In another thread it was suggested that homosexuals tend to have a far greater number of sexual partners than hererosexuals do. I found such thinking rather strange, so I decided to make a poll about it.

To put some more concrete numbers to it, it was suggested that a typical heterosexual would have 10 sexual partners in the course of one's lifetime, whereas a typical homosexual would have 100 sexual partners, and sometime even as many as 1000.

This is part of my post from the other topic that sums up my feelings pretty well:

The point I'm making is it seems a number like 100 is somewhat inflated, and 1000 seems to be completely artificial. Just do some simple math here:

Say someone who is homosexual goes to a bar every weekend and picks up a different partner every week and has sex with him/her. At this rate, a person would have to continue this action every weekend for nearly 20 years to reach 1000. I'm listing two separate questions, one pertaining to male homosexuals compared to the general popualtion, and the other to female homosexuals as compared to the general population. I'm curious to see if there is some gender bias working as well.

EDIT: Spelling

[ December 14, 2004, 21:30: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 34 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Numerous Partners (34 votes.)

As compared to the general population, do you feel that female homosexuals have: (Choose 1)
* more sexual partners than the typical heterosexual female - 12% (4)
* fewer sexual partners than the typical heterosexual female - 26% (9)
* about the same number of sexual partners as the typical heterosexual female - 62% (21)

As compared to the general population, do you feel that male homosexuals have: (Choose 1)
* more sexual partners than the typical heterosexual male - 29% (10)
* fewer sexual partners than the typical heterosexual male - 15% (5)
* about the same number of sexual partners as the typical heterosexual male - 56% (19)

I find this hard to answer. Among heterosexuals I think the average woman has more sexual partners than the average man but that the average man would have more if possible. My theory is that there are some dudes who have a whole lot of women while your average Joe just have a few partners.

Not really related to this but somewhat anyway is that I think that men are more sexually agressive than women both by nature and by upbringing. A man with multiple oppurtunities to have sex would probably take quite a few of them. Seeing thus as male homosexuals are two men the sexual aggresiveness and possibility for sex would be at least twice that of a straight man. In theory that would mean that male homosexuals have more partners than straight people in female homosexuals had fewer partners than straight people.

That is theory, I have no empirical evidence to back this up with and the little experience I have with homosexual men shows that they are not more promiscious than others and suffer the same problems as straight people in finding people.

I am refraining from voting as I really have no idea, well, I have lots of ideas but no knowledge.

I would like to give you cudos for including lesbians in this poll as well. All the gay bashers seems to solely focus on male homosexuals and ignore the female ones, mostly because I think the male homosexuals threathens these insecure men alot more than the thought of hot girl on girl sex.

@ joacquin - you can still vote. I'm basically asking what you think - kind of like your gut reaction. I'm certainly not here to tell you whether you are right or wrong, because obviously I can't provide any evidence to support my opinions either.

Well! I dont know what I think! My gut reaction is that gay men screw around constantly just for the sheer possibility of it! This simply because when I look at straight men many many many many of them screw every girl they get half a chance at and I really dont see why gay men would be any different.

When it comes to lesbians I have no gut reaction at all.

My gut reaction when it comes to gay men however is contradicted by what little empirical experience I have of gay men. None of the gay men I have been in contact with have been more promiscious than your average dude.

I find this hard to answer. Among heterosexuals I think the average woman has more sexual partners than the average man but that the average man would have more if possible. My theory is that there are some dudes who have a whole lot of women while your average Joe just have a few partners.Yeah. The same what joacqin said.

And yeah, I think the average lesbian has less partners than the average male homosexual (when I say "homosexual", I mean both male and female, in case anyone's wondering), due to the male sexual aggressiveness factor, also as joacqin said.

Another thing is, it was I who brought up those statistics with extreme numbers ranging from 100 to 1000. That was, however, true for the seventies. The era of militant sexual freedom and the outbreak of gay lib movements. Combine the two and take into consideration and some great numbers are bound to pop up. Personally, I don't think it's so high for gay people who live in normal environments. But environments promoting the widely understood gay lifestyle tend to promote promiscuity as well. Consider the spread of STDs. Sometimes the STD figures in a given gay community look like everyone slept with everyone. It's an environmental thing. Doesn't have any inherent ties with homosexuality per se, so far as I know. Civilise the pro-gay movements and activists, and promiscuity figures will fall. Again, the double male aggressiveness factor will still work, so the average homosexual man will always have more partners than the average heterosexual man. Unless women become so aggressive as men. But... you know... getting rebuked doesn't make you more virtuous, nor does being accepted for sex make you any more promiscuous than unsuccessful trying. So the point is probably moot.

Environments being environments, I don't like generalisations like "all gay people are promiscuous". One example isn't all, a group isn't all, even the majority isn't all. Heck, I could come up with gay saints in the Catholic Church.

Some statistics from California:

http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.And from Australia:

http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/288/

Number of Sex Partners
(MGCPS Feb. 2000) When questioned about the number of sex partners in the previous six months:
One - 20.7 %, 2 to 10 - 39 %, 11 to 50 - 26.2 %, Over 50 - 7.8 %
Thus 73 % have had more than one partner in the previous six months.

Length of Relationships
Changed in previous six months - 40.4 %, 6 mths to 1year 9.8 %, 1 to 2 yrs - 18.8 %,
3 to 5 years - 15.3%, over 5 years - 15.7 %

Therefore 50% lasted less than one year and 68% lasted less than 2 years.
(Includes data from ‘Men and Sexual Health’, by the National Centre in HIV Social Research, 1997) As for the mess in gay statistics, refer here:

http://members.aol.com/gaymatter/monog.htm

Links there lead to a page where a gay person speaks about gay couples' approach to monogamy, even in evironments different from the standard gay lib movement environment (including Christian gays in those churches that accept such unions). I was surprised to hear about all those "agreed exceptions" from monogamy or monogamy limited to limited periods of time. Perhaps there is a tie between homosexuality and problems with staying monogamous? I thought it was only an enviromental thing, but maybe I was wrong.

[ December 14, 2004, 23:53: Message edited by: chevalier ]

There are a ot f heterrosexual people whho are not monogamous in their relationships; but since monogamy is such a taboo subject, thanks to the whhole ideal of "marriage is sacred" it is not spoken openly; as such, someone whose lifestle is already "outside the parameters" would thusly be more willing to be open about such things as well.

(Yes, I know my phrasing sucks here)

I've read in many places (none of which are probably very reputable given the US press) the AIDS epidemic has made a drastic change in the sexual practices of most homosexuals. I believe the fear of getting AIDS is far greater for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals; hence, the tendancy for multiple partners has greatly diminished in the gay community.

@t2Bruno - Before the AIDS epidemic, there were fewer reasons for homosexuals to actually use condoms - after all, it is pretty much impossible to get someone of the same gender pregnant, and most SYDs would not kill you. As such, the effect has not been one of monogamy but rather safe sex.

As it is, homosexual relationships tend to be subject to far more social pressure than heterosexual ones, and thus the amount of serious relationships that end without a monogamous conmmitment are greater.

I beg your pardon... being subject to social pressure makes gay couples agree on exceptions from monogamy or cheat on partners? Sorry, that's completely illogical.

You could argue that social pressure in hostile environments makes it more difficult to sustain a gay relationship. But more difficult to be faithful? Especially if you have less temptation because the number of gay people of your gender is so obviously lower than the number of hetero people of your gender? Sorry, that doesn't hold at all.

As it is, my argument is not exactly well worded, thus here is a clarification:

"he amount of serious relationships that end without a monogamous commitment are greater."

(ignore the grammar) the important word here is END. What I try to say is that thanks to social pressure, many relationships that might have ended up in a monogamy/the equivalent of marriage are broken up; this would affect the amount of partners-in-average without it being an issue of promiscuity.

it is also the social pressure that keeps people "in the closet" that contributes to the amount of one-night stands and short relationships; the fear of being ostracized due to a same-sex relationship is very prevalent in the modern society.

I beg you pardon again... are you actually suggesting that a serious relationship needs still to develop into a monogamous relationship?

The standard for all relationships whatsoever is to be monogamous. Unless humans have become unable to stick to one partner at a time since I last checked.

Sleeping around is not yet a standard. As a rule, beginning at the latest with the moment one calls someone his/her partner, boyfriend, girlfriend or whatever, one is expected to stop sleeping with other people. From the very start, not from the point where one or one's partner deem the relationship serious. "Serious" or not, sleeping with other people when one's in a relationship is plain cheating. There are no stages here.

many relationships that might have ended up in a monogamy/the equivalent of marriage are broken upSo it's normal to sleep around on girlfriends, boyfriends, even fiance(e)s?

I'm quite sure that arrangement excluding sexual exclusivity is not yet a common standard for relationships.

Note to self: stay away from AoDA after midnight...

Seems like I have been still more confusing in my statements; as it is, a serious relationship, in this context, is a monogamous one. I should have said the equicalent of marriage commitment-wise; that there is an intention to stay in the relationship under all circumstances.

As it is, I think I will try explaining this again after I get some sleep.

I don't believe that sexual fidelity is confined to choice of the gender of your sexual partner. Meaning thta a man in a relationship with another man is as likeley to be faithful or adulterous as a man in a relationship with a woman.

If the two involved are going to have sex, they will have sex. If they aren't going to, then they won't. Again, these decisions aren't based solely on the genders of the partners.

Relationships are not guaranteed. What may seem to be the greatest relationship at one point, may degenerate to a living hell later on. At some point they may end, leaving both sides to find the next relationship. Again, I doubt this is confined to male-male or woman-woman relations. I've tried the Internet dating thing, and see a lot of women on the Mormon web sites that have been divorced or widowed. When they re-marry, they will be taking an additional sexual partner. And we can safely assume that most of them are straight...

The number of partners one has is not restricted to what gender they choose. There were several years where I didn't follow my religeous beliefs. My lack os sexual activity wasn't by choice. Back then, I would have had other partners if I could have...

I can't imagine anyone having over 100 partners in their lifetime never mind 1000. I don't even know 1000 people.

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime. :eek: :confused: :eek:

I had assumed that the "100" figure was lifetime. 106 parnters per year?!? That's about two different partners every single week. Now granted they say between 20 and 106, so I'm assuming that those numbers make up the take into account one standard deviation from the average - maybe two standard deviations. But still that seems like a whole lot.

I mean, I know a lot of married couples that don't have sex with each other 106 times in a year. For me, I'd guess my wife and I have sex about twice a week, but two different people every week with no repeats? I find it surprising that someone who was gay could meet 106 gay people of the same gender per year!

For me, I'd guess my wife and I have sex about twice a weekThat was wee bit more than we needed to know, thank you. ;)

Between 20 and 106 partners in a year versus eight in a lifetime? Was this taken out a christian review?

If you are going to compare, you need an accurate baseline. Using all heterosexuals is not an accurate baseline. I know of many heterosexuals that would fall in that 20 to 106 partners in a year (there's a reason sailors have certain reputations) -- those individuals have a different opinion of sex and relationships than the highly religious people I know (many of which chose to remain chaste until marriage).

The studies being quoted are misleading and seem to be more of the (not so very) christian propaganda type. The first two studies quoted by Chev are obvious gay-bashing.

Between 20 and 106 partners in a year versus eight in a lifetime? Was this taken out a christian review?
Well, to me, it's the 20-106 per year that I find surprising. Taking an average of about 60 per year, and we're talking about ridiculous amounts of partners over the course of a lifetime. Eight in a lifetime sounds a little low to me, but not completely unreasonable, espeically because as was said, some people do not have sex until they get married, in which cases, their total is 1.

If you are going to compare, you need an accurate baseline. Using all heterosexuals is not an accurate baseline. I know of many heterosexuals that would fall in that 20 to 106 partners in a year (there's a reason sailors have certain reputations) -- those individuals have a different opinion of sex and relationships than the highly religious people I know (many of which chose to remain chaste until marriage).

The studies being quoted are misleading and seem to be more of the (not so very) christian propaganda type. The first two studies quoted by Chev are obvious gay-bashing.Sorry, but that's BS. :bs: Totally illogical.

Why is a comparison between ALL heterosexuals and ALL homosexuals unfair? Because we need to choose the more promiscuous of heterosexuals for the comparison with ALL homosexuals to be valid? That's more or less what you say. Do you realise that by saying that you suggesting that promiscuity is an innate trait of homosexuality? That's quite a nice bit of gay bashing on your own part.

On a logical level, do you also realise that if you picked the more promiscuous of heterosexuals to compare them with homosexuals, the result would ONLY be valid for SOME heterosexuals and NOT ALL? The exact conclusion could be "gay people are per average exactly as promiscuous as the more promiscuous part of the heterosexual population". Heck, this way you could pick the most promiscuous of heterosexuals and draw a conclusion like "gay people per average are less promiscuous than the most promiscuous of heterosexuals".

Logic-wise, that is :bs:

Then again, you really have no idea how the data was collected in the completely bogus statistic examples you linked to.

Uh oh, my :bs: meter was going off.... First of all, I do not believe the studies were all gay versus all straight -- and it wouldn't be a fair assessment if it was.

If you are making a medical comparison you take as large a database as possible. But this is not a medical issue -- it is an ethics issue. Comparing between differing value systems is unfair and biased. It is the standard tactic of organizations who wish to bash an entire group of people (like Chev's first two links).

As an example lets do a study on the attractiveness of co-eds in universities. Most of us know that Playboy does several layouts of coeds every year. You could simply count the number of coeds over a few years that appear in Playboy from a particular school and rule that the school with the most appearances as the the school with the most attractive coeds. A reasonable approach, but then how would you account for the Miss America winner that came from Brigham Young University (no BYU coed has ever appeared in Playboy). Hmmmm. Here ethics has collided with a relatively unbiased study. We failed to take into account what the university and student body consider normal and acceptable -- a university which would expel any student posing nude.

You could look among different religious groups and see the same trends. In those groups where a little hanky-panky before marriage is okay you'll see more partners. For those groups where the individuals who engage in such activities are shunned, excommunicated, or stoned you'll see a much lower number of partners over a lifetime. The biased statistician groups all these together into "heterosexual" -- very unfair since no homosexuals exist in such environments (since they would be shunned, excommunicated or stoned themselves).

The real study should be between groups of the same basic value systems. Compare those that belong to the same religion (if that religion allows homosexuality without it being a sin), the same basic view of marriage or partnership, and the same acceptance/condemnation of extramarital affairs.

There is a large number of straight men who have very few partners simply due to religious beliefs. I am saying don't mix religious beliefs with the gay/straight issue -- that IS unfair.

[ December 15, 2004, 19:47: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

But this is not a medical issue -- it is an ethics issue. Comparing between differing value systems is unfair and biased.Let's compare the number of Christian, Muslim and Atheist people in the world. Oh NO! That is unfair and biased!
How about comparing the number of men and women working in upper-class positions. Oh NO! That is unfair and biased!
Maybe compare the number of children attending school in developed and developing countries. What then? Oh NO! That is unfair and biased!

Finally, we can always say that even studies of people fallen ill to a disease and people free from that disease is unfair and biased because it is done by people who either have that illness or they do not have it. I think it is possible to void ANY and ALL studies (statistical or otherwise) because they are unfair and biased. What's there to stop us? Don't like the statistics? Doubt their veracity, bash them, ignore them. Heck, why stop at this? Invent your own, nobody's going to check. Right? Well, there is the risk that somebody will check them, but then the discussion will be long forgotten. Either way, doubting statistics, and let me reiterate: 'Oh NO! That is unfair and biased!' - is a sure way to wriggle your way out of any argument.

But suppose these statistics are true. What then?

But suppose these statistics are true. What then?Well lets take a look and see, shall we? ;)

I'll just grab the most inflammatory one that we all seem so hung up on. The one about how the "mos get "mo" tail than the heteros/

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.M'kay, lets take a closer look! OOh, what's that (6) thing doing in the middle there... ok kids... its a footnote! yay! footnote!

(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38Ooh! Its a figure from a book published in 1980

Go validity!

If you are making a medical comparison you take as large a database as possible. But this is not a medical issue -- it is an ethics issue. Comparing between differing value systems is unfair and biased. It is the standard tactic of organizations who wish to bash an entire group of people (like Chev's first two links).:bs: This way you couldn't compare the number of children in families who use contraception and those who don't. Why? Because they have different views on contraception, ergo: they have different value. Heck, you should even outlaw elections! After all, people voted Kerry because of certain values and others voted Bush because of other values. So their values differed and therefore you can't compare the two. If you can't compare the two, you can't make elections. Clearly, your claim is absurd.

You could look among different religious groups and see the same trends. In those groups where a little hanky-panky before marriage is okay you'll see more partners. For those groups where the individuals who engage in such activities are shunned, excommunicated, or stoned you'll see a much lower number of partners over a lifetime. The biased statistician groups all these together into "heterosexual" -- very unfair since no homosexuals exist in such environments (since they would be shunned, excommunicated or stoned themselves).No one gets excommunicated for sex before marriage. This is one. But your argument is still non-sense. How? See: what after marriage? When the person is married, it's no longer before marriage. And so what now? According to your logic, many different partners should now enter the stage.

Homosexuals would be stoned? Yeah. Do I really need to comment? :rolleyes:

However, those heterosexual people CHOOSE to follow a religion. They don't have to. If they had so much problem with it, they would leave. So here's the news: upholding pre-marital chastity and sexual exclusivity in relationships is their own free choice. Based on values? Hell, yeah. All choices are based on values. Even when a homosexual has sex with another homosexual, he or she first decides that it's OK for him/her to have homosexual intercourse. If we accepted your claim, we could make no comparison of anything whatsoever so far as humans are concerned. Except the number of men and women in the world or something like that, maybe.

There's no logical reason to adjust the comparison in favour of homosexuals. What works in politics doesn't work in logic, sorry. Logic doesn't know political correctness.

The real study should be between groups of the same basic value systems. Compare those that belong to the same religion (if that religion allows homosexuality without it being a sin), the same basic view of marriage or partnership, and the same acceptance/condemnation of extramarital affairs.Why? We are comparing the number of sexual partners one group has with the number of sexual partners another group does. What's wrong here? A comparison between a country where you could go to prison for cheating on your partner and a country where you can't, that would be unfair. But no one forces anyone to profess a particular religion or philosophy.

Your proposal looks like:

Let's compare the frequency of cheating between people who approve of cheating but don't do it themselves, and people who do it. This is clear :bs:

There is a large number of straight men who have very few partners simply due to religious beliefs. I am saying don't mix religious beliefs with the gay/straight issue -- that IS unfair.Religious people are still hetero- or homosexual. Note that there are also irreligious people opposed to cheating. Should we exclude them as well? If not, why keep philosophical opposition but exclude religious opposition? That would clearly be illogical. What I say is compare ALL vs ALL if we're going to generalise the conclusions. THIS is fair.

If we went on and compared only people who value exactly the same moral principles, let's say Catholic, and observe them absolutely. What would be the outcome? Married couples are infinitely more promiscuous than single people as well as homosexuals. What's worse, widowed who take another spouse would be even worse. How's that?
Number of partners:
Homosexuals: 0 partners over a lifetime
Singles: 0 partners over a lifetime
Married people: 1 partner over a lifetime
Widowed people: >1 partner over a lifetime

If we were to go on and make a ratio, 1÷0 would near infinity. Therefore we would reach a conclusion:
Homosexuals and single people are the least promiscuous members of the Catholic faith, married people are filthy by comparison, and widowed are even worse.

That is what happens if you limit statistics to a certain, limited, non-representative group of people. They become useless, and conclusions drawn from them are absurd.

Thus, by means of classic, reductio ad absurdum method, we reached a conclusion: limiting statistics to only a certain group of people based on criteria derived from their own choice, and not by birth, or something they didn't have a choice of (e.g. gender, colour of skin, etc.) makes them useless and pointless.

There, your point is invalidated.

@ Chev: Interesting arguements. You make a good devil's advocate.

There are two possible conclusions we could draw from these types of studies:
First, sexual orientation is a major factor in fidelity. (should have used monogamy originally)
Second, ethical orientation is a major factor in fidelity. (should have use monogamy originally)
The two conclusion may not be far apart, but I do not see how you can positively state one without adequately exploring the other. This appears to be where we (Chev and I) disagree. I think it's an interesting area of study and others believe it's a waste. Such is life.

I have serious doubts in the validity of the data -- it is just too overboard and comes from obviously biased sources. Until a recent, unbiased source can be found the results are simply not credible.

A couple of points:

Individuals, in general, do not choose their religion -- it is handed down to them. A person is born into a religion and very few change. Many stay at church because it's habit and they don't want to disappoint their family and friends. Even those that do change still carry the values they learned when they were younger (many rebel directly against those values which causes internal conflict). People, in general, just simply don't like change.

People ARE excommunicated and shunned for premarital intercourse. Some (usually women) are even killed for such indescretions in certain areas of the world. Homosexuals raised in those environments face the same issues -- shame, humiliation and even physical danger.

@Toughluck: You used the old anti-logic arguement... My dog has four legs. A cow has four legs. Therefore, my dog is a cow. Hmmm... she is kinda fat...you could have something there.

Edit: Several for clarification and because I'm a poor typist.

[ December 15, 2004, 21:46: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

What has fidelity with the amount of sexual partners a person have? A person can be completely faithful his entire life and still have thousands of partners.

True, monogamy would have been a better choice.

@Toughluck: You used the old anti-logic arguement... My dog has four legs. A cow has four legs. Therefore, my dog is a cow. Hmmm... she is kinda fat...you could have something there.Precisely.

People ARE excommunicated and shunned for premarital intercourse. Some (usually women) are even killed for such indescretions in certain areas of the world. Homosexuals raised in those environments face the same issues -- shame, humiliation and even physical danger.I always thought "to excommunicate" was a technical term applying to Catholic Church only, in which case people are not excommunicated.
Oh well, maybe it is used in other religions as well. Learn something new every day.

[quoteIndividuals, in general, do not choose their religion -- it is handed down to them.[/quote]
On the contrary. If they decide they do not want to follow that religion, they simply don't. Going to church every Sunday does not equal observing a religion, even if it were perceived so. It is their choice to either follow or not. External appearance is just that.

Women are the brakes, men are the accelerator, thus I say that gays have more and lesbians less. Of course, lesbians can come to me to fix this little "problem." :p

I'm not sure where your stats come from, but I think of the two things as not having a direct bearing on each other. There are many Streaight people who just want as much sex as they can get, and aren't picky about where they get it. They are as much of a danger with regard to STD's as any gay. Being Gay doesn't mean being promiscuous.

People ARE excommunicated and shunned for premarital intercourse. Some (usually women) are even killed for such indescretions in certain areas of the world. Homosexuals raised in those environments face the same issues -- shame, humiliation and even physical danger.Oh, so you insist that people are excommunicated for being homosexual? Well then, I'm waiting for examples.

People ARE excommunicated and shunned for premarital intercourse. Some (usually women) are even killed for such indescretions in certain areas of the world. Homosexuals raised in those environments face the same issues -- shame, humiliation and even physical danger.In those cultures you mention, perhaps punishment for non-marital intercourse comes more inevitably to women, but that's because of pregnancy or non-virginity being more easily detected than the fact that a guy had some sex somewhere with someone. So guys typically escape unpunished. Even if they are ****ing rapists. But the gravity of transgression is usually the same for both genders. I could come with examples of cultures and laws where males were punished more severely than females for adultery etc (e.g. some mediaeval European laws served castration to males, while females only got their heads shaved bald).

But if we move on to male vs female homosexuality, in ancient societies or in nowadays primitive or extremely conservative societies, female homosexuality is typically disregarded for large part and treated like mere fooling around in comparison to male homosexuality. First, there's no sodomy. Second, there's no waste of semen (for this latter reason, female masturbation also tends to be taken more lightly, if we consider semitic cultures or mediaeval Europe). And then, they can always say they were taking a bath and playing a bit. Women are, after all, practically expected to get more physical with other women than men are with other men. Even in our own modern culture.

There's also the phenomenon of heterosexual men who totally hate and disdain male homosexuals, but enjoy lesbian porn a lot. Heck, they even drool over lesbians getting at it in clubs or at parties. And when you ask them about their favourite fantasy of doing it with two girls, that fantasy typically involves those girls fooling around a bit with each other, as well. Talk hypocrisy.

Yeah, folks. If you drool over lesbians, it's not much different than if you sodomised your best buddy. But that's a matter for a separate topic, if someone feels an urge to flame me for this one. :D

You went considerably :yot: there. I agree with Gnarlfinger -- the promiscuity and homosexuality are seperate issues. Those people who feel homosexuality is psychological instead of physiological may disagree.

Oh, so you insist that people are excommunicated for being homosexual? Well then, I'm waiting for examples. Sorry, I'm not getting dragged into this type of debate. I know it happens.

[ December 16, 2004, 21:11: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

Yeah, folks. If you drool over lesbians, it's not much different than if you sodomised your best buddy. I think it's a lot different. OK, I don't droll over lesbians, so maybe I'm a bad example, but still, isn't fantasizing about a homosexual act and actually engaging in a homosexual act two totally different things? It's not even the same ballpark.

To quote Pulp Fiction:

Unless your method differs significantly from mine ... (excluded possible offensive reference), it ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same ****ing sport!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, so you insist that people are excommunicated for being homosexual? Well then, I'm waiting for examples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I'm not getting dragged into this type of debate. I know it happens, you should get out more. You aren't getting dragged into providing examples to your accusations? How convenient.

I've known two people who were (along with a few who were asked never to come back to their church -- shunned, another word I used earlier). I'm not going to name names, nor which religions still do this (I do not feel it is appropriate). I will concede on one point: being homosexual is not grounds for excommunication -- committing homosexual acts has resulted in such punishments.

Now could we please get back on topic?

Edited: In response to Taluntain's very appropriate response.

[ December 16, 2004, 21:30: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

T2Bruno, if you want to continue posting in the debates in AoDA you'll have to follow the same rules as everyone else - throwing insults into every post aimed at someone you don't agree with isn't going to fly here. I was hoping your outburst in the previous response was an isolated incident, but I see I was mistaken. There's a sticky on top of the list of AoDA threads - go read it.