Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Lotesse]

If you do not deny that the behaviours could be performed by heterosexuals, and cannot - or will not - provide us with comparable research indicating the statistical breakdown of the private lives of heterosexuals, as well, then how can you say, with a straight face, that the "incidence if occuring would be much less in all categories," or not?

[brownjenkins]

because he likes to

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I await your correlative heterosexual data on percentage participations.

ha! you are the one that declared all your postings showed "correlative data" which they did not and now you post one data point showing that MILLIONS (by your 25% number) of heterosexuals engage in anal sex and you are done? And you want ME to provide correlative data? Thats on you pal. Remember? You are the one declaring that "homosexual behavior" is bad and different. You just showed it to be anything but...

I do not deny that the behaviours could be performed by heterosexuals. The incidence if occuring would be much less in all categories, most likely, as the marked differential in anal intercourse attests.

Even if true, you have ruined your own assertion that these "homosexual behaviors" need to be railed against because of some homosexual aspect involved. You freely admitted its a form of behavior engaged in by MILLIONS of heterosexual (perhaps even married and committed! ) people. If you want to rail against anal sex go ahead. Thats a whole different argument but you just popped your own "homosexual behavior" bubble Im afraid.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

because he likes to

lol! That's what I kinda figured.

[Rían]

Awlright here! *rolls up her sleeves*

All this hue and cry about there not being any "homosexual behavior" is just silly, IMHO.

A while back, Gaffer (IIRC) made some remark about a fascist. If I were to take up the tactic used here by some of the people that say that there's no such thing as homosexual behavior, then I could easily say, "Why, there's no such thing as fascist behavior! Fascists have houses, and jobs, and give to charities, and some are nice, and some are not, just like we are! You can't say all fascists act the same way!"

That's what I hear from the pro-homosexual-behavior side all the time, and it's just silly, and just an avoidance tactic, IMO.

A fascist is a person who thinks that fascist behavior is right in areas of his/her life where fascism applies. A fascist can be a nice guy, love Tolkien, give a tremendous amount of time and money to charities, pick up stray dogs and cats off the street and take care of them, etc. etc. etc., just like "us", but when it comes to areas that fascism applies to, he acts like ... a fascist would!

A homosexual is a person who thinks that homosexual behavior is right in areas of his/her life where sexual behavior applies. A homosexual can be a a nice guy, love Tolkien, give a tremendous amount of time and money to charities, pick up stray dogs and cats off the street and take care of them, etc. etc. etc., just like "us", but when it comes to areas that sexuality applies to, he acts like ... a homosexual would!

What is so difficult about that?!

Sure, homosexuals are all different. Sure, heterosexuals are all different. But in the specific area of sexuality, homosexuals are characterized by ... guess what? ... homosexual (same-sex) behaviors, and heterosexuals are characterized by ... guess what? ... heterosexual behaviors!

The words "homoSEXUAL " and "heteroSEXUAL" enable us to talk about people who engage in these behaviors, when the discussion is about SEXUAL behavior. It does NOT say anything about the non-sexual aspects of their lives - both homosexuals and heterosexuals can be nice, mean, or inbetween.

[Rían]

NOW ... on to the latest numbers that inked has provided.

That study shows that:
91% of homosexuals engage in anal sex;
approx. 25% of heterosexuals engage in anal sex.

(I'm assuming we're only talking about guys here, btw!)

Now this should be extremely plain to anyone without a bias that homosexual behavior tends to be VERY much riskier than heterosexual behavior, in terms of diseases that tend to be passed via anal sex more often that vaginal sex.

So what's the problem?

Let's take it to a non-emotional subject.

I'll make up some numbers here, and I hope you'll bear with me - I'm sure they're not accurate, but I hope you guys will grant the basic reasonableness of my guesstimates.

RÃ*an's off-the-top-of-her-head study shows that:
Diabetics who have to inject insulin use clean needles 98% of the time.
People who are addicted to illegal drugs tend to use clean needles 50% of the time.

SO - even though both groups can contain people who are nice, love Tolkien, give time and money to charities, etc. etc., still, this remains abundantly clear - illegal drug use (BEHAVIOR!) is riskier than legal drug use (BEHAVIOR), in terms of catching diseases that can be transmitted via used needles.

[Lotesse]

I used clean needles %100 percent of the time, and I was shooting up for a year and a half. Everyone, EVERYone I knew who was a drug user in the same capacity of myself at that time, and mind you this included a BROAD range of people - from upper-middle class working professionals to Latino hard-core gangbangers, and a lot of people in the middle - also used only clean, brand new needles. We'd never even consider doing anything but. Using drugs, believe it or not, does not automatically make a person irresponsible and retarded as to the potential deadly consequences of lax measures taken. I think this can apply to any sub-culture, drug-oriented or otherwise. It is wise to be cautious when attempting to guardedly reprimand a sub-cultural group's use of measure, especially within the context of a debate.

That "fascist" analogy you created for us, however, post-before-last, is quite on-point. Makes sense to me.

[Lotesse]

**** friggin' double-post. and a double-post of me saying such revealing stuff, too! Friggin' server today is so freakin' slow... meh.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Then it is NOT an open society, is it?

That is a definition. Open society is defined to be society open to all but the intolerants. I like that type of society

Originally Posted by inked

Should we be intolerant of mis-spellers, too? or merely intollerant ?

I like being corrected; it helps me improve.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

I freely admit my prejudices towards health and I get characterized as homophobic because...

Nope, you are homophobic because each of your posts falls in one of the following categories:
1. things mentioned in your posts do not correspond to reality, and they are prejudicial against LGBT people
2. things mentioned in your posts parcel out pieces of reality, thereby distorting reality in a way that is prejudicial against LGBT people
3. things mentioned in your posts do not take into the minimal account that there is value in people's sexual orientation and same-sex relationships so that it is legitimate for them to act upon them even if acting upon them, unfortunately, implies risks and/or costs
4. you keep on quoting from sources that are well known to be homophobic and to have no regard for reality.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Using drugs, believe it or not, does not automatically make a person irresponsible and retarded as to the potential deadly consequences of lax measures taken.

Aaarrrrggghhh!!!!!

Did I need to put in more disclaimers than I already did? *sigh*

Did I say using drugs illegally "automatically make[s] a person irresponsible and retarded as to the potential deadly consequences of lax measures taken."

Well, did I? No!

*sigh*

If using used needles is NOT a problem, then why do you keep hearing about measures to provide free clean needles to illegal drug users? Why aren't people campaigning to provide free clean needles to insulin users?

Because illegal drug users have a higher incidence of used needle usage, apparently.

That's all I was trying to point out. I didn't mean to dis drug users! I was only using that as an example of a group that uses needles that has a higher risk than another group that uses needles. That's all Would you agree that illegal drug users probably have a higher percentage of using used needles than insulin users?

I think this can apply to any sub-culture, drug-oriented or otherwise. It is wise to be cautious when attempting to guardedly reprimand a sub-cultural group's use of measure, especially within the context of a debate.

I was NOT reprimanding anyone!
I was trying to pull an example up to illustrate a point.

That "fascist" analogy you created for us, however, post-before-last, is quite on-point. Makes sense to me.

Funny - I thought people were going to go ballistic on that one. Instead, I got objections over the drug use illustration! Just goestershowya, you never know!


NOTE - I just re-read my post, and I can see how you might have misinterpreted it. I meant the 50% figure as in 50% of illegal drug users use used needles, not all illegal drug users use used needles 50% of the time.
See how hard typed communication is sometimes? That's why we need to give each other some slack [/mom mode]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

That is a definition. Open society is defined to be society open to all but the intolerants.

Then it's not open.

And btw, who gets to define what makes a person "intolerant"? I don't like people to lie; am I intolerant of liars, and therefore eligible to be pushed out of this open society that you like?

[Lotesse]

" RÃ*an's off-the-top-of-her-head study shows that:
Diabetics who have to inject insulin use clean needles 98% of the time.
People who are addicted to illegal drugs tend to use clean needles 50% of the time.

SO - even though both groups can contain people who are nice, love Tolkien, give time and money to charities, etc. etc., still, this remains abundantly clear - illegal drug use (BEHAVIOR!) is riskier than legal drug use (BEHAVIOR), in terms of catching diseases that can be transmitted via used needles. "

(quote from Rian)



Rian, the reason why I stated what I did was to illustrate the danger in quoting statistics from within one's own head - or, as you said, "off the top of your head." Wasn't tryna freak you out! Because, I can tell you from first hand experience, people who use illegal drugs intravenously tend to use clean needles at LEAST 98% of the time; in my own experience and with everyone I'd known doing likewise it was 100% of the time. So its not a good analogy to make, is all I'm sayin'.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sure, homosexuals are all different. Sure, heterosexuals are all different. But in the specific area of sexuality, homosexuals are characterized by ... guess what? ... homosexual (same-sex) behaviors

and what might these be exactly?

[The Gaffer]

There's nothing new in this debate which we haven't already covered ad nauseam. We all know that unprotected sex is risky, and that gay men are a risk group for HIV etc. What the homophobic crowd consistently fail to do is come up with any constructive, realistic way forward, as consistently requested by brownjenkins and others and roundly ignored in favour of malicious trolling.

And what's with this unhealthy and deeply suspect obsession that homophobes have with the details of homosexual activity? Oh, I've already answered that:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=310

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(I'm assuming we're only talking about guys here, btw!)

that's the problem... you take the figures for homosexual males and project it onto homosexuality in general

as i've said before... woman to woman contact is much safer the heterosexual contact

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and what might these be exactly?

d'you wanna lesson? :d

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

If you do not deny that the behaviours could be performed by heterosexuals, and cannot - or will not - provide us with comparable research indicating the statistical breakdown of the private lives of heterosexuals, as well, then how can you say, with a straight face, that the "incidence if occuring would be much less in all categories," or not?

With the same aplomb that IR says:
"Actually this is erroneous. What you do is submit alternative interpretations (and outright manipulations) of studies that focus primarily on "homosexual behavior" ONLY in the context of how awful and dangerous they are and has very little if anything in correlation regarding "heterosexual behaviors". This of course is simply a misleading and statistically bogus way of interpreting data. Furthermore, the very statement "homosexual behaviour and the correlative heterosexual behaviours" is misinformative since there is no specific homosexual behavior that heterosexuals cant engage in. So you are by definition making a bogus discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals in terms of sexual activity and attempting to use that against homosexuals in favor of your particular agenda."

I at least have data on which to base my statements. IR contends that they are all ideologically motivated and therefore everything I say is wrong. Of course, to submit my data and interpretations to such Marxist analysis is to expose the opposite camp to the same.

On the Marxist evaluation of ideological contention, it is clear that the homosexual lobby is deeply committed to the presentation that homosexual BEHAVIOURS are exactly like htersosexual ones. I have contended that they are not on the basis of gay research by gays published for 26 years. The intervening researches have shown the BEHAVIOUR pattern to be consistent in the gay community. But, not suprisingly, one doesn't see gay research on correlative hetersosexual behaviours because that would dis-establish the contention that the behaviours are alike.

Hence, one merely hears the mantra "homosexual behaviours and hetersexual behaviours are identical" - which is patently not true. Especially if we get into internationally documented promiscuity rates.

But ideologically that is unacceptable because it highlights the difference between homosexual and heterosexual persons, THEREFORE, it cannot be admitted for it undermines the argument of the homosexual lobby.

Gotta watch that Marxist analysis stuff, guys and gals; it cuts both ways!

Notice how IR attempts to deflect the factual argument by the assertion of the mantra:
"Even if true, you have ruined your own assertion that these "homosexual behaviors" need to be railed against because of some homosexual aspect involved. You freely admitted its a form of behavior engaged in by MILLIONS of heterosexual (perhaps even married and committed! ) people. If you want to rail against anal sex go ahead. Thats a whole different argument but you just popped your own "homosexual behavior" bubble Im afraid."

Sorry, IR, but no. The argument wasn't that heterosexuals can't do it or don't do it. The argument was that there is not the same set of practices to the same degree of incidence. I don't know about math in your educational system, but I was taught that that regardless of the numbers involved, the difference between 97% of homosexuals engaging in anal intercourse and 25% of heterosexuals engaging in anal intercourse was a real difference. But perhaps math is not a universal statement of reality and merely is an ideological tool to advance the gay agenda?

And, just in case the math starts to get to anyone, IR contends:
"ha! you are the one that declared all your postings showed "correlative data" which they did not and now you post one data point showing that MILLIONS (by your 25% number) of heterosexuals engage in anal sex and you are done? And you want ME to provide correlative data? Thats on you pal. Remember? You are the one declaring that "homosexual behavior" is bad and different. You just showed it to be anything but..."

So now I should feel really chastised that because homosexual behaviours can be heterosexual behaviours and that is supposed to invalidate an argument based on incidence and frequency? NOT working, I fear. By the by, I am waiting for the argument that some homosexuals engage in heterosexual acts of intravaginal intercourse means that all homosexuals are really heterosexuals! The logic IR is using is the same.

Folks, I am not homophobic because I delineate the differences in homosexual behaviour and heterosexual behaviour. IT IS THE BEHAVIOURS that are the risks from a medical standpoint.

Want to do a poll on behaviours here? I'm willing to bet that there will be a sharp difference in frequency betwixt heterosexuals and homosexuals in the incidence of anal intercourse, rimming, fisting, golden shower participation, and mud rolling. And, if you want to include oral sex forms, I think you'd best distinguish between oral stimulation to orgasm for either party as the primary means of release versus uses as foreplay. I bet the differences would be smaller but still significant.

Then, TWFM jumps in with the secondary mantra that I am homophobic because:
Nope, you are homophobic because each of your posts falls in one of the following categories:
1. things mentioned in your posts do not correspond to reality, and they are prejudicial against LGBT people
2. things mentioned in your posts parcel out pieces of reality, thereby distorting reality in a way that is prejudicial against LGBT people
3. things mentioned in your posts do not take into the minimal account that there is value in people's sexual orientation and same-sex relationships so that it is legitimate for them to act upon them even if acting upon them, unfortunately, implies risks and/or costs
4. you keep on quoting from sources that are well known to be homophobic and to have no regard for reality.

Data, Dude, data. Sorry you don't like data, but the argument you make is against the interpretation not the data. And they do consistently respond to reality over time (Kinsey to current). Any discussion of any aspect of the data is of necessity a parceling of the data. This is known as studying the data. The 3rd point is basically "who cares what the data are, we gonna act that way anyway" which is PRECISELY my point. I am sorry that TWFM thinks any source I quote from is homophobic because if you had bothered to read the sources you would have noted international and gay sources for the data. Gee, ideologically, do I hear what you what me to hear or what the data says from gay research? Oh, stupid question, Inked, you are a homophobe! "What do they teach in those schools these days?" - not disputation it would seem.

And, BJ, there have been data presented in this thread about the risks of lesbian contact and transmission.

Now that we have the HOMOPHOBE rant answered, don't ya think that conversation around communicating the facts of behaviours is critical to the preservation of junkies (regardless of social standing elsewhere), promiscuous persons of heterosexual type and homosexual types, and risk takers of bothe combo types? This is not worse or different than warning people of the dangers of smoking or drinking and driving or huffing aerosols. Unless you wish to make it IDEOLOGICALLY so. In which case, do so. But do not attribute homophobia to every incidence of numbers you happen to disagree with or their interpretations.

AND, can you trust any data from any source? Or are you really post-modernists and deconstructionists? If so, any alleged errors in spelling in this post are merely due to your spellcheckphobia mentality~ !

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There's nothing new in this debate which we haven't already covered ad nauseam. We all know that unprotected sex is risky, and that gay men are a risk group for HIV etc. What the homophobic crowd consistently fail to do is come up with any constructive, realistic way forward, as consistently requested by brownjenkins and others and roundly ignored in favour of malicious trolling.

And what's with this unhealthy and deeply suspect obsession that homophobes have with the details of homosexual activity? Oh, I've already answered that:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=310

Okay, if I have to spell it out for you Gaffer,

"DO NOT ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOURS SUCH AS UNPROTECTED ANAL/ORAL/VAGINAL INTERCOURSE, RIMMING, FISTING, GOLDEN SHOWERING, SCAT or MUD ROLLING. REMEMBER THAT CONDOMS DO NOT OFFER 100% PROTECTION WHEN PROPERLY USED AGAINST EITHER PREGNANCY OR STD's. UNPROTECTED AREAS OF CONTACT MAY BE ENTRANCE POINTS FOR HIV AND HEPATITIS AND WARTS AND OTHER, as yet unidentified, VIRAL AGENTS. DO NOT SHARE TOOTHBRUSHES WITH PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOURS. DO NOT SHARE NEEDLES."

Do I really need to go on? Or can I just be equally heterophobic and homophobic now?

[The Gaffer]

Actually, the latter, though I still wonder about the scat obsession.

Just say no, then? Or is gerbil packing OK?