Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Thank you. What about sources for the other claims? I'm not going to provide any input to the conversation. Just want to read these studies.
    You asked for "some", not all. Look at your question.

    But, to be nice, I'll give you a few links to get started. We've covered a lot of these issues on CU. These two in particular:

    Canada: Article on Children of SS couples (academic performance)

    Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.

    Military Assaults 2012

    More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults.

    When the Defense Department released the results of its anonymous sexual abuse survey this month and concluded that 26,000 service members were victims in fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30, an automatic assumption was that most were women. But roughly 14,000 of the victims were male and 12,000 female, according to a scientific survey sample produced by the Pentagon.
    (There's a lot on the military assaults)

    Here are some other links:

    Domestic violence rates in Canada

    In a study in Canada, police statistics reveal that 15% of lesbians married to women were victims of domestic violence, and 28% of gay men married to men were. Only 7% of spouses in heterosexual marriages suffered from domestic violence.
    (The original study Lopez is referring to is in French. I read it in French, but you can use Google translator to get the jist.)

    Also:

    Also: From A feminist website in the US

    Fact #30: It is estimated that domestic violence occurs in approximately 25-33% of same-sex relationships. (NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, October 1996.) However, other studies have indicated that anywhere between 17% and 52% of same-sex relationships are abusive. (Relationship Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Communities 2005)

    Married straight women have some of the lowest rates of domestic violence according to the DOJ:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics



    CDC Report

    Study: Domestic Violence Rates Higher Among Gay Men, Bisexual Women


    The divorce stats are all around.

    Denmark study on divorce rates
    If we only compare levels in union dissolution, divorce risks are considerably higher in same-sex than in opposite-sex marriages. The divorce risk in female partnerships is practically double that of the risk in partnerships of men.

    Anal rape:
    Anal rape/hazing in public schools
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Source for any of this?
    One of these days you're gonna get tired of being embarassed every time you ask that question.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Yes, AIDS was a blessing to the gay rights movement and you aren't a fucking idiot.
    Appearently some out there think it's a blessing...even a gift.

    The Men Who Want AIDS—and How It Improved Their Lives

    http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013...bronx-new-york



    Spreading HIV/AIDS As A Gift

    http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4093766.html



    The only "fucking idiot" aroud here Nova is you with your head in the sand denial and outright refusal to admit what's going on.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Yes, AIDS was a blessing to the gay rights movement and you aren't a fucking idiot.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    http://www.rohrbaughassociates.net/pdfs/same_sex.pdf

    RATES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    Initial research suggests that violence occurs at the same rate (12 – 50%) in same-gender couples as it does in cross-gender couples, and the methods of conflict resolution ar...


    As a rule I discount any study which purports to know incidence but quotes that incidence across a range of more than 50% margin. In short, I can entertain "this happens in 12%-18%" but "12-50%" is meaningless. You might as well say that somewhere between zero and all relationships are abusive.

    The stage of a relationship is important because the rates of domestic violence may be elevated in separating/divorcing couples as opposed to continuing couples, regardless of sexual orientation. For example, Neilson (2004) found that 40–50% of all separating and divorcing couples in Canada report abuse in the relationships they leave. Relationship stage may also be related to differences between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. In an early questionnaire study of 75 heterosexual and 55 lesbian college students, researchers found that whereas in dating relationships lesbians had lower rates of both physical abuse and sexual assault (.05%) than did heterosexuals (19–20%), in committed relationships lesbians had rates of physical abuse (25%) similar to the rates of heterosexuals (27%) (Brand & Kidd, 1986).1

    This is the first time I have seen this in print, and I applaud it. Even suggesting that accusations of abuse by men on women is often enough to elicit that ear piercing whine of women who don't want their sacred cow taken to slaughter. If I sound cold or indifferent, it's because I am tired of what I call "Abuse after the fact." Much like its cousin, Raper After The Fact, Abuse After The Fact only occurs when some women have had time to convince themselves that something that did not happen did happen. This brings us back to the definition of Domestic Violence. You see, it's quite possible for you to consider someone abusive and that person to never have committed DV against you. Unfortunately, women are encouraged to use the two interchangeably.

    I have known several women who became abused after leaving their husband. In other words, he didn't do anything unusual to them, they just weren't done with him after the divorce. They stewed, and the longer they stewed the more abusive he got in the past. Of course, he is oblivious to the fact that history is being rewritten in his absence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Not really. The most obvious assessment would be that gay groups try to produce neutral or positive results while anti-gay groups try to produce negative results.
    That is completely subjective. If you consider that gays are trying to overturn centuries of law and societal evolution in order to foment gender chaos, then they are clearly not pursing a positive result, while those who oppose them are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Given that gay people are trying to defend equal rights and anti-gay groups are trying to deny equal rights, then the moral high ground goes to the gay people.
    This is not a given. It's your dogma. Gays are not simply going for equal rights, although at one time that might have been the case, they are demanding that hookups be given the same sanction as marriage, and that the destructive and dangerous practices of a minority be given equal standing with the constructive and stabilizing practices of the majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Yes, AIDS was a blessing to the gay rights movement and you aren't a fucking idiot.
    I never said that it was a blessing, you idiot. I said that it was a catalyst. Before AIDS, gay militancy was ineffectual and made little headway with the mainstream. AIDS provided gays with a cause that could not be seen as frivolous, even if many of the demands and actions of gay activists were. It gave credence to gay demands for acceptance and tolerance, which rapidly devolved into attacks on the heterosexual norms of the culture. As Randy Shilts pointed out, gay identity was based on sexual conduct, not simply homosexuality, but wildly promiscuous behavior:

    "Gay men were being washed by tide after tide of increasingly serious infections. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000 annual patient visits to [San Francisco’s] VD clinics. Easy treatment had imbued them with such a cavalier attitude toward venereal diseases that many gay men saved their waiting-line numbers, like little tokens of desirability, and the clinic was considered an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date.”

    The normal response to an epidemic is to identify vectors, isolate and treat them and prevent further spread of the disease. Gay activists fought this at every turn, equating any limits on sexual behavior with oppression, even if it meant saving the lives of the supposedly oppressed. From discoverthenetworks.org:

    As these epidemics grew, public health officials did not intervene. The reason was the revolution itself. So successful was the campaign of the radical activists, that it made traditional public health practices politically impossible. When officials sought to close the sexual bathhouses which were the epidemic’s breeding grounds, gay political leaders accused them of trying to eradicate important “symbols of gay liberation.” As Don Francis, the Center for Disease Control official in charge of fighting the hepatitis B epidemic, told an interviewer: “We didn’t intervene because we felt that it would be interfering with an alternative lifestyle.”

    In the early 1980s, the AIDS epidemic was still confined to three cities with large homosexual communities. Aggressive public health methods might have prevented the epidemic’s outward spread. But every effort to take normal precautionary measures was thwarted in turn by the political juggernaut which the gay liberation movement had managed to create. Under intense pressure from gay activists, for example, the director of public health of the City of San Francisco refused to close bathhouses, maintaining that they were valuable centers of “education” about AIDS, even though their only purpose was to facilitate anonymous, promiscuous sex.

    Not only were measures to prevent the geographical spread of AIDS thwarted by radical politics, but measures to prevent its spread into other communities were obstructed as well. Thus when officials tried to institute screening procedures for the nation’s blood banks and asked the gay community not to make donations while the epidemic persisted, gay political leaders opposed the procedures as infringing on the “right” of homosexuals to give blood. The San Francisco Coordinating Committee of Gay and Lesbian Services, chaired by Pat Norman, a city official, issued a policy paper asserting that donor screening was “reminiscent of miscegenation blood laws that divided black blood from white,” and “similar in concept to the World War II rounding up of Japanese-Americans in the western half of the country to minimize the possibility of espionage.”

    The result of these revolutionary attitudes was to spread AIDS among hemophiliacs and drug-using heterosexuals. Similar campaigns against testing and contact tracing -- standard procedures in campaigns against other sexually transmitted diseases -- insured the metasticism of AIDS, specifically into the black and Hispanic communities, where it came to account for more than 50% of the known cases.

    You won't like the source, but the facts speak for themselves. So, no, AIDS wasn't a blessing, it was a horrific disease that provided a movement with a cause that took it into the mainstream. Or, to put it another way, nobody with half a brain would call the Holocaust a blessing for Jews, but in its wake, even the most virulently antisemitic European countries found themselves unable to argue against the logic of Zionism. If I can acknowledge this, then you can admit that AIDS empowered gay activists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    http://www.rohrbaughassociates.net/pdfs/same_sex.pdf

    RATES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    Initial research suggests that violence occurs at the same rate (12 – 50%) in same-gender couples as it does in cross-gender couples, and the methods of conflict resolution ar...


    As a rule I discount any study which purports to know incidence but quotes that incidence across a range of more than 50% margin. In short, I can entertain "this happens in 12%-18%" but "12-50%" is meaningless. You might as well say that somewhere between zero and all relationships are abusive.

    The stage of a relationship is important because the rates of domestic violence may be elevated in separating/divorcing couples as opposed to continuing couples, regardless of sexual orientation. For example, Neilson (2004) found that 40–50% of all separating and divorcing couples in Canada report abuse in the relationships they leave. Relationship stage may also be related to differences between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. In an early questionnaire study of 75 heterosexual and 55 lesbian college students, researchers found that whereas in dating relationships lesbians had lower rates of both physical abuse and sexual assault (.05%) than did heterosexuals (19–20%), in committed relationships lesbians had rates of physical abuse (25%) similar to the rates of heterosexuals (27%) (Brand & Kidd, 1986).1

    This is the first time I have seen this in print, and I applaud it. Even suggesting that accusations of abuse by men on women is often enough to elicit that ear piercing whine of women who don't want their sacred cow taken to slaughter. If I sound cold or indifferent, it's because I am tired of what I call "Abuse after the fact." Much like its cousin, Raper After The Fact, Abuse After The Fact only occurs when some women have had time to convince themselves that something that did not happen did happen. This brings us back to the definition of Domestic Violence. You see, it's quite possible for you to consider someone abusive and that person to never have committed DV against you. Unfortunately, women are encouraged to use the two interchangeably.

    I have known several women who became abused after leaving their husband. In other words, he didn't do anything unusual to them, they just weren't done with him after the divorce. They stewed, and the longer they stewed the more abusive he got in the past. Of course, he is oblivious to the fact that history is being rewritten in his absence.
    Except that this doesn't address the disparities between rates of domestic violence found in the other studies cited.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    That is completely subjective. If you consider that gays are trying to overturn centuries of religious bigotry in order to foment gender chaos, then they are clearly not pursing a positive result, while those who oppose them are. .
    Fixed. Are you serious? WTF is "gender chaos" and why would gay people want it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post


    I never said that it was a blessing, you idiot. I said that it was a catalyst. Before AIDS, gay militancy was ineffectual and made little headway with the mainstream. AIDS provided gays with a cause that could not be seen as frivolous, even if many of the demands and actions of gay activists were. It gave credence to gay demands for acceptance and tolerance, which rapidly devolved into attacks on the heterosexual norms of the culture. As Randy Shilts pointed out, gay identity was based on sexual conduct, not simply homosexuality, but wildly promiscuous behavior: .

    I can't imagine where you are getting this bullshit analysis of yours. AIDS was a setback, not a catalyst. AIDS wiped out all of the bank accounts. AIDS took away the working political power structure of gay businessmen and handed it over to lesbian cooperatives and socialist group leadership which practically stalled the gay rights movement overnight.

    Randy Shilts was an author, period. He's one of those people who moved to San Francisco from the Midwest and imagined that it is the center of the universe. San Francisco was not and is not the gay world. For many it was and is like some kind of residential amusement park and yes, lots of gay men move there to do little more than keep a roof over their heads while being promiscuous. If you will look around San Francisco, you will see that the sex entertainment culture is hardly limited to gay men. It's a port, and home to strippers, and hookers, and loose women slinging cocktails to sailors. Having grown up in DC, I found SF to be quite seedy when I arrived in 1980. Like most people from the Eastern Seaboard, my unwillingness to accept that SF was the best place on earth was something of a social barrier with people like Shilts who understandably found it preferable to Iowa.

    AIDS was responsible for Act-Up. It would be really difficult to maintain that Act-Up has been beneficial to the gay community. A more obnoxious group of people is hard to imagine (except for the screaming bitch who seems to be at every immigration rally intent on getting compliance by the piercing quality of her voice yelling in hispanish). Even gay people got enough of Act-Up.

    So be honest with me: Where are you getting all this bullshit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    "Gay men were being washed by tide after tide of increasingly serious infections. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000 annual patient visits to [San Francisco’s] VD clinics. Easy treatment had imbued them with such a cavalier attitude toward venereal diseases that many gay men saved their waiting-line numbers, like little tokens of desirability, and the clinic was considered an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date.”
    I was surprised that white people would go to the health department or any public health facility. No gay man in DC would have ever gone to the Health Department. I went there to get a Hepatitis vaccination and I assure you that it wasn't sexy or romantic. After that, I spent the big bucks for a Sutter Street doctor.

    I do think you are ignoring the context. Disco was a sexually lawless time for gay and straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    http://www.rohrbaughassociates.net/pdfs/same_sex.pdf

    RATES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    Initial research suggests that violence occurs at the same rate (12 – 50%) in same-gender couples as it does in cross-gender couples, and the methods of conflict resolution ar...
    ''
    This is a very preliminary 2006 study based on American self-identified couples and done by a private consulting firm. The Canadian figures are more reliable, more recent, and based on government research in a country where gay marriage has been legal since 2005.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    This is a very preliminary 2006 study based on American self-identified couples and done by a private consulting firm. The Canadian figures are more reliable, more recent, and based on government research in a country where gay marriage has been legal since 2005.
    This is why you keep falling for the stuff you get from Lopez and the AFA. They are every bit as devious in their use of language as the gun grabbers are in theirs.

    How long a country has had legal gay marriage is irrelevant to studies. I don't know why this matter to you anyway, but the study you linked to did NOT specify "married same sex couples" or "married gay couples".

    "Use with caution , coefficient of variation is high"

    "Based on gay and bisexual respondents who had a spouse or partner , current or former , with whom they had contact in the past five years."

    This says a lot about reliability of results. In other words, this study is not clinical, it's a survey. Clinical studies don't require agreement or willing participation. A clinical study would be the percentage of domestic violence convictions which happen in married gay couples compared to married straight couples. You don't need their agreement or participation for that.

    Seriously, use some common sense when you scour the internet for this stuff. Self reporting, self selection is the bane of all sociology.

    By the same token, understand that I am not ever going to say that gay people don't have problems. In any assessment by group identity you are going to have someone come out on top and someone on the bottom. As we know, black people despise the IQ results by racial identity and national origin. They completely dismiss the validity of IQ and they have some sociologists in their camp. They can't explain why white people would devise an assessment where we come out second or third from the top rather than the top, but because we're above them on the chart it must be our evil doing. So no, I won't be surprised if there are some identifiable problems in the easily accessible gay community. By the same token, urban gay people never have been the truly representative group and non-urban gay people are difficult to round up for a study.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •