Are Homosexual and Heterosexual Relationships The Same?
Homosexual "households" are portrayed as being the same as heterosexual households, except homosexuals can not get married. This view is intended to raise the question: If these are similar relationships, why can't homosexuals get married? But the truth is that there is a vast difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
The following information is from a paper available at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Durability of Relationships:
Heterosexual Relationships
The divorce rate is a sad statistic, and we have a lot of work to do to raise people's awareness of this problem. However, the facts are that 66% of first marriages last 10 years or longer and 50% last 20 years or longer. Those are low numbers (not good), but let's compare them to homosexual relationships.
On the homosexual side:
The AIDS Journal found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
In the study "Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times", Pollak reports "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
Saghir and Robins report in their study, Male and Female Homosexuality, that the average live-in homosexual relationship lasts 2-3 years.
Monogamy vs. Promiscuity:
Heterosexual Marriages
The Journal of Sex Research found that 77% of marriage men and 88% of married woman had remained faithful to their marriage vows.
In 1997 a study titled The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75% of husbands and 85% of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.
Homosexual Relationships
The journal Aids reported on a Dutch study that showed homosexual men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners a year.
In the classic Bell and Weinberg study of male and female homosexuality, they found that 43% of male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners.
A study published in the Journal of Sex Research" reported that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.
Commitment in Relationships:
The words "commitment" and "monogamous" mean something different in homosexual relationships.
A Canadian study of homosexual men found that "Gay culture allows men to explore different…forms of relationships besides monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."
The Handbook of Family Diversity reported "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of 3 to 5 partners in the past year. Blasband and Pepau (1985) observed a similar pattern."
Studies show that the percent of homosexual males reporting sexual fidelity is 4.5%.
According to a study by McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men accept sexual relationships outside of their committed relationship, to be the norm. They view heterosexual monogamous standards as an act of oppression.
The above summarizes a sampling of the information from just the first four pages, out of 13 pages, of a study titled "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples" that is available at: Homosexual Relationships.
Don't let anyone tell you that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent. Yes, there are many problems in heterosexual relationships we need to address, but those problems are magnified many times in homosexual relationships. It makes no sense to take an institution, such as marriage, which has problems, and extend that institution to a group in which those problems occur at a four to five times greater rate. We know the negative effects problems such as divorce and abuse have on our society. Why multiply those problems. What makes sense is to start addressing and solving the problems in heterosexual relations--and one of the first steps is to strengthen marriage, not weaken it.
The following information is from a paper available at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Durability of Relationships:
Heterosexual Relationships
The divorce rate is a sad statistic, and we have a lot of work to do to raise people's awareness of this problem. However, the facts are that 66% of first marriages last 10 years or longer and 50% last 20 years or longer. Those are low numbers (not good), but let's compare them to homosexual relationships.
On the homosexual side:
The AIDS Journal found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
In the study "Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times", Pollak reports "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
Saghir and Robins report in their study, Male and Female Homosexuality, that the average live-in homosexual relationship lasts 2-3 years.
Monogamy vs. Promiscuity:
Heterosexual Marriages
The Journal of Sex Research found that 77% of marriage men and 88% of married woman had remained faithful to their marriage vows.
In 1997 a study titled The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75% of husbands and 85% of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.
Homosexual Relationships
The journal Aids reported on a Dutch study that showed homosexual men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners a year.
In the classic Bell and Weinberg study of male and female homosexuality, they found that 43% of male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners.
A study published in the Journal of Sex Research" reported that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.
Commitment in Relationships:
The words "commitment" and "monogamous" mean something different in homosexual relationships.
A Canadian study of homosexual men found that "Gay culture allows men to explore different…forms of relationships besides monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."
The Handbook of Family Diversity reported "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of 3 to 5 partners in the past year. Blasband and Pepau (1985) observed a similar pattern."
Studies show that the percent of homosexual males reporting sexual fidelity is 4.5%.
According to a study by McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men accept sexual relationships outside of their committed relationship, to be the norm. They view heterosexual monogamous standards as an act of oppression.
The above summarizes a sampling of the information from just the first four pages, out of 13 pages, of a study titled "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples" that is available at: Homosexual Relationships.
Don't let anyone tell you that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent. Yes, there are many problems in heterosexual relationships we need to address, but those problems are magnified many times in homosexual relationships. It makes no sense to take an institution, such as marriage, which has problems, and extend that institution to a group in which those problems occur at a four to five times greater rate. We know the negative effects problems such as divorce and abuse have on our society. Why multiply those problems. What makes sense is to start addressing and solving the problems in heterosexual relations--and one of the first steps is to strengthen marriage, not weaken it.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
28 Comments:
I went to: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1. You do realize, MTA/Davis, that it is a bias website and does not base its findings on independent research. It would be like if you went out and collected data. What do you know, you proved what you set out to. Isnt that convenient. But, that is your truth.
Anonymous makes a good argument that government lets us do all kinds of things that are unhealthy. This could be included to such mundane things as eating beef. It is bad for you. What, with the cow being pumped full of who knows what. But even I stop to get that bovine fill-up at McDonalds sometimes.
This has to be one of my favorite quotes, "If you pick up a science textbook that is more than ten years old, there are errors in it. That's why I trust the Bible." Um.. how old is the bible? Say, 10 years times 200. Oh, but the bible is always right. Best not question it.. at all. Secondly, what kind of "errors" are you talking about? Science is based on the ability to recreate events. One thing I am interested in is what you do when you walk into a Natural History museum.
Here is something to think about, Abe Lincoln may have been gay. At least that is what a recent book out seems to prove. This website could be shared with your better half that runs the American History portion of your group.
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/
I've been thinking about your comments, and have written and disgarded several things since I first read them. My inclination was to put together new web pages that addressed some of what you said. For example, I made some pages about bias effecting science that were to include quotes from scientists who support Darwinism saying they must support it, in spite of the lack of evidence, because otherwise they must accept that God exists. (I never finished these pages, but a few are there.)
But the more I sought the Lord's guidance the more I realised that I once thought exactly as you do. I was blind. The answers were so obvious to me, and felt so comfortable, that I never doubted them, nor honestly thought about and investigated them--I just accepted them.
When I turn to the Lord for an answer, the answer I find is that I (all Christians) are to love and serve. So how do I do that in this case? Isn't attempting to lead someone to the truth loving them? On the other hand the Bible does tell us that unbelievers are blind until God removes their blindness. So that leads me to the conclusion that pray is the only way to love and serve you.
But I also love a good discussion, and can't help to ask you a question that arises out of your reference to the Lincoln article:
Were you bringing that up tongue in cheek? I guiess I'm saying, you can't be son contradictory, can you? To first say that information from Answers In Genesis is not valid because they are biased (although they only use thoroughly researched science, and they openly make available that science and their sources) and then to imply a statement by Larry Kramer is valid... I doubt if there is anyone more biased than Larry Kramer, he's got to be the olympic champion of bias--and he is totally unwilling to reveal his sources. You were joking, right?
First, Christians do not have a loving history. Second, did you read the article?
First: How can you tell who is a Christian? If you are going to say somebody, or some group, has done something wrong, what is your criteria for identifying them as Christian?
Second: Yes. And your point is?
"When I turn to the Lord for an answer, the answer I find is that I (all Christians) are to love and serve."
You did say all Christians. When I said Christians do not have a loving history, I was referring to past Popes (very Christian), to modern day gay bashers (you, Christian). I think it is safe to say that those who used the bible in the past to make slavery legal were Christians. This group claimed to be Christian. To you, using the bible to stand in the way of Civil Rights. Then there are all those priests that abused children. And, the people who let this continue for decades. To recap, the Pope I consider to be Christian. Priests and those connected in the higher ups with the church are Christian. You told me you were Christian. The pro-slavery group was quoting scripture and went to church.
My point is, your reading comprehension is not very good. As for Abe being gay, Larry is not the only person that believes this. Just ask some of the Log Cabin Republicans. It is not just one person that thinks he was gay. Besides its just a theory.
First the short comment:
Please read the Salon article (and your comments) again. You have gotten the facts exactly 180 degress opposite of what is printed in the article.
Kramer is not saying this is a theory, he says it is a fact:
"Firebrand Larry Kramer says he has the evidence to prove it."
"There's no question in my mind he was a gay man and a totally gay man," Kramer declares. "It wasn't just a period, but something that went on his whole life."
So for Larry it's not a theory. And it's not the Log Cabin Republicans, but just a person who is a Log Cabin Republican who says he believes it--that's a big difference.
I still wonder what your point is in bring this up... It can't be about my reading comprehension as you said, because I had not commented on the article until you referenced it (so once again you got things 180 degrees backwards). So why did you bring it up?
Helllloooo.. I said it was a theory.
I thought it was a good article. I thought I should share it with you. Are you going to be ok?
The reason why I asked how you can tell who is a Christian is because I thought we'd have a major difference there, and we do. Before we start talking about whether people have done it makes sense that we first be sure we're talking about the same people.
Let me see if I understand your definition of who is a Christian:
1) All popes
2) Modern day gay bashers (all?)
3) Those who used the Bible to make slavery legal.
4) Those who use the Bible to stand in the way of civil rights.
5) Priests (all priests?) who abused children.
6) People who let Priests abuse children for decades.
7) Those connected in the higher ups with the church
Is this correct? Are all modern day gay bashers Christian, or just some? If just some, how do you differentiate Christians from others?
And I assume you are saying all CATHOLIC Priests are Christians, or are you including Luthern Priests, Episcopal Priests, etc.?
Plus I'm guessing, although you do not come out and directly say it, that anyone who uses the Bible as the reason for their actions or beliefs is a Christian. And also anyone who goes to church.
I'm not trying to be picky, I'm trying to be sure I'm not misunderstanding what you are saying. The reason is that so far, not one of the criteria you've mentioned makes, or means, that a person is a Christian. A Pope is a man, nothing more. A priest is a man (or woman), nothing more.
The pastor of the church I grew up in has been a pastor for many years (more than 20 I'd guess). He just became a Christian this past summer. Being a pastor, going to seminary, and being a church leader did not make him a Christian. He only became a Christian when he gave his life to Christ.
Mormon's and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves "Christian", but they don't follow the Bible.
The problem is, there are no certification tests or licenses required for being a Christian. Anyone can call themselves a Christian. There have been many evil Popes (nonChristian) throughout history--sometimes several at one time. And by the time of the reformation (1500's) the Catholic Church had been severely corrupted by greed and the lust for power.
The second problem is that Christians are human and thus are sinful. Cristians make mistakes. So sometimes Christians will note act as they should. I'm not saying all evil done in the name of Christianity was a mistake, some was done intentially out of greed and lust for power. But it was not done by Christians.
Yes, some very evil things have been done in the name of Christianity - the Crusades and the Inquisition for example. These were not human mistakes, they were evil done in the name of Christianity. But they were not Christian actions.
Yes, people who called themselves Christian justified slavery using the Bible. That was not a human mistake, it was self-centered evil based on greed. And it was not a Christian action. But on the other hand it was Christianity that ended slavery in the western world. As an aside: Did you know that prior to the Revolution our Christian founding fathers petitioned England to allow them to outlaw slavery in the colonies? The King said, "No way! Slavery is a part of the British Empire and it will remain legal in the colonies." So if you want to point fingers, also point them at the evil economic greed of England.
However, in spite of what has been done wrong in the name of Christianity, what has been done right by true Christians has far outweighted the evil. The greatest force for civilization, and good, in all of history has been Christianity. Christianity brought equality to women, ended slavery, gave other religions the freedom to practice their beliefs, and much much more.
Just to recap. You are Christian. Most of the time? You go through your day. That is except when you use the bible to justify reasons for your gay bashing / anti-Civil Rights agenda. Did I get that right? When you do these evil things, then you are not Christian? After you are done with the gay bashing ect., then you are Christian again?
You've asked an excellent question.
I've added two new posts that provide some background on how someone becomes a Christian, and the ideal characteristics of a Christian vs. a non-Christian. But those do not answer your question. I think I can best answer by giving some of my background.
Before I became a Christian I was addicted to pornography. My addiction started in Junior High School and lasted for over 35 years. When I accepted Christ as my Lord, I did not stop using pornography. So I was a Christian involved in a serious sinful behavior.
Christians are not perfect. We still have to struggle with our human sinful nature.
Before I became a Christian I was a slave to pornography. I was using it to fill an emptiness in me that it never filled. Over the years I kept going deeper and deeper into pornography. I also keep going deeper and deeper into depression. The more I tried to fill my inner need with pornography, the worst things got (depression, medical problems). I bought a gun so I could kill myself.
About six months after I became a Christian I decided to try Jesus instead of suicide. I had previous asked Jesus for help with other things, and he had answered my prayers. So I prayer for Jesus to take the desire for pornography from me. I'm told that it is very difficult to give up pornography without professional help, but over a period of two years I was cured. Jesus would give me the strength to resist the urge to use pornography, but then I'd backslide a little. But over time the reistance became stronger, and the backsliding less.
My point is that during that time I was a Christian, and I was sinning. I did wrong. I'm still a sinner in other ways. But one difference between the Christian and nonChristian is that there has been a noticiable change (for the good) in how the Christian lives.
I hear the story about a longshoreman who became a Christan. A pastor went to visit him on the docks one day and noticed that he was continually swearing and cussing. He mentioned to the supervisor that this man certainly didn't seem to be a Christian. The supervisor replied, "You should have seen him six months ago--not only was he cursing a blue streak, but he was drinking and doing drugs on the job. Now he's clean!" That new Christian was still sinning, he was not perfect, but the Holy Spirit was changing him.
So the anwser to your question is that, no, Christian are not schizophrenic. We're just people who are trying to live more Christ-like lives.
P.S. Since you asked about my multiple personalities, I though I'd use my personal login instead of my Mission to America login. After all, I was talking about myself. :-)
Before I get distracted again..
Do you know who the Log Cabin Republicans are?
They are Republicans who say they favor what they call homosexual "rights".
Umm.. ok.. Now what do you think their name is a reference to?
Abraham Licoln is associated with a log cabin. So what is your point?
That more than one person from this group thinks of Abe as being gay.
So please tell me, how do you come to that conclusion? Do they state this on their web site or in their By-Laws? Or are they honoring the man who could be called the founder of the Republican Party?
What significance are you giving this? What is your point? Originally you said your point was to show me an article you thought I'd find interesting. So.... there seems to besomething more you're trying to bring out.
On one hand, there is a Republican group that happens to be gay. They call themselves the Log Cabin Republicans, a reference to Abe Lincoln. The idea that Abe was gay is not a new one. Then, you dismiss this group by claiming that only one person from this group thinks Abe was gay. Did you find the article worth reading?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm sorry, but I really have btrouble following your logic. We are talking about an article in which one person, who happens to be a Log Cabin Republican, says he agrees with Larry Kramer. He made this statement as an individual, not a representative of the Log Cabin Republicans.
So what if there are other Log Cabin Republicans that also believe this--which I'm sure there are? You can take any position or opinion and find a group of people who agree and another group who disagree. There are Democrats and Democratic groups that support marriage, morality and family values. Again, so what?
And please don't twist what I say. It's not good for your credibility. It's right here (above) in print for everyone to read. I said:
"So for Larry it's not a theory. And it's not the Log Cabin Republicans, but just a person who is a Log Cabin Republican who says he believes it--that's a big difference."The article we are discussing was not quoting the Log Cabin Republicans, it was quoting one person. That person was not presented as a representative of the Log Cabin Republicians. He's just a person. There is no information in the article that reveals, one way or another, anything about the position of the Log Cabin Republicans or other individual members of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Also, it does not matter whether Abraham Lincoln was homosexual or not. He was a man, and thus he was sinful--just as we all are. I'd find it very interesting if he had been homosexual. It would show that homosexuals can overcome their homosexual desires. You see, Licoln was not a Christian. He was a cultural Christian, meaning he did what everyone else was doing. But look up his final speach. He never gave it, but it was prepared to be delivered the day after he attended the play at Ford Theater. In part of the speach he mentions that he has just accepted Christ. He became a Christian just before he died.
Do you think you are a good person?
It is just a little bit of a coincidence that a homosexual group of people happened to form a group after a person that could be gay. You write, "I'd find it very interesting if he (Honest Abe) had been homosexual. It would show that homosexuals can overcome their homosexual desires." The new book makes some good points that he was a very active participant in a homosexual relationship (according to reviews). It is possible he was gay. It is just sad that Republicans (in general) choose to deny gay rights. When, they were founded by a man that may have been gay. In effect, they are turning against their founder.
It is great that you can dismiss all the wrongs done by Christians. You blame slavery on England and claim the women’s rights movement is supported by Christians. Later, you claim Christianity gave other religions freedom. Were child-abusing priests just innocent victims too? Your revisionist history not only includes natural history but American history as well.
To be fair there are good people out there that subscribe to Christianity. And a Quaker group from Penn., if memory serves, made a last second attempt to end slavery in the days of G. Washington. Keep in mind the only reason people paid attention to this group was that Franklin (yes, the man that slept with every French woman) attached his name to the petition.
My general point is that people do good things and bad things. They participate in both types of acts as Christians and as non-Christians. You can say God is directing them or not. It really doesn’t matter. Only the result of the actions taken by the individual is of consequence. You want to hold the bible up as a way for Americans to live their lives. Please, just understand that the KKK has been doing the same thing for generations.
Slavery (and every other issue in this world) was created and destroyed by people being people. Some people wanted to end slavery and some wanted to keep it alive. Each used the convoluted and contradictory teachings of the bible to justify their actions. Eventually civil war decided the issue. Using the bible to support your intolerance is pointless.
Today, Gay Rights is an issue. You choose to deny fellow citizens a basic right. These are tax paying, law abiding citizens. The only thing they did was make a personal choice that you did not agree with. I am sure I do something you do not agree with everyday and it is still legal. When our grandchildren look back on these times, they will compare you to those who defended slavery and segregation in the name of the bible. It is unfortunate that you read the bible and are, seemingly, just another empty soul subscribing to injustice.
And finally, "… please don't twist what I say. It's not good for your credibility." You make me laugh. We do not agree on anything. What credibility do you have with me? Go on, tell me about Noah's Arc.
Please pick one topic, and we can discuss it.
Although I appreciate the content that is being added here, a blog comment section is not the best place for a discussion. So I thought I'd try setting up a discussion board. There's still some work to do on it, but it's available here:
Mission to America DiscussionsOr if you'd prefer, pick a topic and let me know about it in a comment here. I'll make it a new guest posting so it won't be lost in the existing comments.
The topic always has been gay rights. It would be nice if you could respond in a rational manor. It seems, outside of quoting the bible or using fabricated statistics, you have little to add to this topic. That is fair enough. Finally, I see little reason to be concerned over "losing" a posting.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
You may believe what you choose, as do those who believe the world is flat. I find it interesting that I provide statistics from government research and legitimate research institutions (that was the original posting)--which you call fabricated--and you respond with a story about Abraham Lincoln. Your desire to have your own truth, without regard to reality, is sad, but understandable.
Okay, if you don't want to talk about facts related to homosexuality, what do you want to talk about concerning homosexuality? If truth isn't important, or only your truth is acceptable (without regard to facts), what's the point?
How about we talk about rights? That's a word you've thrown around. What is a right? And where do rights come from? If you are saying someone has aright to something, there must be a reason that right exists.
BTW what is the concern about losing a posting? I just think it is difficult for people to read a discussion taking place in a comments section. While forums are designed for discussions.
Okay let me put in my 2 cents...honestly im not going to lie and say that homosexuals arent permiscuis but dont try to put heterosexuals on a pedestal because your statistics are wrong. You heteros are just as nasty...If u dont like what i just said then accept the fact that there are good homosexual relationships ...this sight is a gay bashing sight and you put homosexuals down...there 1 in the same and we should be ashamed to be compared to you guys with your frantic divorce rate.
Yes, heterosexuals get divorced, andwe condemn divorce.
Yes, heterosexuals live together outside of marriage, and we condemn fornication.
But still, when you look at the medical side effects of homosexuality it is bad news. When you look at the medical side effects of a Biblical relationship, one man and one woman for life... it's good news. No disease. Better mental health. Healthier children.
Yes, there are exceptions on both sides. But, the exceptions do not reflect the overall reality. Homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home