Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Family Research Council via Virtuosity Online ^ | April, 2004 | Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.,

[AmericanVictory]

Why, the homosexuals ask everyone to support their ministries and "religion" in everything that they write and do. Somebody better support this kind of work, because those that do it are going to be attacked and trashed like Dr. Laura and worse. Every group researching and advocating positions seeks and needs support.

[backhoe]

I happen to live next door to a homosexual woman who is one of the nicest people, and best neighbors, I've even known. Since she's only involved with other consenting adults, and discreet about it, I have nary a problem with her.

That said, you really need to read all- and I do mean all- of the vast information here:

-A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links--

[rdb3]

I happen to live next door to a homosexual woman who is one of the nicest people, and best neighbors, I've even known. Since she's only involved with other consenting adults, and discreet about it, I have nary a problem with her.

I could say the same about a first cousin of mine who is gay. He's not flaming or in your face, but still effeminate. We love him as blood kin but he knows that no one in the family approves of his homosexuality.

Show 'em my motto!

[backhoe]

We love him as blood kin but he knows that no one in the family approves of his homosexuality.

I think I understand you- my first brother-in-law was one of those quiet, gay folks. It wasn't really apparent until you got to know him and noticed the utter absence of women in his life, except for his immediate family.

Truth be told, I never had a problem with his gayness- I did have a little difficulty with they way he & my long-lost first wife fought constantly, but that was a brother-sister thing that you see in a lot of families.

[gogeo]

I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married?

How would you feel if someone held you down and poked burning cigarettes in your eyes?

Irrelevant question? No more so than yours.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I don't believe that homosexual men are inherently more promiscuous than heterosexual men.

The difference, IMHO, is that it's simply harder for heterosexual men to fulfill their sexual desires because women are inherently more cautious about having sex than men.

If women were as willing as men, I believe we'd see hetereosexual men with as many partners as homosexual men.

I think this is partly substantiated by the study's focus exclusively on men. I have a feeling that if lesbian couples were studied we'd find monogamy rates in line with those for heterosexual couples.

Also, I think it's hard for the study to compare apples to apples, since for the time being homosexual marriage is not permitted. So heterosexual marriages are being compared partly with relationships that even if homesexual marriage were an option would not rise to that level of formality.

[robertpaulsen]

Homosexuality (especially among men) goes beyond a desire for a person of the same sex. It is a lifestyle, far different than a heterosexual lifestyle, as illustrated by the above article.

Legitimizing homosexuality with marriage laws, hate speech laws, "Heather" education, etc. legitimizes the lifestyle. It would be as though society did a 180 and said that heterosexual promiscuity, adultery, revolving door relationships, and the like was acceptable.

How long as a society would we last?

[BMiles2112]

The government should, and does, have an interest in promoting relationships that encourage the creation of future generations of children, raised by both a father and mother. (A system which has been a necessary foundation of our society, and many other societies, for thousands of years.) It should have no interest in promoting a system contrary to this which has no possibility of procreation, and by definition, would be either a fatherless or a motherless household.

Once the gov't encourages this type of relationship, it will destroy the definition of marriage, and it will have opened the doors to recognition of any type of relationship any group of people want.

If you look at a number of your concerns; entitlement programs, unemployment, public school problems, abortion, etc. They are all very closely tied to the destruction of the family. Encouraging gay relationships will only further these problems. Fix the family, difficult as that may be, and your list will become a short list of minor grievances.

And finally. Gas prices? Honestly? That ranks right there with Fox's decision to pull The Tick from their Thursday night lineup a few years ago. It's called the free market. Let it work.

Stick around, there's a lot be learned here.

[biblewonk]

I'm glad it didn't get into their sex habits.

[biblewonk]

Um... 15 minute sex encounters?

[crv16]

First a disclaimer - I don't support homosexual marriage in any form.

This study is just plain flawed, and I think a lot of people recognize that. First of all, before a man or woman get married, they likely are in relationships with several (or dozens) of people prior to tying the knot. Given that fact, the "average length of heterosexual relationships" is pretty low - maybe the same 1.5 years that a typical homosexual relationship lasts.

You can't compare hetero marriages to homo "relationships" without adding in hetero relationships as well.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

It is a lifestyle, far different than a heterosexual lifestyle, as illustrated by the above article.

I guess I'm challenging the assumption of the article - that homosexual men are inherently more promiscuous than heterosexual men. Go into any bar on a weekend night, and you will find innumerable guys who would love to go home with just about any reasonable looking girl they could find. The fact that relatively few do is not a function of them being more moral in some way than homosexuals, but that women are much more cautious and picky than guys.

If girls were as willing as guys, I believe you'd find the same rates of promiscuity among hetero- and homosexual men.

[robertpaulsen]

"I guess I'm challenging the assumption of the article - that homosexual men are inherently more promiscuous than heterosexual men."

I didn't see where the article made that assumption.

The article merely pointed out the fact that gay men are more promiscuous. It also pointed out the fact that homosexual men in committed relationships are more promiscuous than heterosexual men in committed relationships.

Now, you might speculate that single heterosexual men would be just as promiscuous as homosexual men given the opportunity, but that just illustrates how our society would degrade if we were to accept and approve of heterosexual anonymous, immoral, hedonistic, casual sex -- just as we're being asked to accept and approve of homosexual anonymous, immoral, hedonistic, casual sex.

Women are the stabilizing and settling force in our society.

[Tribune7]

bump

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Women are the stabilizing and settling force in our society.

I certainly agree with you there. But obviously for gays, women aren't able to serve as that stabilizing relationship force since they're not in relationships with women.

And when you say that "the article merely pointed out that gay man are more promiscuous," you're essentially restating the fallacy that I object to. I don't think gay men are inherently more promiscuous, it's just that they have much many opportunities than straight men because they're dealing with other men rather than with women, who are more selective.

I'm not sure, but it seems possible that letting gays marry could encourage them to have more committed, stable relationships.

[little jeremiah]

One problem with your assumption is that homosexuals themselves have admitted the opposite, and cited reasons for wanting "gay" marriage that have nothing to do with lifelong commitment, and everything to do with eliminating traditional morality, and changing society.

(These quotes are a little long, but well worth reading. goes beyond the propaganda spewing from the networks.)

Here's some quotes supporting this:

From LA Times of March 12, 2004 ...
"Divided over gay marriage" by Roy Rivenburg
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage,"
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Interesting material, and I agree that some of it sounds fairly troubling. I don't agree that as a matter of constitutional rights, however, the fact that some gays feel this way means that all gays should be denied equal treatment under the law. If in 1964 some black leaders made similarly radical statements, would that have meant that the Civil Rights Act shouldn't have been adopted.

Also, I disagree with your characterization of homosexuality as a "chosen lifestyle," at least for the great majority of gays. I certainly didn't choose my sexual orientation. I distinctly remember entering puberty and suddenly finding the girl who lived across the street attractive. I never thought to myself: "hmm, should I find her attractive, or should I be attracted to one of my guy friends?" It just happened. Why would it be different for gays? Did you choose to be heterosexual?

[BMiles2112]

I don't agree that as a matter of constitutional rights, however, the fact that some gays feel this way means that all gays should be denied equal treatment under the law.
I do not have one right that a homosexual doesn't. We are treated equally. What they are pushing for is preferreed treatment under the law.

Also, I disagree with your characterization of homosexuality as a "chosen lifestyle," at least for the great majority of gays. I certainly didn't choose my sexual orientation.
Lifestyle and orientation are very different things. Orientation, in this context, deals with attractions, emotions, feelings, etc. Lifestyle is what thay've chosen to do with these feelings. What you are advocating is that we continue down the path of, "Do what you feel", and get the government's endorsement of it.

[BMiles2112]

Crap.
preferreed=preferred
thay've=they've
Hate when I do that.
Also, to make a final point. As a man, I've got a very normal desire to have sex with any moderately good looking woman I see, (regardless of how very little interest they may have in the matter), but I'm certainly not going to push for the government's or society's endorsement of such behavior, because I understand that such behavior is not something we want to encourage. Allowed, sure. Just not endorsed.

[bk1000]

"The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business."

Wishful thinking. Gay pride parade, bath houses, etc. Wear blinders to a public park (watch your step though),& stay the heck out of the bathroom at Home Depot. Homos will NOT mind their own business. Tolerance leads to acceptance, leads to deference. I can not see this movement as 'progress'.