Why the hate for harper?

[Dave_ON]

Oh c'mon. Even back in the 60's they had gratuitous sex gay bars. I had the misfortune of innocently being caught in one where they actually locked the doors and the party began. It didn't matter who the partners were - it was all about gratuitous sex. It wouldn't be such a big deal if 30% of the population was gay and this was just an extreme sector of the fcation. But lets face it - best estimates are that 3% of the population might be gay....or have "tried" being gay. We get an inflated sense of the population because of the concentrations in major cities in specific spots.....and the media spotlight. Regardless, it's obvious that a good percentage of the gay population has gratuitous sex and multiple partners as a cornerstone of their culture.....and don't get me wrong - I KNOW there are committed and loving gay couples out there.....but don't even TRY to equate the Gay/Lesbian attitude towards sex with that of heterosexuals. Just take a peek at any Pride parade and tell me I'm wrong.

Sorry I wasn't even born back in the 60's I can't rightly speak to that time. Suffice it to say though the very fact that you lumped Gay (men I'm assuming) and Lesbians together speaks to your utter lack of knowledge on the very different relationships. Lesbians have a tendancy to be monogomous as do all women in general, by contrast men, and gay men more noticably have a tendancy to be promiscuous. Are you honestly going to try and convince me that straight men stand on some higher moral ground sexually? That men aren't more inclined to have multiple partners regardless of orientation? I have many straight friends that make me look like a choir boy. That's the nature of being a young, single man regardless of your orientation. My central point is men are men regardless of who the sleep with, to say otherwise is being dishonest with yourself and otherwise. Don't get me wrong some men are monogomous their whole lives, both gay and straight, but certainly not the majority.

As for gratuitous sex, well watch almost any hollywood flick or tv show where gratutious straight sex is portrayed and try and tell me it's not a corner stone of "straight" culture. Come on are you seriously living under a rock? It's in music, the media, movies, it's all around you. Ever been to Mardis Gras in in New Orleans? How about Carabana in Toronto? Tell me those aren't very similar to a gay pride parade for straight people. So please don't try and convince me that ALL or even the vast majority of straight people are so very sainted and exclusively commited, it's simply not the case.

[Keepitsimple]

So please don't try and convince me that ALL or even the vast majority of straight people are so very sainted and exclusively commited, it's simply not the case.

I don't want to convince you. We're all entitled to our observations and opinions.....and mine is that there is a much higher percentage of gratuitous sex in the Gay community than there is in the heterosexual community. Why on earth do you think that AIDS was - and still is to some extent - devastating the Gay community? Your use of Hollywood as an example of what goes on in mainstream society is humorous - just sit back and enjoy the movies - but don't get too caught up in them.

[Smallc]

I read a study a while back, I don't remember where. On some level, between 50 and 70% of men and 30 and 50% of women cheat. We aren't saints....and as fas as I can tell, homosexuals are no worse than heterosexuals.

[margrace]

Isn't this just a little off topic. Why don't you start a new one such as why Harper hates Homosectualls

[Argus]

Umm no that's not what I said in the least. Straight men aren't particularly honest with themselves about what they want. Fact is most straight men are just as much a "slut" as Argus put as gay men are.

I have no doubt you are correct. However, the straight community has a brake on its unrestrained debauchery - women. The gay community, at least, the male portion, has no such brake. And so has degenerated in some respects, to the atmosphere of a roman bath. There are no equivilents in the straight community to the gay bars and gay bathhouses. There are a few, rare clubs which we hear about only when police close them down. But the sheer number of such institutions among the gay community, and the unrestrained zeal with which so many gay men throw themselves into sexual experimentation has produced a gay subculture which is quite at odds with Canadian sensibilities. It is also at odds because such behaviour is not really frowned upon within the gay community, where an "anything goes" atmosphere seems to rein.

All of which is really none of my F'ing business, of course, and doesn't really bother me as long as they're not doing it around me. But what gay activists are often demanding is they be treated and respected in the same manner as Canadians would any "normal" straight people, and insofar as what whitebread Canada knows about the gay subculture that's kind of hard to do. In any event, as I said, I don't believe gays are an endangered species, and don't believe any special laws are needed to protect their rights. The endless whining and victim mentality of gay activists thus sets my teeth on edge.

[normanchateau]

However, the straight community has a brake on its unrestrained debauchery - women.

Following this logic, the lesbian community has front and rear brakes on unrestrained debauchery - two women.

Check out Figure 2 of this article:

http://www.psych.wright.edu/~lkurdek/pdf%20files/JFP2008.pdf

Figure 2 reveals that relationship quality in lesbian couples is superior to that of gay men and heterosexual couples at all time points during a 1-10 year interval. At the 10 year time point, relationship quality is lowest in heterosexual couples and highest in lesbian and gay couples. However, consistent with your point, relationship quality is lower in gay men than heterosexual couples in the first three years of a relationship. In homosexuals as in heterosexuals, debauchery is a transient phenomenon.

[Sir Bandelot]

If the vast majority of men aren't "perverted" as you so prudishly put it. Why then is it that the porn and other sex related industries generate billions of dollars annually?

Umm, let me think about it.

Because lots of normal men like to look at pussy

[Sir Bandelot]

However, the straight community has a brake on its unrestrained debauchery - women. The gay community, at least, the male portion, has no such brake. And so has degenerated in some respects, to the atmosphere of a roman bath. There are no equivilents in the straight community to the gay bars and gay bathhouses. There are a few, rare clubs which we hear about only when police close them down. But the sheer number of such institutions among the gay community, and the unrestrained zeal with which so many gay men throw themselves into sexual experimentation has produced a gay subculture which is quite at odds with Canadian sensibilities.

Plus, straight men and women who have families have an extra responsibility to be monogamus. The hedonists have no such added sense of obligation.

[normanchateau]

Plus, straight men and women who have families have an extra responsibility to be monogamus.

Gay men and lesbians who have families also have that responsibility.

[Argus]

Gay men and lesbians who have families also have that responsibility.

While I haven't seen any studies I'm guessing not a lot of gay men have kids.

[normanchateau]

While I haven't seen any studies I'm guessing not a lot of gay men have kids.

In the U.S., gay men account for 40% of same-sex couples with children. Lesbians account for 60% of same-sex couples with children:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/publications/USReport.pdf

[Sir Bandelot]

I know a lesbian "family" where the kids belong to one of the women. She left her husband and moved in with the woman. They bought a house, got a couple of dogs, the whole works.

Three years later she moved out with her kids, moved back in with the old man.

Needless to say, the kids are friggin messed up

Edited May 24, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[jbg]

I know a lesbian "family" where the kids belong to one of the women. She left her husband and moved in with the woman. They bought a house, got a couple of dogs, the whole works.

Three years later she moved out with her kids, moved back in with the old man.

Needless to say, the kids are friggin messed up

But by allowing it society is being "sensitive" to the needs of the gay woman even if totally disregarding the kids' needs. Great policy.

That's why political correctness makes me nauseous (sp). No consideration for the real-life consequences of libertine choices. Only a fashionable "tolerance".

[Shady]

I know a lesbian "family" where the kids belong to one of the women. She left her husband and moved in with the woman. They bought a house, got a couple of dogs, the whole works.

Three years later she moved out with her kids, moved back in with the old man.

Needless to say, the kids are friggin messed up

I can imagine. I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. It's not in their best interest. Children are best served by a mother and father. And there's always a long list of normal couples looking to adopt.

[jbg]

I can imagine. I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. It's not in their best interest. Children are best served by a mother and father. And there's always a long list of normal couples looking to adopt.

That's being judgmental in the extreme. </sarcasm> See this response (link).

[Shady]

That's being judgmental in the extreme. </sarcasm> See this response (link).

Excellent. It's good to see there's more correct thinking people around. Who are actually looking out for what's best for the kids, instead of the feelings of homosexuals who wanna act like straight people.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I can imagine. I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. It's not in their best interest. Children are best served by a mother and father. And there's always a long list of normal couples looking to adopt.

I'd rather kill myself than deal with my father, best interests my ass.

[Shady]

I'd rather kill myself than deal with my father, best interests my ass.

I mean in general.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I mean in general.

In general the more important thing is stability it matters not one bit whether you parents are straight or not. What do you think is better same-sex parents or no parents at all?

[Shady]

In general the more important thing is stability it matters not one bit whether you parents are straight or not.

Yes, stability definitely matters. But so does having a mother and father. I'm sorry you refuse to acknowledge that fact for purely political reasons.

What do you think is better same-sex parents or no parents at all?

Between the false choice of no parents at all, and same-sex parents, I would assume that having same-sex parents would be a better situation.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, stability definitely matters. But so does having a mother and father. I'm sorry you refuse to acknowledge that fact for purely political reasons.

It has nothing to do with politics. Now what exactly does a kid get from a mother and a father that they couldn't get from to same-sex parents?

Between the false choice of no parents at all, and same-sex parents, I would assume that having same-sex parents would be a better situation.

False choice? You deny that there are kids without parents or something?

Edited May 24, 2010 by TrueMetis

[bloodyminded]

So you're still refusing to acknowledge security concerns regarding sensitive information being made public huh? Pathetic.

You charged this; and Toadbrother smashed it to pieces with the clear and obvious answer: it is about Parliament; it doesn't follow that sensitive information must be made public.

Then, even though TB had already answered your charge, and did so clearly, you made the same remark again.

Patiently, ToadBrother repeated the same answer he had already given you.

And now, you make the same charge yet again, for...some reason. And you even have the gall to insist he hasn't addressed it.

Twice, at the very least!

Astonishing.

[bloodyminded]

I know a lesbian "family" where the kids belong to one of the women. She left her husband and moved in with the woman. They bought a house, got a couple of dogs, the whole works.

Three years later she moved out with her kids, moved back in with the old man.

Needless to say, the kids are friggin messed up

This has nothing to do with lesbians. (And I enjoy your cute use of scare quotes around "family.")

The same type of situation happens every day among straight couples as well.

But then, you already know this, don't you? Just slipped your mind, which was overboggled by the profound Evil of homosexuality.

[Argus]

In the U.S., gay men account for 40% of same-sex couples with children. Lesbians account for 60% of same-sex couples with children:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/publications/USReport.pdf

So what I derive from this is that 10% of gays are involved in a long term relationship, and 39% - about 20% for males - are raising children. That doesn't really contradict my presumptions.

[Argus]

It has nothing to do with politics. Now what exactly does a kid get from a mother and a father that they couldn't get from to same-sex parents?

Oh come on. There are a thousand little ways in which fathers/mothers influence the lives and thinking of their children. Both genders play their role in being role models for the young. Little girls and boys both get innumerable life experiences in how men/fathers ought to behave from a good father. The same goes for how women ought to behave from their mothers. Having one of each is simply a good, balanced learning experience. And yes, that presumes the parents ARE actually good role models, and acknowledges that some aren't. Certainly two parents of the same gender who are both good role models is a good thing, and better than straight parents who are not. But all things being equal, children are better off with one of each.