% is probably a pretty reasonable estimate of what I consider defines a homosexual, which is someone who would rather have sex with a member of the same sex than the opposite sex. Counting in bi-sexuals, those who like to have sex with either men or women with no strong preference, the figure probably jumps a percent or two.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Aside from your comment on ANIMALS, which has exactly ZERO relavence to HUMAN BEINGS, your other assertion is the most sensible thing you've said in this thread. I actually agree with it.

Why does it have zero relevance to human beings? Are we back to that "created in Gods image" crap again?

 

[jimnyc]

The only thing closed here Jimmy is your mind.

Rubbish, plain and simple.

You are accusing me of having a closed mind for pointing out the FACTS.

A gay man cannot marry another man - FACT
A straight man cannot marry another man - FACT
A gay woman cannot marry another woman - FACT
A straight woman cannot marry another woman - FACT
Gay citizens cannot receive rights that straight citizens do if they marry amongst the same sex - FACT
Straight citizens cannot receive rights that other straight citizens do if they marry amongst the same sex - FACT

The standards being held to marriage are 100% identical - FACT
Gays receive no more and no less rights than a straight citizen - FACT

These FACTS cannot be denied and cannot be debated. You are beating a dead horse and trying to apply a different set of standards and rewards for people that engage in deviant behavior. From the beginning of this fiasco the queers have been trying to obfuscate the issue and claim 'denied rights'. Your regurgitation of overplayed invalid arguments are not only repetitive, but also lame.

Queers and their supporters should at least be honest going forward. They want benefits EXTENDED/MODIFIED for those that engage in behavior that is abnormal. They want to be accepted by mainstream society and given a stamp of approval. They want to be considered/treated just like you and I.

I'm sorry, they aren't like you and I. Their wires are obviously criss-crossed and I couldn't care less how they got that way. I just know the proper resolution is to help with a cure and medical assistance, not to accept the abnormality and treat it with rewards.

 

[jimnyc]

Why does it have zero relevance to human beings? Are we back to that "created in Gods image" crap again?

Because an ANIMAL is an ANIMAL. You really don't see that comparing evolved humans to animals is ludicrous? Since the water buffalo did it that means we should accept similar behavior by a human? Animals shit in the woods and streets every day. Should we consider that to be normal behavior by humans? This argument is so stupid and lame, I don't know why I bother replying sometimes.

 

[MissileMan]

Rubbish, plain and simple.

You are accusing me of having a closed mind for pointing out the FACTS.

A gay man cannot marry another man - FACT
A straight man cannot marry another man - FACT
A gay woman cannot marry another woman - FACT
A straight woman cannot marry another woman - FACT
Gay citizens cannot receive rights that straight citizens do if they marry amongst the same sex - FACT
Straight citizens cannot receive rights that other straight citizens do if they marry amongst the same sex - FACT

The standards being held to marriage are 100% identical - FACT
Gays receive no more and no less rights than a straight citizen - FACT

These FACTS cannot be denied and cannot be debated. You are beating a dead horse and trying to apply a different set of standards and rewards for people that engage in deviant behavior. From the beginning of this fiasco the queers have been trying to obfuscate the issue and claim 'denied rights'. Your regurgitation of overplayed invalid arguments are not only repetitive, but also lame.

Queers and their supporters should at least be honest going forward. They want benefits EXTENDED/MODIFIED for those that engage in behavior that is abnormal. They want to be accepted by mainstream society and given a stamp of approval. They want to be considered/treated just like you and I.

I'm sorry, they aren't like you and I. Their wires are obviously criss-crossed and I couldn't care less how they got that way. I just know the proper resolution is to help with a cure and medical assistance, not to accept the abnormality and treat it with rewards.

Wow! Look at all those FACTS! Try these facts on for size.

Heterosexuals are allowed to find and marry someone that they are both emotionally and physically attracted to. FACT

Homosexuals are not allowed this same right. FACT

Marriage is the foundation of the family unit. It is designed to make it more likely that children will be raised by a mother and a father. However, marriage is more about companionship than procreation. Procreation takes place whether people are married or not.

So if we allow gays to join in a civil union (defined as a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults) and extend to them the same additional legal rights as a married couple, what's the beef?

 

[jimnyc]

Wow! Look at all those FACTS! Try these facts on for size.

Heterosexuals are allowed to find and marry someone that they are both emotionally and physically attracted to. FACT

And if that someone happens to be of the same sex, they are not allowed to marry. Same standards for heteros AND queers.

Homosexuals are not allowed this same right. FACT

They have the EXACT same rights. Can I marry a tree if I feel emotionally and physically attracted to it? What about a dog?

They are granted the EXACT same rights so long as they follow the same standards. They wish extended standards to qualify for the same rights.

Marriage is the foundation of the family unit. It is designed to make it more likely that children will be raised by a mother and a father. However, marriage is more about companionship than procreation. Procreation takes place whether people are married or not.

So if we allow gays to join in a civil union (defined as a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults) and extend to them the same additional legal rights as a married couple, what's the beef?

I don't recall ever stating I was against civil unions. I couldn't care less what the queers do, so long as I don't have to be lumped into the same group as them. I say send them medical assistance their way, but I'll be content as long as they aren't deemed similar or the same as other 'married' couples, because they are far from it.

 

[007]

So if we allow gays to join in a civil union (defined as a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults) and extend to them the same additional legal rights as a married couple, what's the beef?

A civil union is EXACTLY what they should have. Give them ALL the same rights and benefits granted a married man and woman. Fuck it. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I wish they'd do it, if it would get them the fuck off the marriage thing. Because that will NEVER fly. The majority of people know it's wrong, and they'll never let it happen.

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

First: Homesexuality can not be taught. The population of homosexual people in the U.S. is 2% this low number suggests that homosexuality does not "rub off", and that it cannot be "taught" to children. This i say because there have been homosexuals since the earliest days of human civilization and dont you think i higher portion of the population would be gay due to the fact that they would have been "rubbing off" on us for over 5000 years. I know this due to a college class im taking not sume biased website.

Second: Homosexuals are not more likely to spread stds of anykind. I know this because of numerous health thext i have read not a biased web site.

Third: Homosexuality is not a psychiatric illness. I know this because gay and lesbian people do not show other signs of mental illness such as people with schizophrenia, bi-polar, depression, etc. Also people who are pedophiles and abuse animals sexually also show signs of mental illness so a compariosson of the two cannot be made. This i know because of a college level class in Psychology i have taken these facts were stated in text, video and person by DOCTORS AND PROFESSORS OF PSYCHOLOGY, I did not get this info from a biased websites

to end i will say this i too do not understand the attraction between homosexuals but i also do not condem that which i do not understand. Most people who do oppose it are fundamental literalist with little or no knowledge of the history of their own religion, and due to the things ive seen them post contaning much profanity, vainity, cruelty(all sins according to the christian faith), and insulting retarded children with jest(which is really mean!) does not lead me to believe they are very great christians.

 

[Joz]

First:..... I know this due to a college class im taking not sume biased website.

Second:....... I know this because of numerous health thext i have read not a biased web site.

Third: .....This i know because of a college level class in Psychology i have taken these facts were stated in text, video and person by DOCTORS AND PROFESSORS OF PSYCHOLOGY, I did not get this info from a biased websites

And that makes it so???? Where might I find, The Gospel According to Infitias Fatalis? Get off your high horse.

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

And that makes it so???? Where might I find, The Gospel According to Infitias Fatalis? Get off your high horse.

Please let me apologize, i did not intend to sound like i was on a "high horse"
i was merely making a point that the people on this post were arguing using facts from websites that are not based on facts and that there are places out there that have facts. And i suppose the words i know were a poor choice i should have used "i think this because" again i am sorry i sounded arrogant that is not what i desired.

 

[007]

First: Homesexuality can not be taught.

Yes it can. Period.

Second: Homosexuals are not more likely to spread stds of anykind.

Yes they are...

Homosexuality and the Spread of AIDS

The Bathhouse Phenomenon: HIV has very low infectivity, yet there is an AIDS epidemic. Why? Promiscuous behavior increases the likelihood of HIV infection, but does not entirely explain the spread of HIV among male homosexuals.

Anal sex plays a major role in HIV infection. For instance, in a sample of 930 British homosexuals, penetrative sexual partners more accurately measured HIV risk than mere number of partners. (1) The dangerousness of anal sex follows from the thin epithelial tissue that forms the rectal wall compared to the vagina, which not only has a thick wall but a muscular tube surrounding the vaginal passage too. Rectal bleeding not infrequently accompanies anal sex (see here). Rectal bleeding, especially bleeding from anal warts (not uncommon among homosexuals) considerably increases the risk of HIV transmission.

Some specifics of anal eroticism among homosexuals such as rectal insertion of large objects (see 1, 2, 3) and prolonged rectal stimulation (see here) often leave tiny tears in the rectal wall (anal fissures). Upon getting anal fissures, rather than refraining from inserting objects in their rectum, homosexuals use butt plugs or rectal dilators to help accommodate penises or other objects (see here).

Homosexuals that frequent bathhouses can easily exceed the promiscuity of many prostitutes. Consider the population of all sexually active homosexual men. We can compute the average rate of homosexual contacts for this group. Within this group, a small number of homosexuals, such as those that frequently visit bathhouses, will have a rate of homosexual contact considerably in excess of the average for the entire group. Thompson has shown that an effective doubling of the average sexual contact rate among homosexuals could result from 5% of homosexuals having an activity level 7-8 times that of the less active 95% of homosexuals. (2-7) This is the bathhouse phenomenon, which initiated the AIDS epidemic in the West. (6) Click here to download a pdf file that describes a simplified model of the bathhouse phenomenon. If you are unable to read this file, get the Adobe acrobat reader here.

The bathhouse phenomenon is typically observed in big cities since homosexuals often migrate to big cities, looking for sex. For instance, New York City accounted for 20% of the AIDS cases in the U.S. during the first decade of the epidemic. (8) Likewise, HIV infection was first diagnosed among Swedish MSM in Stockholm, followed by those in Malmo and Gothenburg (2 major cities in southern Sweden), as well as in the urbanized counties west of Stockholm. (9)

Even if white heterosexuals were as promiscuous as male homosexuals, the incidence of anal sex per sexual encounter would be considerably less because the men would not take anything in their rectum and most penetration of women would involve the vagina. Additionally, compared to male homosexuals, considerably fewer heterosexual women desire or insert penises, foreign bodies, or fists in their rectum with the frequency or duration per episode characteristic of male homosexuals; i.e., in the event of anal sex, their anorectal lining is more likely to be intact. It is obvious that white heterosexuals could not have initiated the AIDS epidemic in the First-World, and do not maintain it either. The AIDS epidemic in the West results from an unholy trinity that occurs in a minority of male homosexuals, namely that of extreme promiscuity, anal sex, and the specifics of anal eroticism that compromise the integrity of the anorectal lining. The behavior of African-Americans is related more to an endemic among themselves than to the epidemic among Americans in general.

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/bathhouse.htm

Third: Homosexuality is not a psychiatric illness.

Whether or not it is a mental illness, or just simply a wrong choice, the debate on that issue rages on. So if you are going to make grandios statements as if they were fact WITHOUT proof, your credibility is going to go south rather quickly here.

 

[nakedemperor]

Anal sex is practiced by many people, not just gays. You should go on a public health crusade, not a crusade to rid the world of gays. The AIDs epidemic in Africa is not fueled by homosexuality-- it is fueled by unprotected sex and the lack of screening of one partner by the other.

Anal sex is also not practiced by all gays.

If you're concerned about this, you should help provide information about proper protection for gays, and advocate having your partner tested for sexual diseases before intercourse.

 

[no1tovote4]

Anal sex is practiced by many people, not just gays. You should go on a public health crusade, not a crusade to rid the world of gays. The AIDs epidemic in Africa is not fueled by homosexuality-- it is fueled by unprotected sex and the lack of screening of one partner by the other.

Anal sex is also not practiced by all gays.

If you're concerned about this, you should help provide information about proper protection for gays, and advocate having your partner tested for sexual diseases before intercourse.

It is also fueled by a misunderstanding of the disease and how it is contracted and "cured". There are places where infant rapes have increased by a huge amount because it is believed that if you have sex with an infant it will "cure" your ailment.

AIDS has spread for many reasons in Africa, the largest of those is simple education.

 

[NATO AIR]

It is also fueled by a misunderstanding of the disease and how it is contracted and "cured". There are places where infant rapes have increased by a huge amount because it is believed that if you have sex with an infant it will "cure" your ailment.

AIDS has spread for many reasons in Africa, the largest of those is simple education.

If I may share my personal experience... I witnessed the devastation ignorance and the lack of simple education about AIDS causes in Africa. I watched good people, including pregnant women and children, die because they lacked the resources and education to defend themselves against AIDS.

as with the gay community in the 80's, ignorance leads to disbelief of the epidemic, which causes more suffering and death.

here, as in south africa, we have people who try to demonize those with AIDS or those who are gay.

its a tragic view and only leads to more suffering and death.

 

[wade]

Because an ANIMAL is an ANIMAL. You really don't see that comparing evolved humans to animals is ludicrous? Since the water buffalo did it that means we should accept similar behavior by a human? Animals shit in the woods and streets every day. Should we consider that to be normal behavior by humans? This argument is so stupid and lame, I don't know why I bother replying sometimes.

Instinct and genetic drive are common to all animals. Humans are just a type of animal, so this applies to humans as well.

 

[jimnyc]

Instinct and genetic drive are common to all animals. Humans are just a type of animal, so this applies to humans as well.

So you're saying it's ok and natural if we decide to shit in the woods and in the streets? It may be instinctive of an animal that hasn't evolved, but it's also instinctive for a human to use a toilet! It's also instinctive for many animals to eat their newborns. Would it be considered natural if a human mother did this after childbirth?

Lame, lame, lame argument!

 

[MissileMan]

So you're saying it's ok and natural if we decide to shit in the woods and in the streets? It may be instinctive of an animal that hasn't evolved, but it's also instinctive for a human to use a toilet! It's also instinctive for many animals to eat their newborns. Would it be considered natural if a human mother did this after childbirth?

Lame, lame, lame argument!

I'm not agreeing with Wade's point but using a toliet is not instinctive in humans. We all had to be trained to do so.