Families warned: Disney to allow gay marries within its parks (http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/families_warned_disney_to_allo.php)

I think this is a splendid move, unless it's an April Fool's joke, of course:p. What are your thoughts?

Not surprising. They have a flamboyant mouse for a mascot, plus Disney himself wasn't a stranger to man-love.

As I am opposed to gay marriages as well as gay adoption, my thoughts on this are quite negative. I have already expressed my opinion on what homosexuality is in this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=175274) and my opinion being what it is makes me consider it an illness of sorts and I think it needs to be treated, not encouraged.

I think it's a step in the right direction. However, I don't really forsee that many gay couples rushing to get married under Disney's auspices, since the price tag for such affairs looks pretty steep. Weddings themselves are quite expensive in and of themselves, so I think that unless Disney lowers the price a bit, the only gay couples who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity will be ones that have money to throw around.

Not surprising. They have a flamboyant mouse for a mascot, plus Disney himself wasn't a stranger to man-love.LMAO

What are your thoughts? I think it's a brave, yet risky move on the part of Disney. I'd like to view this a sign of progress.

Homosexuality has several benefits for society: Homosexuality gives unwanted children loving homes.
Homosexuality does not contribute to overpopulation.
Homosexuals who have sex with each others won't end up needing abortions:p.Taking this into consideration, plus the fact that neither homosexuality nor same-sex marriage or child adoption has no measurable negative effect on society or those involved, I'm inclined to support the homosexuals all the way.

As for gay adoption, even if you apply Jae's arguments about gender roles and the need for the combined knowledge of representatives of two genders (see other thread), two males with no clue on menstruation and other female issues are still far, far better for a girl than living in an orphanage where she has to share her busy 'parents' with a whole pack of other children.

So acknowledging this, I support Disney all the way. If I support gay marriage, logically I also have to support Disney's move.

Well hopefully this is a sign that post-Eisner Disney is going to get itself back on track, now all they have to do is make some movies that don't suck.

There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US. I don't know if there's any relation to alcohol use and homosexual/heterosexual behaviors. Male-male physical relations have greater risk of causing colon/rectal problems in the...recipient(s), including very serious (but rare) problems like colon rupture and peritonitis. I can't link to the site because it's too graphic for this forum.

Let me clarify my parental stance--I'm not saying gay or single parents _can't_ be good parents. I said it is not the _ideal_, and that's very different. Single and gay parents have to be careful to give kids exposure to both genders--it's not built into their family structure like it is for a male/female relationship. I would say that gay/single parents are far better than abusive hetero parents.

Don't Norwegians have foster care? Here in the US the goal is to get the child and parent together, and if that's not possible, then get the child into foster care, and as a very last resort orphanages.

There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US. I don't know if there's any relation to alcohol use and homosexual/heterosexual behaviors. Male-male physical relations have greater risk of causing colon/rectal problems in the...recipient(s), including very serious (but rare) problems like colon rupture and peritonitis. I can't link to the site because it's too graphic for this forum.Yes, homosexual sex is a risky activity, and I'm not sure if I condone it. But I don't believe that even that has much of an impact on society and economy.

Oh, and of course we've got foster care.

Homosexuality gives unwanted children loving homes.
You make it sound like they are the only ones that are willing to adopt a child. There are just as much heterosexuals on who the quote above can be applied and, IMO, they'll always be a better choice for parents than homosexuals.
Homosexuality does not contribute to overpopulation.
This might come back to bite me in the form of a mod warning, but still - you're right, they don't contribute to overpopulation, they do just the opposite. I have also read and heard from multiple sources that they fall under the groups with a higher HIV infection probability, along with bisexuals (unfortunately I haven't been able to find a reliable web article about the matter).
Homosexuals who have sex with each others won't end up needing abortions
I know you meant this as a joke, but I really don't find it funny.

Now, I realize that what I said can be interpreted as some form of discrimination, but I assure you and everyone else that it's not. Homosexuals are people (and should never be treated as anything but people) and have almost all the same rights as the rest of us. As for gay adoption and marriage, I don't think they should be allowed because I don't think of homosexuality as a lifestyle, I think of it as unhealthy behavior and I base my opinion on many scientific facts.

You make it sound like they are the only ones that are willing to adopt a child. There are just as much heterosexuals on who the quote above can be applied.It's a simple matter of math. You've currently got only straight people adopting, and lots of kids wanting adoption. When homosexuals are allowed to adopt in addition to the heterosexuals, there'll be less children in orphanages - in other words, more happy children with loving parents.

IMO, they'll always be a better choice for parents than homosexuals.Even if that's true, having two loving homosexual step-parents is still better than living in an orphanage sharing the few overworked adults with many other children.

This might come back to bite me in the form of a mod warning, but still - you're right, they don't contribute to overpopulation, they do just the opposite.Which, in my eyes, is a good thing. There are too many unwanted children in need of homes in the world. The more of those we adopt, the more of them will grow up to live good lives and have kids on their own. Children rotting in orphanages, on the other hand, are more likely to lead less stable lives.

My sister-in-law and her hubby are foster parents. They've had as many as 9 boys under their roof at one time and could probably fall under the category of small orphanage at that point. I guarantee you they love those children, take excellent care of them, and in fact have adopted 2 of them. There are currently childless straight parents on waiting lists for adoption, so there are no lack of adoptive parents. What there is a lack of is parents willing to adopt children of different races or those who have health/emotional problems (usually from being born to drug-addicted mothers). Since homosexuals represent around 5% of the population, I don't think we're going to get that much of a boost in adoptive parents.

As far as Disney and marriages--as long as people are discreet, gay or straight, I'm OK with it. What I don't want to see is people sucking out their tonsils (or even more explicit) in the middle of Cinderella's castle or other public areas.

One pro-homosexual website quotes a Disney representative as saying the company's decision to update its program guidelines to include "commitment ceremonies" is consistent with Disney's overall policy of "creating a welcoming, respectful, and inclusive environment" for its guests. "We are not in the business of making judgments about the lifestyles of our guests," said the Disney spokesman. "We are in the hospitality business and our parks and resorts are open to everyone."

There is a reason why homosexual people want to get married, and that is, to go and get tax breaks and ability to inherit each other's property without any legal tangles. If these marriages aren't treated with respect or recognized within the United States of America, then it really means nothing.

Homosexual people should get the right to marry, in that case. If they are a loving couple, then they should get tax breaks from the government. Marriage has, to me, been a secular affair, and I would prefer it to be renamed to "civil unions" to cement it. my church. :)]

I also read a viewpoint by gays arguing against gay marriage: It would basically turn gays into nothing more than hetrosexuals and that the gay subculture would be destroyed. Really interesting, and well, different. I never thought of the problems inherent in gay marriage.

I have also read and heard from multiple sources that they fall under the groups with a higher HIV infection probability, along with bisexuals (unfortunately I haven't been able to find a reliable web article about the matter).

You,re actually right. But it's no different then if I went to Africa and had sex with people there. These probabilities are nothing but the current trend. If we can better prevent HIV infection, the numbers would go down and it would be marginally more or less then with heterosexual.

As for gay adoption and marriage, I don't think they should be allowed because I don't think of homosexuality as a lifestyle, I think of it as unhealthy behavior and I base my opinion on many scientific facts.

And those facts are?


There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US.

For the guys, yes it is more risky, but what about the women? Lesbians do exist.

Drug taking, I believe is more related to various cases of depression. Being rejected by everyone, it can be quite hard to be gay I'm sure. I have no evidence to back this up so it's only speculation.



As for Disney doing gay marriages...well...cool I guess...

And those facts are?
Even though no precise cause for homosexuality has been determined, the most probable one is that homosexuality is a hormonal disorder that can occur during puberty.
Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalyzed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects. It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process. In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males.

I have read that there were some controversies about this theory, mainly the ''people are born gay'' interpretation. This interpretation is wrong, since there are no scientific evidence to support it, but science has proven that hormonal disorders described in the theory can occur during puberty.

So even if that was true it should be cured because...? I believe homosexuals who engage in homosexual activities are well aware of the dangers. So gays and lesbians have a hormonal disorder that causes no physical problem, only emotional and psychological ones due not to the hormonal disorder itself but by how others around them perceive them.

So, you're saying that nothing's wrong with them, it's the rest of the world that's sick? If that is the case, I am inclined to disagree. When you ask ''Why should homosexuality be treated?'' it's just as if you asked ''Why should we treat people from depression?'' - if the disorder causes unhealthy emotional behavior, then it should be treated. Right?

Now, as for the dangers of HIV infection, you yourself have confirmed my knowings that homosexuals and bisexuals have a higher probability to be infected with HIV. I imagine that there is a good number of them that's aware of the dangers, but if the above is true, what do you think how many of them actually take precaution and use protection?

So, you're saying that nothing's wrong with them, it's the rest of the world that's sick? Why does one of these groups have to be "sick" in your scenario? This is a false dichotomy.

If that is the case, I am inclined to disagree. When you ask ''Why should homosexuality be treated?'' it's just as if you asked ''Why should we treat people from depression?'' - if the disorder causes unhealthy emotional behavior, then it should be treated. Right? As you state yourself, depression is a unhealthy disorder. As such, people should have treatment available. Even if we were to concede your point that homosexuality is a disorder, the argument that it is unhealthy is largely arguable (inherently, it is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality).

Now, as for the dangers of HIV infection, you yourself have confirmed my knowings that homosexuals and bisexuals have a higher probability to be infected with HIV. Yes, there are a higher number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community. Do you have evidence that shows this is because they are more likely to have HIV/AIDS or would you be willing to consider that they might be more likely to check regularly for HIV/AIDS and therefore have their cases reported?

The point is that HIV/AIDS is not homosexual specific. Heterosexuals can get it too (and are arguably less likely to check regularly for infection). In other words, this argument is a red herring. HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

I imagine that there is a good number of them that's aware of the dangers, but if the above is true, what do you think how many of them actually take precaution and use protection? How many heterosexual people are walking around infected right now that haven't been checked because they think HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease"? Let's head over the abstinence thread and talk about safe sex practices amongst heterosexuals. Or we can just concede that this line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and drop it.

If marriage was soley a religious affair, then Jae wouldn't techincally be married, since she did not marry within my church. :)

I'm such a slut. ;P

Why does one of these groups have to be "sick" in your scenario? This is a false dichotomy.

Why do people understand ''sick'' in a negative sense? If you get a cold it means you are sick. It's not your fault you got the cold, but you sure as hell won't leave it untreated.

the argument that it is unhealthy is largely arguable
I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle. I am saying that it isn't a choice, just like schizophrenia is not a choice (I admit my comparison is a little crude), it's an illness caused by that hormonal disorder and illnesses should be treated.
Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse? Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?

The point is that HIV/AIDS is not homosexual specific.
I never said that it was. What I said was that they and bisexuals fall under the group with a higher infection probability.

HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

I never said that it did.

How many heterosexual people are walking around infected right now that haven't been checked because they think HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease"? Let's head over the abstinence thread and talk about safe sex practices amongst heterosexuals. Or we can just concede that this line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and drop it.

As we have determined, it is a fact that there is a higher probability of HIV infection when it comes to homosexuals. It isn't a fact because HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (because, as we all know, it isn't), it's a fact because it's a lot less healthy for a man to have sex with a man, than with a woman. Why is that? (I'm tagging this in a spoiler because it's a PG-13 forum)
Because they can have oral or anal sex and anal sex has been proven to be one of the best ways to get infected by HIV. This isn't to say that straight people don't have anal sex, they just have it a lot less than the homosexuals.

Do you have evidence that shows this is because they are more likely to have HIV/AIDS
Check the spoiler tagged text.

Why do people understand ''sick'' in a negative sense? If you get a cold it means you are sick. It's not your fault you got the cold, but you sure as hell won't leave it untreated. We can use the word in whatever context you'd like. This doesn't answer my question. Why does sexuality (homo- or hetero-) have to be an illness, as your earlier dichotomy proposes?

I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle. I am saying that it isn't a choice, just like schizophrenia is not a choice (I admit my comparison is a little crude), it's an illness caused by that hormonal disorder and illnesses should be treated.I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, however there is no conclusive evidence to show that homosexuality is a disorder (it hasn't been considered a disorder since the 1970's) or an illness.

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse? Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex? I don't see how personal opinions have anything to do with the matter. There are lots of behaviors that I don't particularly care for, but rarely jump to the conclusion that someone has an illness when I see them. This statement further cements for me the idea that you have a personal problem with homosexuals and want to find evidence that supports your bias.

I never said that it was. What I said was that they and bisexuals fall under the group with a higher infection probability. Yes, but unless you can identify causation, your conclusion is false.

I never said that it did. Then please tell me where you are going with this.

As we have determined, it is a fact that there is a higher probability of HIV infection when it comes to homosexuals. There is no such fact.

It isn't a fact because HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (because, as we all know, it isn't), it's a fact because it's a lot less healthy for a man to have sex with a man, than with a woman. Why is that? (I'm tagging this in a spoiler because it's a PG-13 forum)<snip> The behaviors you referenced are not specific to homosexuals. Therefore your argument is false.

Check the spoiler tagged text. I did. That's not evidence for your argument. That's flawed supposition.

Thanks for your response.

This statement further cements for me the idea that you have a personal problem with homosexuals and want to find evidence that supports your bias.
My main problem is that I can't find the words to express my opinion in a non-offensive and prejudice-lacking way. I'm really trying to approach this topic without prejudices and only with science-based opinions, but I am failing. Most of the things I say sound like they have been said by a racist, or something like that.

There is no such fact.
Ummm, what? Let me quote your earlier post in which you confirm it. (post #18)
Yes, there are a higher number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community.

Also, lukeiamyourdad's quote in favor of my statement. (post #14)
You,re actually right.

This is why I really don't understand your sudden negation of a proven fact, not my personal opinion, fact - that there is a higher probability of a homosexual being infected with HIV than a heterosexual.

The behaviors you referenced are not specific to homosexuals.
And I have said so myself, as you probably noticed, but even though they are not specific to homosexuals, they are more often practiced by them than they are by heterosexuals and that alone increases the chance of infection. Pure logic.

Most of the things I say sound like they have been said by a racist, or something like that. The term is "homophobe" :D


Ummm, what? Let me quote your earlier post in which you confirm it. (post #18)
<snip>
Yes, it is a fact that highest percentage of reported cases come from homosexuals. No, it is not a fact that being a homosexual puts you at greater risk. See the difference?

This is why I really don't understand your sudden negation of a proven fact, not my personal opinion, fact - that there is a higher probability of a homosexual being infected with HIV than a heterosexual. I understand that this is how you're interpreting what you're reading, but the fact is your conclusion is not what the figures actually support.

Go back and read my first response to you. I'm not flip-flopping. I pointed out the methodological problem (which you've ignored) very clearly.

And I have said so myself, as you probably noticed, but even though they are not specific to homosexuals, they are more often practiced by them than they are by heterosexuals and that alone increases the chance of infection. Pure logic.Your "pure logic" completely ignores safe sex practices, therefore your conclusion is still pure supposition.

HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.Exactly. To strike an analogy, smoking makes you more likely to get cancer. Drinking excessive amounts of coke or coffee increases the chances of developing anxiety or sleep problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Anxiety_and_sleep_disorders).

Am I mentally ill if I drink coke and live in Norway? Should the inhabitants of sub-arctic Northern Norway be evacuated and given psychiatric treatment? I don't think so.


I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle.First of all, no one who supports homosexuality want it to be a taboo topic. We want it to be a non-issue, like inter-racial dating. There's a difference, 'cause as soon as anything, be it psychiatry, grief, smoking, or homosexuality becomes a taboo subject, it gets flooded by stereotypes, misconceptions, irrational scrutiny, and so on.

Second of all, homosexual behaviour is a choice, but you hear the claim that your sexual orientation is a choice mostly from the anti-homosexual rights crowd.

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse?I'm sure you know that's utterly irrelevant. I think hot dogs are disgusting, yet I don't brand the people who eat it mentally ill. Likewise, in a lot of countries they are appalled at the very idea of eating cheese.

Back in certain African tribes, it was perfectly normal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bare. Kissing, however, was considered downright disgusting, probably as much, or more, than anal sex as considered by you. What's 'icky' is a matter of culture, taught to children as they grow up. It's not an instinct.

Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?Yes.

Also, lukeiamyourdad's quote in favor of my statement. (post #14)

It is true that there's more homosexuals who have HIV/AIDS but to properly quote me, you would have to add the other part:

But it's no different then if I went to Africa and had sex with people there.

Because Africa is the continent that is the most affected by AIDS. Asia also suffers a lot from it. Is anyone ready to claim that whole continents are populated by homosexuals?

There is no evidence pointing to homosexual sex being the culprit of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Third World. There's a correlation between it and safe sex though.

I have decided to make all of you very happy and lose interest in this topic. Why? Because while all of you have asked proof to my claims, you have never offered any proof to the contrary (just look at this long argument of ours over the HIV infection probability), you admit the possibility that homosexuality might be caused by a disorder, but you denounce the very concept of that kind of behavior being unhealthy. Now I have even been (indirectly) called a homophobe.
I'm going to end this with my opinion on that term. The term, in my opinion, is used on persons who have a negative position towards homosexuality, the reason for this negative position being irrelevant to the user of the term. Also, in my opinion, most people who call someone a homophobe do it so they can convince themselves that they are more tolerant (I am not accusing anyone here of being like that). I happen to think homosexuality is an illness caused by a hormonal disorder. I have not been raised to hate homosexuals, nor do I have any reason whatsoever to hate them. What I do hate is this position toward homosexuality - if you have a strongly negative attitude toward it, you must hate them, or not consider them people, or whatever, thus you are a homophobe.

First of all, no one who supports homosexuality want it to be a taboo topic. We want it to be a non-issue, like inter-racial dating. There's a difference, 'cause as soon as anything, be it psychiatry, grief, smoking, or homosexuality becomes a taboo subject, it gets flooded by stereotypes, misconceptions, irrational scrutiny, and so on.
Child pornographers don't want their abuse of children to be a taboo subject, either.

Second of all, homosexual behaviour is a choice, but you hear the claim that your sexual orientation is a choice mostly from the anti-homosexual rights crowd.
I think there's a genetic tendency in a small percentage of the population (in spite of the fact no 'gay gene' has been found unless somethings come out pretty recently), but, that gene doesn't get turned on until something in the environment happens or someone decides to act on that tendency. I've noted a correlation--every gay person I've known (and I know a pretty fair number) has been abused as a child (nearly always sexually) and/or has had an abusive and later absentee father. The only friend I don't know either way is a friend who refuses to talk about anything in his childhood. I don't know if that's because my gay friends are far more open about their sexual histories tahn my straight friends or not. I have heard there are studies linking abusive male role models in a child's life and homosexuality, but it's been awhile since I heard that, and I'm unsure of the research in terms of quantity/quality.

I'm sure you know that's utterly irrelevant. I think hot dogs are disgusting, yet I don't brand the people who eat it mentally ill.Eating hot dogs, is, er, not the same as sexual behavior (keep your naughty thoughts to yourself. This could go so far down the gutter it's not funny. :D ). Eating for nourishment and your preference for specific foods has nothing to do with 'doin' the Wild Thang'. Eating Oscar Mayer wieners is also not going to give you STDs or cause pregnancy or sexual-related health issues.

Back in certain African tribes, it was perfectly normal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bare. Kissing, however, was considered downright disgusting, probably as much, or more, than anal sex as considered by you. What's 'icky' is a matter of culture, taught to children as they grow up. It's not an instinct.

Yes.

Neither of those things has a bearing on the health issues that male/male relations have. And sex has powerful drives--put a boy and a girl on a desert island, and they'll figure it out without too much trouble.

Child pornographers don't want their abuse of children to be a taboo subject, either. There is a objective argument for the immorality of child pornography. No such argument exists for homosexuality. If there is, please provide it.

I think there's a genetic tendency in a small percentage of the population (in spite of the fact no 'gay gene' has been found unless somethings come out pretty recently), but, that gene doesn't get turned on until something in the environment happens or someone decides to act on that tendency. I've noted a correlation--every gay person I've known (and I know a pretty fair number) has been abused as a child (nearly always sexually) and/or has had an abusive and later absentee father. The only friend I don't know either way is a friend who refuses to talk about anything in his childhood. I don't know if that's because my gay friends are far more open about their sexual histories tahn my straight friends or not. I have heard there are studies linking abusive male role models in a child's life and homosexuality, but it's been awhile since I heard that, and I'm unsure of the research in terms of quantity/quality. I would definitely be interested in reading any studies that you can find that support your position. FWIW, none of my gay friends were abused as children (I only have a few), but 99% of the promiscuous straight people that I know were.

Eating hot dogs, is, er, not the same as sexual behavior (keep your naughty thoughts to yourself. This could go so far down the gutter it's not funny. :D ). Eating for nourishment and your preference for specific foods has nothing to do with 'doin' the Wild Thang'. Eating Oscar Mayer wieners is also not going to give you STDs or cause pregnancy or sexual-related health issues. The topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.

Neither of those things has a bearing on the health issues that male/male relations have. And sex has powerful drives--put a boy and a girl on a desert island, and they'll figure it out without too much trouble....and this one was about social norms. Also a red herring.;)

The topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.
...and this one was about social norms. Also a red herring.;)

I was pointing out a false analogy. :) Comparing a food dislike to a behavior dislike is comparing two entirely different things. How something affects our sense of taste has nothing to do with how we behave. You can't equate or even compare sensory input and activities.

I'll look at the studies--haven't heard much in awhile. My problem is I listen to radio news (living in between 2 major markets is great, and I'm able to pull in a couple different AM news stations (WGN, WBBM, among others). I remember it, but obviously I don't get a chance to write down sources while I'm driving. I'm not one of those women who drives while typing on the laptop, talking on a cell phone with the radio on, talking to my kids, drinking coffee, and driving with my knee so I can flip off the aggressive driver who cut me off. :D

Do you have any idea how long my research list is now? :xp: This should be relatively quick to do on Medline, though, for psych/soc. Wouldn't surprise me to see that promiscuous straights have also suffered abuse at a young age, but for whatever reason I haven't had as many conversations with promiscuous straights. I'm not sure if I'm blessed or cursed to have friends comfortable enough with me to share such intimate details of their lives.... :D

Speaking of studies, going off on a slight tangent since you mentioned it in another thread and I'm feeling too crappy tonight to go search--we're not limited to a 5 year window, particularly medical stuff. Landmark studies can be older than 5 years and be very relevant. The best studies on treatment of diabetic eye disease and the cause of cataracts (primarily UV radiation) came out about 10 years ago, but are still very relevant today, and drive a lot of our treatment modalities. The studies on which letters should be on the eye chart came out in the 40's and 50's, and we still use those same charts today because there really isn't a lot of stuff that's better that can be used easily and in 'real-life' practice.
Cutting this short to deal with a mod situation....

The hot dog analogy pointed out that you can't ban something because it disgusts you. I never said having gay sex and eating hot dogs were the same thing. As Achilles said, 'the topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.

There are good arguments against anal sexual intercourse. That it's disgusting in your eyes... is not one of them.

-every gay person I've known (and I know a pretty fair number) has been abused as a child Either you just got a really statistically surprising cross-section of gay people you've known, or your idea of "a pretty fair number" is a lot smaller than I would expect. I know at least two dozen people off the top of my head who are gay and were never abused, and actually had very supportive parents. I don't actually know a one who was abused, sexually or not.

Comparing a food dislike to a behavior dislike is comparing two entirely different things. How something affects our sense of taste has nothing to do with how we behave.Really? Then how about we compare my personal taste in footwear. Some people really like wearing fuzzy sweaters. They like how they feel. They make me itch all over, and I don't own a single one because I absolutely hate wearing them. Should I pass judgement on those who do wear fuzzy sweaters?

Perhaps people who like fuzzy sweaters are actually sick, and should be treated as such. We can probably cure the fuzzy sweater problem with just a little effort and research.

Or maybe that sounds ludicrous, because I'm talking about sweaters and not sex. We are VERY concerned with other peoples sexual behaviors, and anyone who acts in a way that is contrary to the hegemonic social norms is immediately looked at with suspicion and distrust. Perhaps some of you could enlighten me on why it is that you specifically think it's so important that we keep tabs on other people's sexual preferences and behaviors.

The hot dog analogy pointed out that you can't ban something because it disgusts you. I never said having gay sex and eating hot dogs were the same thing. As Achilles said, 'the topic was passing judgments on behaviors that we find disgusting. Your comment is a red herring.

There are good arguments against anal sexual intercourse. That it's disgusting in your eyes... is not one of them.

If you were comparing 2 different sensory experiences that had no moral impact, then it would be a red herring. You're comparing 2 entirely different things. One has a moral implication, the other does not. Same with ET's sweater analogy. That's a sensory experience that has no bearing on mores, while sex does. Sex (and types thereof) does have an impact on morals and vice versa, whether you like it or not. I'm not sure we should just arbitrarily toss that out the window and say 'oh, sex is just a fun and pleasant activity, we don't need to worry about its impact on society anymore.' The sexual revolution (straight and gay) has had a profound impact on marriage, single-parent families, and poverty (single-mother households make up the greatest percentage of those in poverty). It's not just about what happens in the bedroom itself.

ET, you either found a small pocket of people who weren't abused, or they haven't been completely forthcoming with you about their experiences (likely the latter), because about a quarter of them are predicted to have been abused sexually as a child.

Some data on sexual abuse (especially as a child) and homosexuality:

The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:

* The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender." 70
* A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years." 71
* Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences." 72
* A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found: "In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'" 73
* A National Institute of Justice report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children." 74
* A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child." 75

The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim." 76

70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

72. Watkins & Bentovim, p. 316.

73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, "Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001): 6.

74. Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences," Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 1.

75. Elliott, p. 582.

76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

I've found similar articles for those who prefer later citations:

J Sex Res. 2004; 41(4):381-9 --26% of gay men reported child sexual abuse
J Child Sex Abus. 2005; 14(2):1-23 28% of gay men reported being abused sexually as a child
Child Abuse Negl. 2005; 29(3):285-90 22% of gay Latinos had been sexually abused before the age of 13 compared to 11% of non-Latino gay men (_before_ age 13!)

And that's the tip of the iceberg--I could quote numerous studies. Those that have been abused have higher percentages of high-risk behavior (multiple partners, unprotected relations, IV drug abuse) and higher risk of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The cost of treatment and disability payments for those with HIV and other STDs has a significant impact on society

What is disturbing to me is the number of children who've been molested, and the number who've been molested at a very young age. If child sexual abuse is a contributor to homosexuality, then we need to evaluate that correlation and think about whether homosexuality is as an innocuous response as some claim. I can live with 2 consenting adults enjoying relations as long as they do it safely and keep it in their own bedrooms (and that goes for gay or straight--I don't like to see a man and a woman in each other's pants in public anymore than I like seeing 2 men or 2 women). However, we can't ignore the impact these decisions have on personal health and society as a whole, and the impact homosexuality may have in other areas of life.

One has a moral implication, the other does not. Pray tell, this was the exact crux of my argument. Personal choice in sexual behavior has no direct impact on a persons morals. A persons morals may have an impact on their sexuality, however. That is an important distinction to make. You cite marriage, single-parent families and poverty as having been hugely impacted by the sexual revolution, yet what kind of evidence is there that it was throwing off some of our Victorian attitudes towards sex that caused these changes? Maybe it was the Civil Rights movement, LBJ's Great Society, or JFK's emphasis on math and science in schools. Maybe it was increases in environmentalism or feminism. Maybe it's because the Ed Sullivan Show stopped airing. Perhaps it's fallout from the Vietnam War, or even the Watergate scandal. When all of these events happened around the same time as the sexual revolution, I'm not sure why that is immediately pegged as the culprit, aside from the result of some personal bias against promiscuity or homosexuality.

ET, you either found a small pocket of people who weren't abused, or they haven't been completely forthcoming with you about their experiences And you either found a small pocket of people who were all abused, or they were lying to you about their experiences? Because only 1/4 of the gay people you know are predicted to have been abused as a child.

Pray tell, this was the exact crux of my argument. Personal choice in sexual behavior has no direct impact on a persons morals.
What kind of guy would you want your daughter to go out with--a guy who cares about her and respects her, or a guy whose quest to get into as many girls' pants as possible drives his moral code? How much more direct can you get than that? I can tell you my daughter will be taught to look for guys who have chosen restraint in their sexual behavior in developing their moral code.


A persons morals may have an impact on their sexuality, however.
May? They _do_, whether anyone likes it or not.
That is an important distinction to make.Sex and morals linked, morals and sex linked. Not much distinction.

You cite marriage, single-parent families and poverty as having been hugely impacted by the sexual revolution, yet what kind of evidence is there that it was throwing off some of our Victorian attitudes towards sex that caused these changes?
Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked. Single-mother households have risen significantly since the mid-60's when it became more acceptable for men and women to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage rates have decreased. There are tremendous numbers of studies linking single-parent households and poverty.


Maybe it was the Civil Rights movement, LBJ's Great Society, or JFK's emphasis on math and science in schools. Maybe it was increases in environmentalism or feminism. Maybe it's because the Ed Sullivan Show stopped airing. Perhaps it's fallout from the Vietnam War, or even the Watergate scandal. When all of these events happened around the same time as the sexual revolution, I'm not sure why that is immediately pegged as the culprit, aside from the result of some personal bias against promiscuity or homosexuality. And how in the world are _any_ of these other things related? Ed Sullivan? Is this a humor attempt? Disrespect/disdain? Mocking? Something else?


And you either found a small pocket of people who were all abused, or they were lying to you about their experiences? Because only 1/4 of the gay people you know are predicted to have been abused as a child.

Or child sexual abuse is under-reported. The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. It's a factor that needs to be investigated, if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.

What kind of guy would you want your daughter to go out with--a guy who cares about her and respects her, or a guy whose quest to get into as many girls' pants as possible drives his moral code?
This example basically illustrates my point, actually. It is entirely possible for a person who is extremely promiscuous to still care for and respect women immensely, without that dictating some manner of moral decay. It's also possible for a man whose morals leave no room for respect for women to have sexual activities that are more or less the same.

The fact that I choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a high number of women does not affect my morals whatsoever. In fact, I would say in the transition from being fairly conservative towards sex (at one time a save it for marriage kind of guy) I have actually developed stronger, better morals.

Sex and morals linked, morals and sex linked. Not much distinction.They are LINKED, maybe. The distinction is that it is only a one-way causation. Sexual behavior does not cause a change in morals. The change in morals would have to come first. And I still see no real justification to prove that either one is absolutely linked to the other. It seems to me that, for example, a man who has no respect for women would seem likely to be willing to engage in one night stands and have a goal to sleep with as many as possible. It's also possible that a man who has no respect for women would choose not to sleep with any. Same moral stance, different behaviors.

In the end it seems that it would come down to personal preference in sexual behavior, making it on par with personal taste in food or fuzzy attire.

Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked.Is that truly such a terrible thing? I know a decent number of non-married partners who are pretty swell parents.

And how in the world are _any_ of these other things related? Ed Sullivan? Is this a humor attempt? Disrespect/disdain? Mocking? Something else?Maybe a little bit of humor thrown into making the point that you glossed over in my post where I stated that all of these things happened at approximately the same time as the sexual revolution, so why aren't they potentially to blame for the woes that you have thrust upon those sexual deviants? Sure, there is possibly a logical leap you can make that links sexual liberty with those problems, but I'll bet if I looked into it I could see a reason why a stronger emphasis on math and science in schools was really to blame.

if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.
While I am a strong advocate of not abusing children, this is a phrase that generally makes me nervous. The rallying cry of protecting our children has often been a tool utilized in the name of persecution against deviants (sexual deviants in particular).

The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. It's a factor that needs to be investigated, if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.Then why not take it on a case by case basis? There are lots of heterosexual or single parant homes that would be worse places for them. If a homosexual home is determined to be loving and safe, why is it so imperative that that home be prevented from having a child? Should a family who owns guns (not that I'm an advocate) be prevented from adopting children? It could be argued that such a home could possibly be unsafe. From your argument, it sounds the same as saying, "since there is a possibility that a gun-owning home could be unsafe, let's ban every gun owner from having children whether they are really a threat or not." Or since blacks tend to be more likely to commit a crime in the US (not sure if that is true or not), all blacks should not be allowed to adopt children because they may be criminals.

Why does it have to be an all or none solution? Whether you feel this way or not, it does come across as trying to enforce your views on those who's lifestyle "you" disagree with.

Marriage and child-bearing are no longer linked.
Is that truly such a terrible thing? I know a decent number of non-married partners who are pretty swell parents.
I think you missed Jae's point, ET. She didn't say anything about non-married couples raising children is somehow worse than married couples. Instead, the point was that single-parent households are generally more difficult environments to raise children due to lack of dedicated parenting time and less income. It seems fairly obvious that changing attitudes towards sexual activity and the importance of marriage have contributed to the increase in single-parent households over the past four decades.

If you were comparing 2 different sensory experiences that had no moral impact, then it would be a red herring. You're comparing 2 entirely different things. One has a moral implication, the other does not.Ask a vegetarian if there are no moral questions involved when it comes to meat-eating. Ask a person who has some insight into the horrific process of breeding, keeping, and slaughtering the animals if the hot dog industry has no moral impact.

It's irrelevant anyway, though. I made the analogy to show how the argument that 'gay is wrong 'coz it's icky!' is invalid. It has no bearing on anything. As you yourself said, there are far more important questions to be asked, such as 'does it cause harm'. I can't say 'wow, hot dogs are disgusting, they shouldn't be allowed' without taking flak (and I shouldn't be!), so anti-homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to go 'wow, men kissing freaks me out, they should keep to themselves!' without everyone pointing out that's not nearly a valid argument.

And Prime, you're absolutely right in your analogy. Good one.

This example basically illustrates my point, actually. It is entirely possible for a person who is extremely promiscuous to still care for and respect women immensely, without that dictating some manner of moral decay.
How does promiscuity show respect for women? Can you truly respect a woman you only know for one night or just long enough to bed?

It's also possible for a man whose morals leave no room for respect for women to have sexual activities that are more or less the same.
Disrespect for fellow humans is also a moral issue.

The fact that I choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a high number of women does not affect my morals whatsoever. In fact, I would say in the transition from being fairly conservative towards sex (at one time a save it for marriage kind of guy) I have actually developed stronger, better morals.
OK, so assuming you really have had a high number of sexual encounters, it indeed has had an impact on your sexual morality. You might have developed stronger morals in other areas as the result of maturing in general, but your sexual morality has not improved.

Your actions are not affecting just yourself, but everyone you have physical relations with. Every single person you have relations with is exposed to whatever you've picked up from any other person you've had relations with, and you're exposed to every disease they've picked up along the way. Is it moral to expose your sex partner to everything you've been exposed to? Do you have that discussion with every single person you have sex with? My guess would be no, because a lot of women wouldn't want to hear that they're number 263. Is it moral to withhold information from your partner that would have a negative impact on her decision to have sex with you?

In addition, sex for women is about far more than the 10 minutes or whatever you spend in the actual physical activity. Emotional intimacy is very much tied to physical intimacy, and by not respecting a woman's need for that emotional intimacy (because you have no intention of committing to their emotional needs long term if you're just seeking many people to have sex with), you're not showing respect for their needs. You can be promiscuous all you want, but don't try to justify it as moral simply because you have high morals in other parts of your life. It's not.

They are LINKED, maybe. The distinction is that it is only a one-way causation. Sexual behavior does not cause a change in morals. The change in morals would have to come first.
Not necessarily. Changing sexual behavior can cause changes in morals in other areas--honesty in dealing with current/future partners for instance. How many people feel like they have to hide one girlfriend/boyfriend from another? Hide the fact that they have herpes or HIV? Hide the fact that they had STDs in the past? Hide the fact that they'd gotten someone pregnant or got pregnant themselves? Hide the fact from their spouse/long-term partner that they had an affair with someone else? Lying is just one change in morals that can come as a result of immoral sexual behavior. Immorality in this one area can lead to immoral behavior in other parts of life.

And I still see no real justification to prove that either one is absolutely linked to the other. It seems to me that, for example, a man who has no respect for women would seem likely to be willing to engage in one night stands and have a goal to sleep with as many as possible. It's also possible that a man who has no respect for women would choose not to sleep with any. Same moral stance, different behaviors.

And the promiscuous one would be showing his disrespect for women in an additional physical manner.


In the end it seems that it would come down to personal preference in sexual behavior, making it on par with personal taste in food or fuzzy attire.
Unless you're having sex with only yourself, your sexual behavior has an impact on others around you. That's very different from what you personally like to eat or wear, which has no direct impact on anyone else.

Is that truly such a terrible thing? I know a decent number of non-married partners who are pretty swell parents.
And they may well be if both parents are committed to their kids. I've seen plenty of divorced parents who did a good job raising kids, though they had challenges to face that married parents did not have to deal with.

However, poverty is much higher in single-parent households, especially single-mother households. Children of single-mother households have a higher incidence of negative behaviors and criminal activity as they mature. Girls who do not have a father active in their lives are more likely to be promiscuous at a much earlier age, putting them at greater risk for unwanted pregnancy and STDs, and they're at higher risk for becoming drug abusers. Boys have a greater risk of committing crimes and ending up in jail.

All of this has a huge cost monetarily and socially. We shouldn't be putting band-aid fixes on this, we should be researching and implementing programs that encourage parents to work together (and ideally get or stay married) to stay committed to their kids, working with men to step up to the plate to be responsible for their children, and protecting/implementing father's rights to be involved in their children's lives.

Maybe a little bit of humor thrown into making the point that you glossed over in my post where I stated that all of these things happened at approximately the same time as the sexual revolution, so why aren't they potentially to blame for the woes that you have thrust upon those sexual deviants? Sure, there is possibly a logical leap you can make that links sexual liberty with those problems, but I'll bet if I looked into it I could see a reason why a stronger emphasis on math and science in schools was really to blame.
I'd be fascinated to see a study showing increasing math and science emphasis in school had any sort of causal relationship whatsoever.


While I am a strong advocate of not abusing children, this is a phrase that generally makes me nervous. The rallying cry of protecting our children has often been a tool utilized in the name of persecution against deviants (sexual deviants in particular).
I didn't say persecute sexual deviants, and never will. If I had a child predator living next door to me I'd tell my kids never to interact with him, and I wouldn't like his presence because I'd view it as a threat to my children. However, I wouldn't go spray paint hate messages on his house or throw molotov cocktails through his front window, or even be mean to him.

The point is that child sexual abuse is significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. It's a factor that needs to be investigated, if for no other reason than to find ways to protect children.Then why not take it on a case by case basis? There are lots of heterosexual or single parant homes that would be worse places for them. If a homosexual home is determined to be loving and safe, why is it so imperative that that home be prevented from having a child? Should a family who owns guns (not that I'm an advocate) be prevented from adopting children?
When I wrote that I wasn't remotely thinking of wholesale prevention of homosexual parenting, particularly since there are plenty of homosexuals who have had children of their own and do just fine. I'd also digressed onto some other thought by then (which I can't even remember now), but it does look more connected than it should have.

Homosexual parents do face the same issues a single-parent family faces--there's no one of the opposite gender in those families to serve as a gender role model to the kids, so they'll have to make special arrangements to include activities with good role models outside the home. Lesbian or single-mother families have to find activities that expose their kids to good male role models outside the home, and gay male couples and single fathers have to find good female role models for their kids to interact with. It's more work to make sure the child has both male and female role models with any family situation other than a _good_ married male/female couple (abusive male/female married couples are every bit as destructive as any other bad relationships). It's obviously not impossible, just more difficult.

We're moving so fast on the push for gay rights (and I'm _not_ for gay or single parent discrimination, let me make that clear) and assorted other alternative lifestyles that we're not stopping to consider all the ramifications--we haven't had _enough time_ to look at all the ramifications. I see a lot of discussion on how gay couples would love to be parents and how great it would be for them as adults to adopt, and there are indeed fantastic single/gay/etc parents. What I haven't seen very much of is a discussion at all on the effects on children and how to address that appropriately in order to benefit the _children_. We haven't asked some hard questions like 'can my lesbian relative who was molested by some male family members and now hates men truly be objective enough about men to be able to teach any children she might have about them appropriately? How does that affect her ability to raise a son? Or teach a daughter that there are good men in the world, or have an adequate relationship with a male outside the home so her children could develop healthy attitudes about both genders?' Or, 'how can we help those (gay or straight) who were abused as children get past that so they can be effective parents themselves and not repeat the cycle?" Since homosexuals have a higher incidence of having been physically/sexually abused as children, these are going to be particularly salient issues for them to work through in order to be good parents. If all can be worked out, fine, move on with all these different parenting groups. If there is a parental type that is harmful to children, then we should be working to moving way from that type and into supporting healthy family relationships.

How does promiscuity show respect for women? Can you truly respect a woman you only know for one night or just long enough to bed?How does it show disrespect? I think the main problem we have in seeing eye to eye on this issue is you levy a great deal of weight on sex and the meaning behind it, whereas I do not. And before you blame that on a misogynistic stance on sex, I can point you in the direction of several articles that have directly impacted my personal stance on sex that were written by women.

OK, so assuming you really have had a high number of sexual encounters, it indeed has had an impact on your sexual morality.Just as my choice in foodstuffs has had an impact on my...eating morality? Do we have a specific morality for all of the verbs in our vocabulary? Are the people who walk really slowly in the middle of the sidewalk in possession of poor walking morals? Why is sex so special as to get its own brand of morality?

Every single person you have relations with is exposed to whatever you've picked up from any other person you've had relations with, and you're exposed to every disease they've picked up along the way.Just like every person I walk past on the street is exposed to my cold I get every winter. And they aren't even knowingly exposing themselves to my diseases. Should we begin enforcing laws that regulate when and where we can walk if we're sick?

Is it moral to expose your sex partner to everything you've been exposed to? Do you have that discussion with every single person you have sex with? My guess would be noIs it moral to decide whether or not somebody's sex partners should or should not have the choice to decide for themselves what they want to be exposed to? And your guess would actually be a bit off the mark. I inform all of my sex partners that I have been involved with other women, and while I've never tested positive for anything I think it's only fair that they be informed.

Is it moral to withhold information from your partner that would have a negative impact on her decision to have sex with you?No, it isn't, which is why I am upfront about it, and if after I tell them that I have already slept with other people they ask me how many I will tell them.

In addition, sex for women is about far more than the 10 minutes or whatever you spend in the actual physical activity.Sex for some women. I think it's unfair to generalize and enforce hegemonic standards that aren't always correct.

the 10 minutesCome on Jae, give me SOME credit here :p

You can be promiscuous all you want, but try to justify it as moral simply because you have high morals in other parts of your life. It's not.Only because you are assuming that every single woman on the earth is interested in a deep emotional connection with every single man they choose to sleep with. Again, not actually true. Of course there are plenty of women who are like that, and in my past experience those are the ones who I actually ended up in somewhat lasting relationships with, because that was what we both wanted at the time. Again, part of my morality dictates that I make my one-night stand policy clear before things really begin. If that means I don't end up having sex, so be it.

Lying is just one change in morals that can come as a result of immoral sexual behavior.If someone is going to lie about their sexuality, they are going to do so because their morals were going to allow for them to lie in the first place. If not about sex, probably about something else. Having "immoral sex" does not make one suddenly decide that it's ok to start lying. And if you think of it as "immoral sex" in the first place then clearly your morals were already open to the idea of immorality in the first place. The sex acts themselves were not to blame.

And the promiscuous one would be showing his disrespect for women in an additional physical manner.Assuming that you accept that having sex with women is disrespectful.

Unless you're having sex with only yourself, your sexual behavior has an impact on others around you. That's very different from what you personally like to eat or wear, which has no direct impact on anyone else.It directly impacts the people who are cooking for you or buying you things to wear, in a similar manner to how sexual habits affect the people you are having sex with.
If my significant other were to offer to cook me a meal and ask if there was anything specific that I didn't like, and I said that I liked everything, but after they cooked a nice spaghetti dinner I told them I hate pasta and red sauce and refused to eat it I have directly impacted someone in a negative moral way.

And they may well be if both parents are committed to their kids. I've seen plenty of divorced parents who did a good job raising kids, though they had challenges to face that married parents did not have to deal with.Unmarried is not exactly the same as divorced, since divorced couples generally don't live together or get along terribly well.

How does it show disrespect? I think the main problem we have in seeing eye to eye on this issue is you levy a great deal of weight on sex and the meaning behind it, whereas I do not. And before you blame that on a misogynistic stance on sex,
I don't call that misogynistic, I call it self-indulgent.

I can point you in the direction of several articles that have directly impacted my personal stance on sex that were written by women.
Humor mode on: Would those be 'Women want it every night with 18 partners' written by Sex-Bunny (published by Hefner Press) and 'Commitment is a Lie: We like one-night stands' by Dolly Pole Dancer (published by Vegas Department of Call-Girls)?
Try this:
The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS) provides empirical support for the importance of relational context for women's sexual satisfaction.[13] On the basis of survey results, Lawrance and Byers concluded that sexual satisfaction is based on 4 factors: the balance of sexual rewards and costs in the relationship, how actual rewards and costs compare to the expected level, the perceived quality of sexual rewards and costs between partners, and relationship satisfaction.[13] Relationship satisfaction emerged as the most important contributor to sexual satisfaction. source (http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/3437)

Just as my choice in foodstuffs has had an impact on my...eating morality? Do we have a specific morality for all of the verbs in our vocabulary? Are the people who walk really slowly in the middle of the sidewalk in possession of poor walking morals? Why is sex so special as to get its own brand of morality?
You can't get pregnant by eating or walking down the sidewalk. You can't pass on STDs to multiple partners by eating or driving or assorted other 'verbs'.

Just like every person I walk past on the street is exposed to my cold I get every winter. And they aren't even knowingly exposing themselves to my diseases. Should we begin enforcing laws that regulate when and where we can walk if we're sick?
Well, I would hope that you wouldn't be running around intentionally sneezing on people to make them sick. Yes, there are laws on the books that would regulate where we could go if there was a major virulent epidemic, and that would be done to minimize spread of the disease.

Is it moral to decide whether or not somebody's sex partners should or should not have the choice to decide for themselves what they want to be exposed to? And your guess would actually be a bit off the mark. I inform all of my sex partners that I have been involved with other women, and while I've never tested positive for anything I think it's only fair that they be informed.I'd be happy to be wrong about your giving full disclosure. You'd be the only promiscuous guy I know who's been 100% honest 100% of the time with 100% of his partners.

No, it isn't, which is why I am upfront about it, and if after I tell them that I have already slept with other people they ask me how many I will tell them. "I've been with a few women" is a lot different from "I've been with 263 women".

Sex for some women. I think it's unfair to generalize and enforce hegemonic standards that aren't always correct.
Sex for the vast majority of women (see quote above).

Come on Jae, give me SOME credit here :pHow else are you going to get to that 'high number'? :xp:


Only because you are assuming that every single woman on the earth is interested in a deep emotional connection with every single man they choose to sleep with. Again, not actually true. The vast majority of women want a committed relationship, not a one-night fling. The vast majority of people do not want increased risk of exposure to various STDs that comes with promiscuity. Further, promiscuity and loose sexual mores have a tremendous impact on medical and social costs for treating STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and decreasing marriages and increasing single-parent households.

Of course there are plenty of women who are like that, and in my past experience those are the ones who I actually ended up in somewhat lasting relationships with, because that was what we both wanted at the time.
'Somewhat lasting' sounds like a very lukewarm commitment.

Again, part of my morality dictates that I make my one-night stand policy clear before things really begin. If that means I don't end up having sex, so be it.I'm glad honesty is part of your moral lexicon. Assuming you were of course remotely interested and she was the appropriate age, I still wouldn't let you date my daughter.

If someone is going to lie about their sexuality, they are going to do so because their morals were going to allow for them to lie in the first place. If not about sex, probably about something else. Having "immoral sex" does not make one suddenly decide that it's ok to start lying. And if you think of it as "immoral sex" in the first place then clearly your morals were already open to the idea of immorality in the first place. The sex acts themselves were not to blame. Horse hockey. The world is littered with stories of people who were otherwise very honest, who made one immoral mistake and it snowballed into huge problems.

It directly impacts the people who are cooking for you or buying you things to wear, in a similar manner to how sexual habits affect the people you are having sex with.
If my significant other were to offer to cook me a meal and ask if there was anything specific that I didn't like, and I said that I liked everything, but after they cooked a nice spaghetti dinner I told them I hate pasta and red sauce and refused to eat it I have directly impacted someone in a negative moral way.
Sex involves (generally) two people. Are you doing something with your food or fuzzy slippers with someone else in a way that can affect society that I should know about? Never mind, I have a good imagination. :D

Unmarried is not exactly the same as divorced, since divorced couples generally don't live together or get along terribly well.
Substitute 'unmarried couples' for divorced in that sentence then.

I don't call that misogynistic, I call it self-indulgent.Perhaps, but is it so immoral for two people whose self-indulgences happen to coincide with each others and hurt nobody to act on their desires? That's really what the entire debate comes back to. People need to stop thinking that THEIR wants, and THEIR desires, and what THEY think is proper in regards to sexual behavior is the end of the debate. This is where the problem arises, when people want to impose their idea of "moral" sexual behavior.

You can't get pregnant by eating or walking down the sidewalk.You also are very unlikely to get run over by a car while having sex (I suppose depending on time and place...) but the odds aren't horrible if you're walking somewhere. We take an awful lot of different risks in different aspects of our lives. Some people are fine taking the risks inherent in jumping out of airplanes with only a piece of fabric between them and near certain death. Some people think that's just foolish. Doesn't mean we should start saying people who do or do not jump out of airplanes are more or less moral than their counterparts.

You can't pass on STDs to multiple partners by eating or driving or assorted other 'verbs'.Well, obviously those sexually transmitted infections will usually only be transmitted through sex. However, it's pretty easy to pass along strep throat, pink eye, the flu, cold sores, bubonic plague, etc. to someone who is sharing your dinner with you. STDs have a negative stigma associate with them because the word sex is in the title, when most STDs you come across are more easily cured than the common cold.

I'd be happy to be wrong about your giving full disclosure. You'd be the only promiscuous guy I know who's been 100% honest 100% of the time with 100% of his partners.Do you think maybe that's because there's such a negative social stigma against people who are very promiscuous? If we weren't so willing to think of the overly promiscuous as "immoral" or such methinks there would be more people willing to admit to their exploits.

"I've been with a few women" is a lot different from "I've been with 263 women".It seems to me that a "I just want you to know that I have had sex with other women before, and therefore have been potentially exposed to the whole array of associated problems, though I've never tested positive" should suffice. If she is genuinely curious she can inquire further. If she does not inquire further then she probably doesn't care to know, and that is her personal choice.

Sex for the vast majority of women (see quote above).Even if we want to generalize to the "vast majority", I have not come anywhere NEAR sleeping with the vast majority of women, so I'd say I'm pretty safe. ;)

How else are you going to get to that 'high number'?Have you not seen the pictures I've posted of myself? It's more work keeping the ladies OFF of me ;)

The vast majority of women want a committed relationship, not a one-night fling. The vast majority of people do not want increased risk of exposure to various STDs that comes with promiscuity.I would think the vast majority of people who CHOOSE to engage in promiscuous behavior would beg to differ. Again, you are projecting your own moral stance on sex onto everyone else. This is a CHOICE that is up to individuals, and if they choose to do so, that is their prerogative.

'Somewhat lasting' sounds like a very lukewarm commitment.Well I certainly never married any of them ;)

I'm glad honesty is part of your moral lexicon. Assuming you were of course remotely interested and she was the appropriate age, I still wouldn't let you date my daughter.And I certainly respect your motherly instincts. However, what will you do if your daughter chooses her own moral stance on sex after she goes off to college (or before). Are you going to try to impose your iron will upon her, or will you accept that she is a free-thinking human being and should be allowed to make her own choices?

Horse hockey. The world is littered with stories of people who were otherwise very honest, who made one immoral mistake and it snowballed into huge problems.I still don't buy it. I honestly do not believe if a person's moral conviction is such that they would not engage in immoral behavior, that some immoral act would happen without either first having a change in moral stance, or perhaps in a realization that their morals never were are rigid as they believed. Irregardless, I do not blame the acts that occur before, during, or after this "change" in morals.

Are you doing something with your food or fuzzy slippers with someone else in a way that can affect society that I should know about? Dinner is boring unless you bring a friend! :xp:

I'd like to pop in and make a small comment about statistics and the chances for event X to happen.

We know STDs are more common among promiscuous people. Fact. However, we must be careful about one thing. I'll take false numbers to illustrate my point. 35% of promiscuous persons have an STD. Only 15% of those who are not have one. Does it mean that some individual who is promiscuous has more chances of getting and STD? Absolutely not. Why? It is impossible to predict the future. As such, you cannot properly transfer a statistic from a group to an individual.

Another example is black people living in a poor neighborhood. False numbers again. 65% have committed a crime of some sort. Does it mean that individual X, being black and living in that poor neighborhood has a 65% chance to commit a crime? Absolutely not.

The same thing about the supposed correlation between homosexuality and child abuse. Though in total, 1/4 homosexuals have been abused during their childhood, it simply does not mean that it's a static number and isn't inclined to change or that it means that when meeting a homosexual, this person has a 1 out of 4 chance of having been abused as a child. In fact, 1/4 seems like a very weak correlation, since it means that the vast majority of homosexuals have lead "normal" lives.



Another point that I found interesting was how a lot of people seem to blame the sexual revolution for all the problems in the world when it could be a lot of things. For example, feminism. I could start blaming feminism for the family problems of the 21st century. The wife, having a career, doesn't have as much time to spend on her family and as such tensions start to show up. The men, losing their role as the money-makers, have to share tasks with women, which gives them a kick right in the ego. Loss of well defined roles, loss of an order on which to fall upon, loss of stability.

I could also put the blame on longer life-spans. Before, when you lived 50-60 years, you spent maybe 20 to 30 years with one person. Now that the life-span in the developed world is going to reach the 80's and maybe the 90's in not so long, you have to spend 50 to 60 years with the same person. Monogamy for 60 years. Good luck.

i think it's a good idea because i've got a few gay friends

i am opposed to people who call them bad names.

What are your thoughts?
I'll probably still go to Disney World sometime. I'd like Mickey to sign my pirated Chinese copy of Windows Vista.

Perhaps, but is it so immoral for two people whose self-indulgences happen to coincide with each others and hurt nobody to act on their desires? That's really what the entire debate comes back to. People need to stop thinking that THEIR wants, and THEIR desires, and what THEY think is proper in regards to sexual behavior is the end of the debate. This is where the problem arises, when people want to impose their idea of "moral" sexual behavior.
My chief beef was calling promiscuous behavior 'moral' when it isn't, but that got lost in the exchange back and forth, as fascinating as _that_ got. :D I'm not going to drive over to your house, grab you by the ear, and lock you up and give you testosterone blockers. However, as soon as two people who've enjoyed a night together go and share the lurv with others, it starts to become something that can have an impact on society, rather than individual, levels, and that's why it ends up being a moral issue.


You also are very unlikely to get run over by a car while having sex (I suppose depending on time and place...) but the odds aren't horrible if you're walking somewhere. We take an awful lot of different risks in different aspects of our lives. Some people are fine taking the risks inherent in jumping out of airplanes with only a piece of fabric between them and near certain death. Some people think that's just foolish. Doesn't mean we should start saying people who do or do not jump out of airplanes are more or less moral than their counterparts.
None of those involve getting together with someone and sharing fluids, germs, and babies.

Well, obviously those sexually transmitted infections will usually only be transmitted through sex. However, it's pretty easy to pass along strep throat, pink eye, the flu, cold sores, bubonic plague, etc. to someone who is sharing your dinner with you. STDs have a negative stigma associate with them because the word sex is in the title, when most STDs you come across are more easily cured than the common cold.

Herpes--controllable with anti-virals that have some side effects, not curable

HIV--deadly in some contexts, controllable in some other contexts, not curable, treatment involves a cocktail of antivirals that are expensive and have some side effects that can be significant, secondary bacterial infections require courses of antibiotics, some secondary infections can be deadly (e.g. pneumocystis pneumonia, fungal meningitis, encephalitis, etc), secondary cytomegalovirus frequently causes blindness, encephalopathy causes loss of brain/mental function, Kaposi's sarcoma requires chemotherapy to keep the cancer under control.

Human papillomavirus--not curable, directly linked with cervical cancer, which can require anywhere from a simple in-office procedure to remove all the way to complete hysterectomy and radiation/chemotherapy if the cancer is not caught in time and it spreads.

Syphillis--generally curable with a course of antibiotics--some strains are becoming antibiotic resistant, can be deadly in immunocompromised patients. Untreated leads to encephalopathy and sight loss.

Gonorrhea--generally curable with a course of antibiotics--some strains are becoming antibiotic resistant, can be spread to infants during birth resulting in life threatening infection.

Chlamydia--generally curable with a course of antibiotics, some strains becoming antibiotic resistant, can cause serious secondary eye infections.

Common cold--needs a couple days of rest and good hydration.

Bubonic plague? Cute. :) We get on average 10-15 cases/year in the US, and it's usually animal-borne via fleas.

Do you think maybe that's because there's such a negative social stigma against people who are very promiscuous? If we weren't so willing to think of the overly promiscuous as "immoral" or such methinks there would be more people willing to admit to their exploits.How about not doing the exploits in the first place? Then people wouldn't have the problem in the first place and they won't have to run around trying to cover up their mistakes and lying to people.


Even if we want to generalize to the "vast majority", I have not come anywhere NEAR sleeping with the vast majority of women, so I'd say I'm pretty safe. ;)
You're pretty safe in knowing that at least some of the women you may have had relations with really needed more than you were willing to give them emotionally in return for a romp in the bedroom.

Have you not seen the pictures I've posted of myself? It's more work keeping the ladies OFF of me ;)
Yeah. Jimbo's way cuter and is teh sexeh. :xp:


I would think the vast majority of people who CHOOSE to engage in promiscuous behavior would beg to differ. Again, you are projecting your own moral stance on sex onto everyone else. This is a CHOICE that is up to individuals, and if they choose to do so, that is their prerogative.
I'm not projecting anything on that--that's what the non-religious, moral-neutral study said, and there are others I'd have to copy links for you on. The fact that women are promiscuous doesn't erase those emotional needs--they deal with those in other ways, many times developing depression that you may never see since you're only there for 1 night at most.


And I certainly respect your motherly instincts. However, what will you do if your daughter chooses her own moral stance on sex after she goes off to college (or before). Are you going to try to impose your iron will upon her, or will you accept that she is a free-thinking human being and should be allowed to make her own choices?
Actually, Jimbo and I will sit down with both kids and have a series of age-appropriate discussions of what sex is, what we think is an appropriate attitude towards it, why we've developed the moral stance we have on it, discuss how one gets pregnant, how one catches diseases, how to prevent both, how to handle birth control appropriately, how to handle horny guys/gals and say 'no' or 'I'd like to wait', how to handle the 'if you really love me, you'd do it with me' manipulative argument, where to find 'nice men/women' (not at a bar, usually), and the fact that if they do end up having sex before marriage they need to take appropriate steps to protect themselves/their partners and that while we won't like it because of all the health/emotional ramifications, we still will love them and will help them any way they need.

I still don't buy it. I honestly do not believe if a person's moral conviction is such that they would not engage in immoral behavior, that some immoral act would happen without either first having a change in moral stance, or perhaps in a realization that their morals never were are rigid as they believed. Irregardless, I do not blame the acts that occur before, during, or after this "change" in morals.
Didn't you say a couple posts back that your moral stance on sex had changed? Why wouldn't it for others as well, especially at some watershed event in their lives? I've seen plenty of people who've made one single bad choice in their lives and it affected them greatly for a long time after.


Dinner is boring unless you bring a friend! :xp:Candlelight dinner with hubby ftw! :)

Monogamy for 60 years. Good luck.
Why is that so hard to believe? Jimbo and I are very happy even after 17 years, and it's only gotten better with time. Some things you can't learn until you've been with someone intimately for a long time. We're still learning new subtle things about each other and how to do an even better job of making each other happy. I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? :)

My chief beef was calling promiscuous behavior 'moral' when it isn't,Ah, well then we can certainly debate THAT one back and forth, and quite likely get nowhere because our morals are completely out of sync on that subject. I personally see nothing immoral about making the decision to be promiscuous with people who in turn have made that same decision. I never put any more pressure on my partners than a simple "Do you want to?"

None of those involve getting together with someone and sharing fluids, germs, and babies.I can think of a few strange risks that might involve exchanges of bodily fluids, but once again you are stigmatizing sexual risks just because it is sex. If my partner and I decided we wanted to go skydiving together and we both died, was that somehow less moral than had I done it by myself and died? Or do you accept that both of us made a conscious, rational decision to sky dive, and knew the risks associated with? And say we didn't die, but because my partner introduced me to skydiving I LOVED it I then asked all my future partners to do it with me, and eventually one of them died. Does that mean that involving partners with your skydiving interests is immoral?

Herpes, HIV, HPVThose were the ones that wouldn't be on my list of more easily cured than the common cold. HIV and HPV can be pretty risky, but even now they've got a vaccination for HPV, so it can be prevented, and Herpes, while not pleasant isn't really a show-stopper of a disease, and again, there are preventative measures and medications that can prevent the spread. and HIV, while very scary, is again something that can be prevented with a high likeliness by simply practicing safe sex.

All of the others, while you were keen to point out are perhaps beginning to show some resistant strains, are again no different from almost every other disease that is treated with antibiotics. That's just the nature of evolution. (Like how I pulled that thread into this one there? ;) )

Cute. :)I know, I hear that all the time. :xp:

and they won't have to run around trying to cover up their mistakes and lying to people.That's the problem though, is that they aren't 'mistakes', but we stigmatize them to the point where people feel like they are. If society put as strong a negative stigma on fuzzy slipper wearing as they do on promiscuity you can bet those bunny slippers would stay hidden under the bed when company comes over, even though there is nothing WRONG with wearing them.

You're pretty safe in knowing that at least some of the women you may have had relations with really needed more than you were willing to give them emotionally in return for a romp in the bedroom.Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are not. Do you also feel that the man who decided crossing the interstate late at night dressed all in black has somehow been wronged when he gets hit by a car? Or perhaps he should have been aware of what he was getting into because we all know that cars drive on the interstate. I have never intentionally done anything to mislead women into thinking there was any relationship involved. (Unless there was a relationship, that does happen sometimes, you know :p )

Yeah. Jimbo's way cuter and is teh sexeh.No need to lie just because he might be reading this thread :D

they deal with those in other ways, many times developing depression that you may never see since you're only there for 1 night at most.That's again still not really a moral issue. Some people get really depressed by watching sad movies, but still choose to do so. Some people have nightmares and cannot sleep for days after horror movies, but still choose to watch them as well. People do a lot of things that might not be 100% emotionally healthy, but that's their right to do as free thinking people.

we still will love them and will help them any way they need.Much respect for that. Despite our general disagreements on anything and everything, I certainly do respect you as a person...or...E-persona if you will.

Didn't you say a couple posts back that your moral stance on sex had changed?Indeed I did, although it didn't change because of actions I'd taken. It changed because I actually started to analyze and think about my morals, and made decisions about how I wanted to live my life. And THEN the actions began ;)

I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? Because Hamburgers are delicious, and you can put guacamole and bacon on them. Fillet mignon is so overrated. :xp:

Why is that so hard to believe? Jimbo and I are very happy even after 17 years, and it's only gotten better with time. Some things you can't learn until you've been with someone intimately for a long time. We're still learning new subtle things about each other and how to do an even better job of making each other happy. I've got filet mignon at home. Why would I want to go look at all the hamburger out there? :)


Because hamburgers are younger :xp:

No seriously, I'm not saying it's impossible for two persons to stay together for 60 years in a purely monogamous relationship, I'm only saying it's a lot harder.

I personally see nothing immoral about making the decision to be promiscuous with people who in turn have made that same decision.
I know. :xp:

I can think of a few strange risks that might involve exchanges of bodily fluids, but once again you are stigmatizing sexual risks just because it is sex.

Not because it's sex itself, but because of the impact that particular activity has on society as a whole when used both appropriately and inappropriately. Good heavens, I don't think sex itself is bad when used in its intended way (making babies when people are ready for a family, bringing a husband and wife closer together physically and emotionally). It's supposed to be fun and feel good.
I think sharing contaminated needles for IV drug abuse isn't the most moral thing, either, though I think that falls into the more stupid category than anything else. If stabbing each other with toenail clippings had the potential to spread a bunch of diseases and cause someone to get pregnant, then the activity of stabbing multiple people with your toenail clippings would have moral implications.

If my partner and I decided we wanted to go skydiving together and we both died, was that somehow less moral than had I done it by myself and died? Or do you accept that both of us made a conscious, rational decision to sky dive, and knew the risks associated with? And say we didn't die, but because my partner introduced me to skydiving I LOVED it I then asked all my future partners to do it with me, and eventually one of them died. Does that mean that involving partners with your skydiving interests is immoral?
No, because you don't have the potential to give her a disease that way, get her pregnant, and there's not the same issue of emotional commitment when you skydive compared to when you make love with someone.

Those were the ones that wouldn't be on my list of more easily cured than the common cold. HIV and HPV can be pretty risky, but even now they've got a vaccination for HPV, so it can be prevented, and Herpes, while not pleasant isn't really a show-stopper of a disease, and again, there are preventative measures and medications that can prevent the spread. and HIV, while very scary, is again something that can be prevented with a high likeliness by simply practicing safe sex. All of the others, while you were keen to point out are perhaps beginning to show some resistant strains, are again no different from almost every other disease that is treated with antibiotics. That's just the nature of evolution. (Like how I pulled that thread into this one there? ;) )Hehe.
The HIV vaccine doesn't work at this time, but I'm hoping it gets better soon. And off on a tangent, the people refusing to get their 12 year old daughters vaccinated for fear that that might make them sexually active is just driving me up a wall. Yes, they're my evangelical brethren, and yes, they're being incredibly stupid about it. Intercourse is not the only way to get HPV.
My main point is that with a cold, you stay in bed a couple days (if you're lucky enough to be able to), and you get over it. With STDs, they all require care that is more expensive--visit to the doc, cultures and/or blood tests to determine if it is chlamydia/gonorrhea/syphilis etc., and antibiotics. Have you priced some antibiotics lately? Lab tests? The cost of missed days from work to see the doc? The cost to the public health department of contacting previous partners? The cost to people who don't realize they've been infected until it's in a much less treatable stage? Multiply that by lots of people, and it's very expensive for all of us that pay taxes and insurance.



I know, I hear that all the time. :xp: You can have cute. Jimbo's sexy. :D

That's the problem though, is that they aren't 'mistakes', but we stigmatize them to the point where people feel like they are. If society put as strong a negative stigma on fuzzy slipper wearing as they do on promiscuity you can bet those bunny slippers would stay hidden under the bed when company comes over, even though there is nothing WRONG with wearing them.
Fuzzy slippers, like skydiving, don't cause pregnancy and disease or have an emotional impact on your partner. Unless you're just doing something really kinky with fuzzy slippers. And no, I'm not going to elaborate on things that can be done with fuzzy slippers. :xp:

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are not. Do you also feel that the man who decided crossing the interstate late at night dressed all in black has somehow been wronged when he gets hit by a car? Or perhaps he should have been aware of what he was getting into because we all know that cars drive on the interstate. Not sure what this has to do with sex and morality, if anything.

I have never intentionally done anything to mislead women into thinking there was any relationship involved. (Unless there was a relationship, that does happen sometimes, you know :p )I don't know if you're the typical male. How many guys do you know have told their girlfriends 'if you loved me, you'd do it?' And then dropped them like a hot potato shortly after their 'conquest'? How many articles in men's magazines deal with the relationship aspect in regards to sex and how to deal with that (for good or ill)? Plenty.

No need to lie just because he might be reading this thread :DNo need to lie, cause it's truth. :D And believe me, being 'religious' does not mean one is required to be celibate. I'm very happy to exercise the prerogatives of marriage.

That's again still not really a moral issue. One person causing another pain is indeed a moral issue.

Much respect for that. Despite our general disagreements on anything and everything, I certainly do respect you as a person...or...E-persona if you will.
Oh, my. I don't disrespect you, either, just cause I don't agree on every issue. :) You're an adult, you have to make your choices just like I have to make mine.
Morals are the ideal to shoot for. Being human, we all make mistakes. I've screwed up and will do so in the future, though I try to minimize it. My kids have and will screw up. I want them to have a monogamous relationship because that's the healthiest for them and has the least risk for problems. I also understand just how strong the sex drive can be. Denying it and trying to cover it up with a religious rule just for the sake of the rule would be incredibly foolish. Pretending like everyone's a virgin on their marriage night is also foolish.

Indeed I did, although it didn't change because of actions I'd taken. It changed because I actually started to analyze and think about my morals, and made decisions about how I wanted to live my life. And THEN the actions began ;) *ET read Playboy, liked the articles, and found a girl to kiss.*


Because Hamburgers are delicious, and you can put guacamole and bacon on them. Fillet mignon is so overrated. :xp:
Because hamburgers are younger
You people do not understand the concept of the delicacy of aged beef 'cause you've never had it. :xp: Trust me, when you've been with someone 15+ years, you'll say to yourself 'Hey, Jae might be onto something with that experience thing'. Likely you'll be too busy to waste time thinking that. ;P

@LIAYD--it's not hard to stay monogamous--it's just a conscious decision not to put myself into a position where violating that becomes an issue. I could, if I wanted, break the promise I made to Jimbo--my history group, while great fun, has plenty of people who are pretty loose in their morals (open marriages, you name it), and I could find a number of guys to have an enjoyable night with. However, I don't do things that could compromise myself--I don't get drunk and lower my inhibitions, and then hang around the campfire in scanty clothes or a belly-dancing outfit, for instance. I will say that they're very good about respecting my decision to be monogamous when they've flirted....

I've seen too many of these arguments before XD

I support homosexuality.

"That man is prudent who neither hopes nor fears anything from the uncertain events of the future."

The future of homosexuality--I guess I'll just sit back--observe, and vote when I am needed.