the other "normal" behavior facts

[Hallelujah]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gay+li...n.-a0137407247

Washington DC -- Several studies confirm what a reasonable person might, expect: those who live an active gay lifestyle don't live a long life. On average, the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. Put another way: a Vancouver B.C. study found that, "even under the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." The Vancouver study was published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology using sophisticated statistical analyses, field investigations, and complex laboratory techniques, investigate the cause (vol. 26, 657-61).

The American study was conducted by the Family Research Institute under the direction of Dr. Paul an American psychologist and sex researcher. He compared tens of thousands of gay obituaries with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control. The report has been published in Psychological Reports (2005; 96:693-697). Dr. Cameron says that the B.C. study almost exactly mirrors the findings of his own research. He says that the schools are doing a fine job of educating children about dangerous activities such as smoking and the use of illegal drugs, but they are increasingly teaching that homosexual activity is the same as heterosexual activity. "It certainly isn't," says Cameron. "Here we have homosexual activity, which, literally, is much worse then smoking," and yet the schools continue to teach that it is normative.

[doctorcoug]

Of course their lifespan is shorter. H&P 101, "do you participate in sexual activities with males, females, or both?"

[Hallelujah]

Of course their lifespan is shorter. H&P 101, "do you participate in sexual activities with males, females, or both?"

I wonder if the schools will teach that along with the normality of homosexuality? I would actually be in favor of that. Wouldn't you? Or would you feel better if that left that nugget out of the discussion?

[SoCalCoug]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gay+li...n.-a0137407247

Washington DC -- Several studies confirm what a reasonable person might, expect: those who live an active gay lifestyle don't live a long life. On average, the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. Put another way: a Vancouver B.C. study found that, "even under the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." The Vancouver study was published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology using sophisticated statistical analyses, field investigations, and complex laboratory techniques, investigate the cause (vol. 26, 657-61).

The American study was conducted by the Family Research Institute under the direction of Dr. Paul an American psychologist and sex researcher. He compared tens of thousands of gay obituaries with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control. The report has been published in Psychological Reports (2005; 96:693-697). Dr. Cameron says that the B.C. study almost exactly mirrors the findings of his own research. He says that the schools are doing a fine job of educating children about dangerous activities such as smoking and the use of illegal drugs, but they are increasingly teaching that homosexual activity is the same as heterosexual activity. "It certainly isn't," says Cameron. "Here we have homosexual activity, which, literally, is much worse then smoking," and yet the schools continue to teach that it is normative.

Ah, the Cameron study.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...eron_obit.html

[Hallelujah]

Ah, the Cameron study.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...eron_obit.html

So you dispute both the Canadian AND Cameron studies who coincidentally come up with similar results. The Cameron study was simply provided as a backup of the Canadian study.

So you don't think they are accurate and thus shouldn't be taught in school?

Combined with this gay author's writings, (http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=12178) doesn't look too promising.

[RobinFinderson]

It isn't gay sex that is contributing to the spread of STDs. It is promiscuity. Fortunately there is a strong cultural movement in the gay community toward marriage as a lifestyle choice, and a rejection of promiscuity. Unfortunately there are many people outside the gay community that would like for gay folks to be less promiscuous without the benefit of marriage.

[Hallelujah]

It isn't gay sex that is contributing to the spread of STDs. It is promiscuity. Fortunately there is a strong cultural movement in the gay community toward marriage as a lifestyle choice, and a rejection of promiscuity. Unfortunately there are many people outside the gay community that would like for gay folks to be less promiscuous without the benefit of marriage.

What are the benefits of marriage for gays? Specifically, how the benefits differ from civil unions?

BTW.........I don't recall talking STD's. I was specifically pointing out life expectancy.

[woot]

What are the benefits of marriage for gays? Specifically, how the benefits differ from civil unions?

BTW.........I don't recall talking STD's. I was specifically pointing out life expectancy.

Are you suggesting they are just wearing themselves out from all the humping? Maybe God is striking them down for their sinfulness? What else if not STDs?

And as Robin said, the gay community is promiscuous. Were they not so marginalized, this likely wouldn't be the case. Would you prefer to accept them and help them become more healthy, or to further marginalize them?

[PaloAltoCougar]

What are the benefits of marriage for gays? Specifically, how the benefits differ from civil unions?

BTW.........I don't recall talking STD's. I was specifically pointing out life expectancy.

You keep asking this question, and I keep trying to answer it, but you either have me on ignore or you are deliberately obtuse. Here was my last attempt to answer your question. Such is my Sisyphean burden, so I'll play along with your feigned obliviousness.

You apparently didn't read my response to your previous comment on this point, and responding to you is a prime example of the triumph of hope over experience, but my day is over and I'm feeling up to the challenge, so here goes.

At the state level, at least in California, there is no difference [between marriage and civil unions], other than the name itself. Calling one's union "marriage" has considerable emotional appeal, but no legal effect.

The real differences arise at the federal level where, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, civil unions are not recognized as marriage. Thus, parties to a civil union do not receive many hundreds (this isn't hyperbole, but the estimate of the GAO some time back as I recall) of benefits. These are included in the tax code, immigration laws, reciprocity among the states, military benefits, etc., all of which provide advantages and rights to couples who are married, as that is defined in DOMA (one man, one woman).

I won't bother to look up a specific link, but I'm sure if you'll Google something like "civil unions vs. marriage, rights" you'll find out why gays aren't satisfied with mere civil unions, as they do not receive the rights conferred upon married couples.

As I mentioned previously, that's why the Prop. 8 battle was about so much more than California. Gays in California civil unions already have pretty much all of the rights in that state that they would if they were married, but not at the federal level and can't, as long as DOMA is on the books. Thus, the end game here is the repeal of DOMA, and the defeat of Prop. 8 whether in court or at the ballot box, will, I think, move us that much closer to that repeal.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Are you suggesting they are just wearing themselves out from all the humping? Maybe God is striking them down for their sinfulness? What else if not STDs?

And as Robin said, the gay community is promiscuous. Were they not so marginalized, this likely wouldn't be the case. Would you prefer to accept them and help them become more healthy, or to further marginalize them?

I don't condone or excuse promiscuity, but imagine if women universally had the same sex drive as men (I've read that the average male has a sexual thought or impulse every 55 seconds, although how they determined that is unknown to me). Heterosexual promiscuity would undoubtedly spike far higher than it already is; GDP would probably fall through the floor.

[creekster]

I don't condone or excuse promiscuity, but imagine if women universally had the same sex drive as men (I've read that the average male has a sexual thought or impulse every 55 seconds, although how they determined that is unknown to me). Heterosexual promiscuity would undoubtedly spike far higher than it already is; GDP would probably fall through the floor.

A nation of bonobos

[LiveCoug]

Combined with this gay author's writings, (http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=12178) doesn't look too promising.

Trying to tell us something, exie? Interesting that you refer to a gay author and then link to a post that you have authored.

[beefytee]

I've read that the average male has a sexual thought or impulse every 55 seconds, although how they determined that is unknown to me

You're correct in questioning this:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp

[Indy Coug]

As an actuary I am compelled to ask the following questions

1. In compiling mortality data, how do we know who is gay and who isn't?

2. How gay do you have to be to be gay? Flaming? Bi-curious? Promiscuous? Monogamous? Someone that doesn't have gay relationships, but watches really lame TV programs that especially appeal to gay people?

3. If someone dies that is gay, we probably need to know their "exposure" to calculate the marginal mortality risk associated with that characteristic, much like smoking, parachuting, scuba diving and so forth. In other words, can we quantify the additional mortality risk associated with being actively gay beginning in one's late teens as opposed to their late fifties?


From an actuarial standpoint, these questions are moot because you legally can't segment your mortality rate tables by sexual preference, just like you can't segment them by race.

[woot]

I don't condone or excuse promiscuity, but imagine if women universally had the same sex drive as men (I've read that the average male has a sexual thought or impulse every 55 seconds, although how they determined that is unknown to me). Heterosexual promiscuity would undoubtedly spike far higher than it already is; GDP would probably fall through the floor.

Is there any actual data regarding the respective sexual drives of the sexes? How sure are we that men are that much more interested in sex than women? If I were to guess, I'd say that men are indeed a bit more likely to want sex outside of a loving relationship, but that it equals out inside of one. It would be interesting to see an actual study. That stuff about how men have a sexual thought every X number of seconds seems like total BS to me. I love sex, but I rarely think about it when I'm working or studying, which takes up most of my days. How would you quantify such a thing anyway? Strikes me as totally made up.

Even given this possible factor, the queer community would likely become much less promiscuous, and I imagine would end up only slightly more promiscuous than average, if they became an accepted part of our society. There is a great amount of activism within the queer community for changes to take place independent of any social acceptance.