North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thank you for responding, I was hoping Mikey would provide this information.

Is that difference statisically significant?

As photon mentions above, the difference appears to be mainly with a small number of homosexuals who have an outsize number of partners. In the study I referenced, the difference in means was greater than difference in medians. So there are more "extremely sexually promiscuous" homosexuals than heterosexuals.

I'm not sure whether that affects a debate on marriage or not, but thought it was something interesting to look into.

[Coach]

Well 6 is an average. For every 40 year-old thats never been married and has 20+ sexual partners, there's people who were married between 18-25 and probably only have 1-5 sexual partners.

6 does seem low, but we should remember that the previous generation tended to be married quite early and thus, likely had few or one sexual partner.\

Disclaimer: None of these are facts, they are numbers that I pulled out of my ass based on chaning social conventions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm just trying to figure out who answers that question. There is no right answer. Ever.

Heck if I'm asked that question I'm blasting off on my own rocket skates.

Which question? # of partners? Or if you've had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex?

Both have right answers, the second just goes to show that sexual preference isn't either/or, it's more a scale from one extreme to another.

Lots of people would answer the question, especially in private (supposedly anonymous). It's not like it's a field in their Facebook profile.

Originally Posted by troutman

6 partners in your life? In a year?

I might be a slut.

Over their entire life.

Maybe it just means your above average?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If you need a marriage certificate from the government to validate your relationship with your wife.....well that is just sad.

No its for legal rights and protections, that's not sad, that's just smart.

Marriage for the purpose of raising children keeps social order.....that to me was the original intent of it....a set of regulations for the sexual market so to speak.

"to you" it might be the intent of it, but it was as Textcritic so artfully said in one of his posts that the original intent of marriage was nothing to do with love or family, but property.

[The Yen Man]

Why doesn't the government just take out the whole "marriage" word from their vocabulary and give it back to the whiny Christians. Call EVERYTHING a civil union, and the Christians who want to "marry" can do their whole song and dance without getting their panties in a bunch because "the gays" took their ceremony. The official documents will all say "Civil Union" for everyone, Christian or not. Problem solved right?

But no, I doubt it will be problem solved. Why? Because this whole "Christian" argument is nothing but a politically correct excuse to mask intolerance. Lets call a spade a spade. The people who are against it are against it because they're intolerant to it, plain and simple.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Why doesn't the government just take out the whole "marriage" word from their vocabulary and give it back to the whiny Christians. Call EVERYTHING a civil union, and the Christians who want to "marry" can do their whole song and dance without getting their panties in a bunch because "the gays" took their ceremony. The official documents will all say "Civil Union" for everyone, Christian or not. Problem solved right?

But no, I doubt it will be problem solved. Why? Because this whole "Christian" argument is nothing but a politically correct excuse to mask intolerance. Lets call a spade a spade. The people who are against it are against it because they're intolerant to it, plain and simple.

agreed, well said.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

As photon mentions above, the difference appears to be mainly with a small number of homosexuals who have an outsize number of partners

Take out Freddie Mercury, and the numbers balance out.

[photon]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Why doesn't the government just take out the whole "marriage" word from their vocabulary and give it back to the whiny Christians.

Because marriage easily predates Christianity. It's a social construct, not a religious one.

[MarchHare]

Why doesn't the government just take out the whole "marriage" word from their vocabulary and give it back to the whiny Christians.

Since when is marriage a uniquely Christian concept? The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity and exists across cultures, even ones with no prior exposure to the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I don't think christians think a man loving another man is wrong...obviously......it's a man lusting for another man that is the issue.

I don't think you know what the word "lust" means.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

Take out Freddie Mercury, and the numbers balance out.

What about the Wilt Chamberlains of the world?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Why doesn't the government just take out the whole "marriage" word from their vocabulary and give it back to the whiny Christians.

Marriage pre-dates Christianity, and existed across many cultures, in many times.

Inca Marriage:
http://www.machupicchu-inca.com/inca-marriage.html

During those days a young man could not choose her girl himself. If he liked a young girl, he showed his interest to the girl. But he could not meet the girl openly. So he would meet her when she was getting her water from spring, or at some other place. If she also showed her interest, then usually that young man asked his parents to speak to the parents of the lady. Once a year the village governors lined up the young men and girls set by the parents for him. Sometime it could happen, same lady could be chosen by more than one person. In that case the governor would take the final decision. He would listen to the parents of the boys and the parents of the lady. After that he would decide which boy will marry the lady.

After this program each pair of the family started to arrange their wedding ceremonies. It could begin with the parents of the young man visiting the young ladies house. After reaching the house of the bride, first groom knelt down before the bride and out a shoe on her right foot. This act would make everybody understand that the young man was ready to serve the lady for the rest of his life. Then both the families went to the groom's house. Someone old and knowledgeable of the village was invited to the groom’s house. He would speak on the marital behavior. But before he started, the bride would give some presents to the groom, which would include a metal pin for the cape, a headband and a woolen shirt. Once the groom put on the clothes, they sat together to listen to the old person. Sometime this man could be the relative of this family, or he could be just from the village. During the speech all the women present prepared the feast. So when the talk finished bride, groom and the guests joined the feast.

After the feast they would have started a new life in a new home just build by the groom and his relatives for them.

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

good point.........what if my number is 4 times that???

Before or after we factor in the rule of 3?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Since when is marriage a uniquely Christian concept? The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity and exists across cultures, even ones with no prior exposure to the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions.

Hmm, didn't know that. If that's the case, then that further proves to me they're only using the whole Christianity argument as an excuse to push their intolerant views on the whole population.

[photon]

What base counts as a sexual partner?

[Ozy_Flame]

I think Christians opposing homosexuality really actually hate it because they get queezy when they see it on TV. I doubt half of them have even read the bible.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Before or after we factor in the rule of 3?

shhhhhh........

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by photon

What base counts as a sexual partner?

Let Mr Clinton be your guide...

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Hmm, didn't know that. If that's the case, then that further proves to me they're only using the whole Christianity argument as an excuse to push their intolerant views on the whole population.

But you've been to Asia. You know that homophobia is much worse there, regardless of religion.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Good question. Perhaps the definition of marriage needs to be modified along the lines of ability to reproduce.
Maybe there is a solution in there that works for everybody.

There is. Care to guess what it is?

It's letting any two people who want to get married, mary each other.