Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What does this verse have to do with the conversation?Read Matthew 19:1-11
I posted them because they are true, and reality. So far all you really are doing is kicking up dust. I don't see anything meaty in your posts besides "You're mean" for making you guys look at reality. And come on dude, only about a third of them were about HIV. What about the ones about the high level of promiscuity, and the increase over the years of unprotected sex among them?If you don't have a gay bashing agenda why would you post a few stats thats concentrate on the prevelence of aids in the male homosexual community in one country? Do you just like stirring up discord on an already heated thread?
Why not post stats about the low levels of aids in Lesbian communities in the USA, or the higher levels of aids in heterosexual communities throughout the majority of the world.
It just seems a either a rather smug thing to do or a rather nasty thing to do.
Are the stats you post always one sided and designed to create discord?
Do you have a specifically anti-gay agenda in posting those stats?
If not why did you post them?
You have the citations. Go for it.
I didn't comment on this directly the last time because it wasn't even relevant to your misguided case. Quoting your local temperature and windspeed would have been as relevant. Why, you ask?
* Your sound bite failed to address how this survey took into account false responses, ie people who answered they were faithful or never had extramarital sex when the opposite was actually true. If you want to bring such facts to the table, you should address this.
* These studies are about heterosexual extramarital sex, which doesn't compare well with homosexual extramarital sex (because of that whole lack of gay marriage thing). A much better comparison would be using statistics on premarital heterosexual sex.
Indeed. You're responsible for your own argument, KC, not anyone else.KC,
You brought the quotes up, so you are responsible for their relevancy. I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's your challenge. You are responsible for it. Unless you can prove the statistics faulty they stand untouched. That's the nature of debate. I presented my stats complete with citations. If you want to somehow claim they are bogus it is up to you to prove it.KC,
You brought the quotes up, so you are responsible for their relevancy. I'm not going to do your work for you.
I'm confused. The source for your statistics has been shown to be biased, but it is not your responsibility to find a more reputable source? The onus falls upon others to prove them false even though the source is discredited? How is that debating? It sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'La-la-la-la' while the other side is talking.It's your challenge. You are responsible for it. Unless you can prove the statistics faulty they stand untouched. That's the nature of debate. I presented my stats complete with citations. If you want to somehow claim they are bogus it is up to you to prove it.
I went back to find the statistics posted by Karatecowboy, and his post looks like plagiarism to me, since I see no source citation. Did I miss a source citation for this material?Just some random stats.
The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1 in 715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1 in 165. (Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior and Risk of AIDS,"Family Planning Perspectives 23, no. 3 (May/June 1991) 104). "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" Psychological Reports. Vol. 83, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 847-866.)
Research shows that homosexual men are not getting tested for HIV. A report from the Centers for Disease Control showed that more than three-quarters of the homosexual men studied were unaware they were carrying HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.(Centers for Disease Control, International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain. July 7-12, 2002.
A co-twin study found that men with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as their co-twin to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not explained by mental health or substance abuse disorders. (Herrell, R. et al (1999) "A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men" Archives of General Psychiatry. 56, 10: 867 - 874.)
The rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men is nine times higher than among women and heterosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control, Media Center, 2002)
A study revealed a dramatic increase in anal cancer among homosexual men. This increase is traced to the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer in women and is found in almost all HIV-positive homosexual men. (Report of study at annual meeting of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, June 26, 2002.)
Homosexual men in San Francisco who reported having unprotected anal sex increased from 30% in 1994 to 39% in 1997. Those who said they had unprotected sex with multiple partners grew from 24% to 33% during the same period. (Sack, K. (1999) "For Gay Men, HIV Peril and Rising Drug Use," New York Times. Jan. 29 internet version)
A 1991 study of homosexual men in New York City revealed that the average number of lifetime sexual partners was 308. (Meyer-Balburg H. Exner, T.,Lorenz G., Gruen, R., Gorman, J, Ehrhardt, A (1991) Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men Journal of Sex Research. 28, 1: 3-27.)
According to Centers for Disease Control interviews, 50% of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners, the first several hundred homosexual men diagnosed with AIDS had an average of l,100 lifetime partners. (Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay men. NY: Dutton.)
Clinicians Mattison and McWhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. Most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. Homosexual theorists respond by redefining promiscuity as normal and healthy for homosexual men. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Schmidt, 1995)
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28% having 1,000 or more sex partners. (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)
Among heterosexual couples, 75% of husbands and 90% of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. (Robert T. Michael et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1994) Other studies and surveys confirm the percentage of faithful spouses between 75-81% for husbands and 85-88% for wives. (Michael W. Widerman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlated in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 [1997], pg. 2)
i believe that people with same sex attractions . . . should not be ostracized. But I do believe that ultimately they are hurting themselves in spirit, at the very least. As we can see a lot of these people are hurting themselves physically.
Oh, to clarify, there are plenty of source citations within the text that Karatecowboy posted, but I see no source citation for the text itself. And I doubt Karatecowboy wrote any of this; it sounds like he simply cut and pasted it from a source without attribution. That is plagiarism.I went back to find the statistics posted by Karatecowboy, and his post looks like plagiarism to me, since I see no source citation. Did I miss a source citation for this material?
You can't plagiarize. You need to provide attribution in the form of a formal citation or a link to the original source.
Also, folks, look at the dates on the Bell and Weinberg study (1978) and the Weinberg and Hammersmith study (1981). Studies from nearly 30 years ago? How relevant to today is that?
They appear to stand plagiarized by you!It's your challenge. You are responsible for it. Unless you can prove the statistics faulty they stand untouched. That's the nature of debate. I presented my stats complete with citations. If you want to somehow claim they are bogus it is up to you to prove it.
I saw no proof of biased sources, so I am not sure what you are talking about.I'm confused. The source for your statistics has been shown to be biased, but it is not your responsibility to find a more reputable source? The onus falls upon others to prove them false even though the source is discredited? How is that debating? It sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'La-la-la-la' while the other side is talking.
You know, reading your posts, it seems that even if I went through all that . . . if there were no part where they "adjusted for lies" you would simply wave your hand and say "they could be lying". Or "it might have changed" or something like that. Your mind is shut, you refuse to change your opinion, and nothing could convince you. It's the old saying "you can't reason someone out of a position that they weren't reasoned into".I wish you would read my comments better, so I don't have to keep repeating myself.
Your quotes from the survey of married heterosexuals are too brief to be useful. I am asking a valid question -- How did those conducting the survey factor in people lying? -- which you can presumably answer, since you have that reference in front of you. Your failure to answer leads one to suspect that they did not factor in this source of error, which hurts their conclusions and your case. You're only hurting yourself by refusing to reply.
If you don't want to do that, fine by me. Common sense would dictate that premarital sex would be a better statistic for comparison than extramarital sex (considering homosexual marriages are hard to come by), so I invited you to dig some of them out of your sizable library. And when you do, be sure to remember to also quote the parts where the researchers factor in lying.
First, shame on you for the last paragraph. Your name is Ohioprof, but I wonder what field, because any good scientist knows that research does not simply "go bad" like old bread in the pantry. I do not even have a master's degree, and I know that.I went back to find the statistics posted by Karatecowboy, and his post looks like plagiarism to me, since I see no source citation. Did I miss a source citation for this material?
You can't plagiarize. You need to provide attribution in the form of a formal citation or a link to the original source.
Also, folks, look at the dates on the Bell and Weinberg study (1978) and the Weinberg and Hammersmith study (1981). Studies from nearly 30 years ago? How relevant to today is that?
You know, reading your posts, it seems that even if I went through all that . . . if there were no part where they "adjusted for lies" you would simply wave your hand and say "they could be lying".
because any good scientist knows that research does not simply "go bad" like old bread in the pantry.
Well, what a scientific analysis you have. All five or so of your friends with SSA I am sure is a much more scientific analysis than the Center for Disease Control is capable of. So, what did you use as a control group? Can I see transcripts from your interviews? What was your hypothesis and where is your abstract? Time and time again I show these scientific statistics to people and they wave their hands and shake their heads and say "I know three gay people and they're nothing liek that hurr (or so I think, truth be told I've never asked). So my opinion > the science of experts."
It's like the Holocaust deniers. It's an affront to reality. It's an affront to common sense. Every time they do that I can almost picture the embodiment of ignorance, arch-backed and snaggle-toothed, hopping up and down in a dance of victory.
I gave you proper citations. The Journal of Sexual behavior is a peer-reviewed scientific publication and is available through just about any university library or from multiple online database such as EBSCO, so waving your hand and saying "liar, liar" will not work. Since the citations are properly done I will not run and do your work for you and say "here, see!" for you just to come up with another lame excuse to not face reality. Actually, here you go: http://www.cdc.gov .There ya go.
JESUS HAS fully agreed with EXACTLY what GOD means by marriage. And since MARRIAGE is described to be only between a man and a woman, that negates any attempt by people calling themselves "christian" from assuming that marriage can be any other sort of committed relationship. AND since sex is not condoned outside of marrage, homosexual (where sexual contact occures) are in error.What does this verse have to do with the conversation?
I wish you would read my comments better, so I don't have to keep repeating myself.
Your quotes from the survey of married heterosexuals are too brief to be useful. I am asking a valid question -- How did those conducting the survey factor in people lying? -- which you can presumably answer, since you have that reference in front of you. Your failure to answer leads one to suspect that they did not factor in this source of error, which hurts their conclusions and your case. You're only hurting yourself by refusing to reply.
If you don't want to do that, fine by me. Common sense would dictate that premarital sex would be a better statistic for comparison than extramarital sex (considering homosexual marriages are hard to come by), so I invited you to dig some of them out of your sizable library. And when you do, be sure to remember to also quote the parts where the researchers factor in lying.
And the source of your statistics have been shown to be under the control of liberal homosexual supporting organizations. Does the pot only accept it's own rationalizations?I'm confused. The source for your statistics has been shown to be biased, but it is not your responsibility to find a more reputable source? The onus falls upon others to prove them false even though the source is discredited? How is that debating? It sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'La-la-la-la' while the other side is talking.
I am a professor of history, and I teach writing.I saw no proof of biased sources, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
You know, reading your posts, it seems that even if I went through all that . . . if there were no part where they "adjusted for lies" you would simply wave your hand and say "they could be lying". Or "it might have changed" or something like that. Your mind is shut, you refuse to change your opinion, and nothing could convince you. It's the old saying "you can't reason someone out of a position that they weren't reasoned into".
First, shame on you for the last paragraph. Your name is Ohioprof, but I wonder what field, because any good scientist knows that research does not simply "go bad" like old bread in the pantry. I do not even have a master's degree, and I know that.
Second, some of it is copied and pasted, and yes I can do that, because I just did. You are applying all these arbitrary writing standards to an informal forum debate. Look at your own posts with its several grammatical and spelling errors. Until you hold yourself to basic grammatical writing rules I suggest you stop pointing the finger, because you have three pointing back at you.
All you guys are trying to do is exhaust me by raising red herrings, changing the subject, and sending me on a wild goose hunt. I'd like to convince you of the truth, but your minds are closed to it.
Some would do wise to learn from the historical facts they strive to repeat.I am a professor of history, and I teach writing.
Plagiarism is never acceptable, my friend. You need to cite your source. You cannot just cut and paste and insert someone else's words as your own into your text without quotation marks and attribution.
As for the dates of the research, since you are talking about present-day gay people, a study from 1978 is clearly out of date. So is a study from 1981.
Finally, what errors in grammar and spelling of mine have you detected? I will gladly clear them up, but I don't see any.
I saw no proof of biased sources, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
Of course, if you pulled your information from elswhere, you can post where you received it from so that we can verify the neutrality of that source.Here's part:
Defenders of Truth - oh the irony
http://www.defendingtruth.org/content_print.asp?content_id=73
They pulled all of their info from here:
http://www.unitedfamilies.org/marriageSexualOrientation.pdf
You'll see many references, including that of Paul Cameron.
Lying is ok if you do it for Jesus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?