[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by Emu

Do you mean gross in terms of "icky" or gross in terms of a large number of sexual acts? Because neither of those are true. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is no more true of homosexuals than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual (but no less, mind you).

There are studies:

"A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers seems to back Wilkins’ claims.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found."

What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.

Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

No, homosexuals.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.

It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.

I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.

That argument is not factual. It is not that men are "more inclined" to alcoholism. It's not some kind of flaw on the Y chromosome that makes men drink, which you seem to think it is. Because men have a higher occurrance of alcoholism does not mean that they are more inclined to it.

Men have higher occurrence of alcoholism, and so... They are more likely to be alcoholics. And alcoholics are of course far more likely to be drunk drivers, commit crimes while intoxicated (due to a lack of inhibitions, etc.).

How are men not more inclined to do something if there is a higher occurrence?

Are you so left wing you forgot basic principles of science?

"4 out of 10 black birds swoop down on their pray from above, and only 1 out of 20 red birds are inclined to do this."

Is it wrong to say that black birds are inclined to swoop down on their pray?

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Let's summarize my point with a thought experiment. It is a fact that the number of suicides per year varies positively with the amount of precipitation in British Columbia. Why is that?

When is the precipitation in B.C. highest? During the winter months. It is also a fact that suicides are higher during the winter months due to a number of factors: Holiday depression, Seasonal Affect Disorder, and depression due to said disorder. Does that mean the precipitation caused the suicides? Of course not. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Yes.

Now tell me, what is the correlation for men to be drinkers and more inclined to alcoholism than women...?

A difference exists, and regardless of the cause, there is a difference.

From the example you provided, we can conclude there'll be more suicides in winter months, because that is where the direct evidence points.

From the example of homosexuals blatantly confessing a higher inclination to drug abuse... we can say that they will abuse drugs more.

What is the cause? We can debate that. I would agree, it is probably due to people not accepting their devious ways, that they turn to drugs alcoholism.

But the fact remains.

I don't pretend that correlations don't exist. I haven't said that once. I've said it at least 10 times in this thread:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Correlations do exist, and whatever the cause is irrelevent because the facts have been spelled out and yu refuse to accept them.