The LGBT and the Right

Rocinante

Well-known member
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
615
The old school Social Conservatives will die out, many Moderate Democrats and Centrists are likely to vote for Trump

If not him, they’ll be allies of the Constitutionalists and closer to LibRight types

There’s a place on The Right for Atheists too, guys like Objectivists are an example of how you don’t necessarily need faith to come up with a more objective morality and reasons to be against racism and nepotism
Yeah, I'm a center-right atheist.

From my perspective, the right has been moderating their views and widening their tent. This is a good thing.

It's what allows life long liberals like me, who got burned and ousted by the radical left, to identify as "center-right" now.

I'm not a big fan of social conservatives. I mean, as individuals, they're fine people that I can be friends with...but I'm not a fan of the overall ideology.

Though I've always considered myself socially liberal, as far as the left pushes it these days, they'd call me a social conservative. So I guess I'm socially moderate? Libertarian? I don't know. The best way to describe it, is that if it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, what concern is it to me? Live your life however you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone.
 

CarlManvers2019

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR!?!?
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
11,515
Location
Philippines
Yeah, I'm a center-right atheist.

From my perspective, the right has been moderating their views and widening their tent. This is a good thing.

It's what allows life long liberals like me, who got burned and ousted by the radical left, to identify as "center-right" now.

I'm not a big fan of social conservatives. I mean, as individuals, they're fine people that I can be friends with...but I'm not a fan of the overall ideology.

Though I've always considered myself socially liberal, as far as the left pushes it these days, they'd call me a social conservative. So I guess I'm socially moderate? Libertarian? I don't know. The best way to describe it, is that if it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, what concern is it to me? Live your life however you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone.
Yeah, I can understand that

For all the Left's fearmongering, to varying degrees they DO have a point in that the Right still has its censurers who would eagerly ban lots of stuff

Both by saying it'd corrupt people and because they see it as horrible distractions keeping people away from forming nuclear families
 

Rocinante

Well-known member
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
615
Yeah, I can understand that

For all the Left's fearmongering, to varying degrees they DO have a point in that the Right still has its censurers who would eagerly ban lots of stuff

Both by saying it'd corrupt people and because they see it as horrible distractions keeping people away from forming nuclear families
Valid concerns, but not ones I think the government should be concerned with fixing. The government should stay out of individual rights.
 

CarlManvers2019

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR!?!?
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
11,515
Location
Philippines
Valid concerns, but not ones I think the government should be concerned with fixing. The government should stay out of individual rights.
That's how the government fixes it, by staying the hell away or avoiding letting itself be used to censor stuff so that those Social Conservatives can be satisfied
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
2,075
Now admittedly 2 is a little iffy on the conservatism, but the goal (have a job and a house) is a conservative, self reliant, good goal.
No, all 3 are very iffy, allow me to explain how, for bonus points as a conservative who's not even religious:

So this will sound weird, but what the average LGBT person wants out of the LGBT political movement is ultimately conservative. Here me out. We want basically 3 things:
1) The right to marry, form a family, and be less bothered by the government in private life.
Technically they are unable to form a family in the traditional sense (father and mother with their biological children), and looking at statistics in infidelity and divorce, a disproportionate number of them are also unwilling to do so, raising "fun" statistics like this:

Technically no one can stop LGBT people from giving vows to each other and following them even in a country that absolutely refuses to recognize this as marriage in legal terms.
2) The ability to work and have a house without being fired or kicked out for who you are.
This isn't, and at least shouldn't be treated differently than the same happening for any kind of "who" that is not related to sexuality or any other so called protected characteristic at all.
An extremely relevant discussion in the current age of cancel culture.
3) The desire to fulfill gender roles without shame, albeit different to birth gender roles.
Shame is something one feels themselves, so, ultimately that's a problem that only the person with that problem can solve, whether by deciding to not feel ashamed about what society considers shameful and retreating into a subculture or adapting to the mainstream.
If you want to change the culture for everyone for the sake of not having to deal with that choice, then some of the everyone may have a problem with you.
It is not the society's duty to make you feel good about yourself.
Gender roles exist for a reason, and are inherently tied to the related biological realities.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
Technically they are unable to form a family in the traditional sense (father and mother with their biological children), and looking at statistics in infidelity and divorce, a disproportionate number of them are also unwilling to do so, raising "fun" statistics like this:
Not really. First, the book your source cites was published in 1994, citing a study (I don't know which, as they don't cite the study, just the book) that could have happened decades before that. As I acknowledge later in my post: this is a very accurate depiction of how gay relationships used to be. We were on the fringes of society, and basically exiled from normalcy. This had really bad effects on LGBTs being able to maintain normal relationships. This was well before gay acceptance, let alone gay marriage. Now, it is significantly better.

The second citation isn't even about marriages, but relationships, and cites an online census, which I don't consider reliable. Regardless, it says that:
Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years.
And? I've been in about 2 2-year relationships, never married, while looking for a partner. This data, which is totally normal from somebody looking for a partner, would further lower that result. This means nothing.

Meanwhile:
Divorce rates for same-sex couples are lower than average (about 1% a year, as opposed to 2%), though this is likely early installment weirdness because the majority of people entering marriages at the time of the study were gatekept by having to travel to a state that legally recognized it. Marriage rates are steadily going up, and a larger percentage are caring for kids, frequently through adoption, which means less kids are left to CPS.

This isn't, and at least shouldn't be treated differently than the same happening for any kind of "who" that is not related to sexuality or any other so called protected characteristic at all.
An extremely relevant discussion in the current age of cancel culture.
... You did read the rest of my post right?
Now admittedly 2 is a little iffy on the conservatism, but the goal (have a job and a house) is a conservative, self reliant, good goal.
As for a "little iffy" I put that there, because I never can tell where conservatives align with regards to the Civil Rights act, from necessary evil, to good when it stops religious discrimination, to always bad. But the goal, of being employed and having a house is a conservative one.

Shame is something one feels themselves, so, ultimately that's a problem that only the person with that problem can solve, whether by deciding to not feel ashamed about what society considers shameful and retreating into a subculture or adapting to the mainstream.
If you want to change the culture for everyone for the sake of not having to deal with that choice, then some of the everyone may have a problem with you.
It is not the society's duty to make you feel good about yourself.
Gender roles exist for a reason, and are inherently tied to the related biological realities.
Most of the T's are fulfilling gender roles and trying to fit into society without changing it, but instead changing themselves (that's the point of transitioning). All they want from transitioning is to change enough that society can't tell the difference, and fit in to the already existing social fabric. One small part of this is a legal transition, so that their passport/drivers license doesn't stick out. The gender activists are very much the exception here, and transtrenders (who aren't really trans) are making this a whole lot more difficult.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
2,075
Meanwhile:
Divorce rates for same-sex couples are lower than average (about 1% a year, as opposed to 2%), though this is likely early installment weirdness because the majority of people entering marriages at the time of the study were gatekept by having to travel to a state that legally recognized it. Marriage rates are steadily going up, and a larger percentage are caring for kids, frequently through adoption, which means less kids are left to CPS.
Divorce =\= infidelity. Lots of different factors can get people to stay in a marriage despite infidelity, especially in more unusual subcultures, like the one we are discussing here.
Are there newer studies comparing infidelity rates to properly compare the statistics?

As for a "little iffy" I put that there, because I never can tell where conservatives align with regards to the Civil Rights act, from necessary evil, to good when it stops religious discrimination, to always bad. But the goal, of being employed and having a house is a conservative one.
As it stands, it is a travesty. Freedom of association should be either upheld completely or have set exceptions for businesses catering to common public needs for the sake of well functioning society... but not "well, depends if the business decided to not associate with Joe Smith because he belongs to group x, rather than because he belongs to group y, because belonging to group x is a protected characteristic, but y - is not".
The choice of whether x, y, z should be a protected characteristic or not is extremely political, and can get into insane legal maneuvering and investigations based on guesswork masquaerading as mindreading when sometimes some group qualifications can effectively act as a proxy of a characteristic with a different protection status.

Most of the T's are fulfilling gender roles and trying to fit into society without changing it, but instead changing themselves (that's the point of transitioning). All they want from transitioning is to change enough that society can't tell the difference, and fit in to the already existing social fabric. One small part of this is a legal transition, so that their passport/drivers license doesn't stick out. The gender activists are very much the exception here, and transtrenders (who aren't really trans) are making this a whole lot more difficult.
The problem is that differences exist whether someone can tell or not, and in many cases the society can tell the difference, especially if given sufficient information. For starters they can't have biological children without very convoluted and expensive medical shenanigans involved, which already puts them among a small group of outliers (victims of regrettable medical conditions) of normal society. Not something obvious on individual scale, but on the scale of demographic statistics bound to mean something.

And then there are the grittier details of medical side of transition being generally more cosmetic than of "indistinguishable copy" quality as things are now. If some people want to roll with it, fine, not my business, but once the group politics involved go beyond formalities like mentioned, and into kinda related practical matters (like sport divisions), or worse, sociopolitics and power plays, you get complaints about representation and social trends not being "equal" for trans and cis, people not feeling attracted to trans version of what sex they are normally attracted to...
This line of thinking is a slippery slope, and a wall has to be put in some reasonable spot on it, and wherever one puts it, some influential group of interested people will be unhappy with its position and will keep lobbying to change it.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
Divorce =\= infidelity. Lots of different factors can get people to stay in a marriage despite infidelity, especially in more unusual subcultures, like the one we are discussing here.
Are there newer studies comparing infidelity rates to properly compare the statistics?
I don't know of any off the top of my head. But the infidelity statistic you cited makes me think it was some time around the 60s or before, when it really was that bad. Note then that even having a relationship was an achievement in and of itself, as opposed to being homeless and having sex with a random person alongside 20 other people in the same shipping trailer (yes, that's a real thing that happened in New York, around the 60s), or gay bathhouses in San Francisco.

As it stands, it is a travesty. Freedom of association should be either upheld completely or have set exceptions for businesses catering to common public needs for the sake of well functioning society... but not "well, depends if the business decided to not associate with Joe Smith because he belongs to group x, rather than because he belongs to group y, because belonging to group x is a protected characteristic, but y - is not".
The choice of whether x, y, z should be a protected characteristic or not is extremely political, and can get into insane legal maneuvering and investigations based on guesswork masquaerading as mindreading when sometimes some group qualifications can effectively act as a proxy of a characteristic with a different protection status.
I'm a libertarian. I totally agree that the anti-discrimination by private citizens part of the civil rights act was morally wrong. One could argue that it was a necessary evil (just like I consider taxes and a number of other things), but it is bad. The thing is I didn't want to speak for conservatives there.

The point of my original statement though, is that the goal (get a job and a house) is a classic goal of Americans that conservatives agree with, just not necessarily the means.

The problem is that differences exist whether someone can tell or not, and in many cases the society can tell the difference, especially if given sufficient information. For starters they can't have biological children without very convoluted and expensive medical shenanigans involved, which already puts them among a small group of outliers (victims of regrettable medical conditions) of normal society. Not something obvious on individual scale, but on the scale of demographic statistics bound to mean something.
Oh, differences exist, but look at the goal, not the inadequate means. The goal of the majority of Ts is to integrate as seamlessly as possible into society, just as the opposite gender to their sex. That's a conservative goal.


And that was the point of my original post: the LGBT movement is about pursuing traditionalist/conservative goals/ideals, through other means.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,082
Location
Mother Roof
The goal of the majority of Ts is to integrate as seamlessly as possible into society, just as the opposite gender to their sex. That's a conservative goal.
No, it isn’t. They don’t want to integrate seamlessly, otherwise they wouldn’t scream that they are trans from the top of the roofs. The massive increase in those who identify as trans are kind of proof of it, they are already integrated pretty well before they decide to engage in fetish behavior, which is what the current majority of T is, fetishists. And no, it’s not even close to integrating seamlessly. All the LGBT movement is now is not about integrating, but reshaping society in their own image and expunging all that they dislike and oppose.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
Once you've completely redefined traditionalism and conservatism, you can claim any movement is about pursuing those ideals.
I mean, I thought getting married, buying a house, raising children, holding down a job, and filling gender roles were traditional/conservative goals. The point of the LGBT movement (up until fairly recently) was allowing a small percentage of the population (about 5ish%, though I've seen estimates as low as 1% up to 10%) to participate in these honestly.

No, it isn’t. They don’t want to integrate seamlessly, otherwise they wouldn’t scream that they are trans from the top of the roofs. The massive increase in those who identify as trans are kind of proof of it, they are already integrated pretty well before they decide to engage in fetish behavior, which is what the current majority of T is, fetishists.
I'm specifically talking about the actual T's, not the trenders or activists here, and also about what the movement as a whole has accomplished vs. what's happened in the last 5 years or so.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,082
Location
Mother Roof
I'm specifically talking about the actual T's, not the trenders or activists here, and also about what the movement as a whole has accomplished vs. what's happened in the last 5 years or so.
The movement as a whole wasn’t even remotely necessary. Ts have had a path to integration open for decades. They were diagnosed, they had hormones and surgeries available for forever. The entire T movement has been nothing short of destroying the integration and about making T your identity and reshaping society not conforming to it. The trenders are the majority of those who call themselves T, the actual Ts are attacked, ostracized and removed from the movement and from their group as Truscum. They are absolutely hated by the modern LGBT movement and make up a small portion of those within the community as a whole.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
The movement as a whole wasn’t even remotely necessary. Ts have had a path to integration open for decades. They were diagnosed, they had hormones and surgeries available for forever. The entire T movement has been nothing short of destroying the integration and about making T your identity and reshaping society not conforming to it. The trenders are the majority of those who call themselves T, the actual Ts are attacked, ostracized and removed from the movement and from their group as Truscum. They are absolutely hated by the modern LGBT movement and make up a small portion of those within.
For much of the LGBT movement, that's where T's were. Just happy to integrate, and knew that in the places where they couldn't legally transition, same-sex marriage would give them a work around. But once Marriage equality was won, the activists used the T's as the way to continue being activists, as they knew nothing else, and there was little to fight for. There was quite suddenly too much supply of LGBT activism, and not enough demand. So they generated demand with the T's, who really didn't need any help. Now with Bostock (the legally correct decision, but as a libertarian, the morally wrong one), there's even less need for LGBT activism.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,290
I mean, I thought getting married, buying a house, raising children, holding down a job, and filling gender roles were traditional/conservative goals.
Yes. However, the conservative/traditional definition of marriage is 'one man, one woman, in a union consecrated by God.'

The LGBT movement has tried to remove all of those aspects. It's not consecrated by God, it's not one man and one woman. It is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be.

So yes, when you completely redefine things, anything can be anything that you want it to be.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
2,075
I don't know of any off the top of my head. But the infidelity statistic you cited makes me think it was some time around the 60s or before, when it really was that bad. Note then that even having a relationship was an achievement in and of itself, as opposed to being homeless and having sex with a random person alongside 20 other people in the same shipping trailer (yes, that's a real thing that happened in New York, around the 60s), or gay bathhouses in San Francisco.
That's a study from the 90's, not from 60's or before.

I'm a libertarian. I totally agree that the anti-discrimination by private citizens part of the civil rights act was morally wrong. One could argue that it was a necessary evil (just like I consider taxes and a number of other things), but it is bad. The thing is I didn't want to speak for conservatives there.

The point of my original statement though, is that the goal (get a job and a house) is a classic goal of Americans that conservatives agree with, just not necessarily the means.
A bank robber, a gambler and a businessman are also pursuing the same goal through different means, but that doesn't make them equals, morally, legally or politically.

That said, a job and a house are way past any real consideration when it comes to current day political initiatives when it comes to sexuality - in the current year the "bad times" of less recent past "don't ask don't tell" are supposed to be the epitome of evil conservative oppression of LGBT, while it specifically means they should have no issue with such individual, material concerns that the average person doesn't have.

Oh, differences exist, but look at the goal, not the inadequate means. The goal of the majority of Ts is to integrate as seamlessly as possible into society, just as the opposite gender to their sex. That's a conservative goal.
On the face of it...
But once you dwell into the details, only further questions arise, like the proportion of transtrenders, activists, and other oddbals in the movement, or specific of how exactly do we define properly functioning marriage.

And then comes the controversial question of "how seamlessly exactly is as seamlessly as possible"? You know the political side of the movement will have endless complaints there, and a perverse incentive to press these complaints forever.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
Yes. However, the conservative/traditional definition of marriage is 'one man, one woman, in a union consecrated by God.'

The LGBT movement has tried to remove all of those aspects. It's not consecrated by God, it's not one man and one woman. It is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be.

So yes, when you completely redefine things, anything can be anything that you want it to be.
I would say that they kept the union part, the commitment part, and are working on the raising kids part of marriage. The god part was tossed years ago by liberals. The movement has been at times hostile to marriage as a thing, but that's not what I'm talking about precisely. What I'm focusing on is:
what the average LGBT person wants out of the LGBT political movement
And pointing out that if government tried to deny these to people in general, it would almost certainly be because a leftist took control of government and was trying to end the nuclear family. These are classic things that are traditional values, just adjusted slightly.

That's a study from the 90's, not from 60's or before.
We don't actually know (unless you have a link to the study?). It was cited in a book from 1994, that's all we know about it. It could have been from anywhere before then.

A bank robber, a gambler and a businessman are also pursuing the same goal through different means, but that doesn't make them equals, morally, legally or politically.
But this is the point I was trying to make, that LGBT people were pursuing conservative goals. You might not agree with how they are pursuing them, but the goals are good.

That said, a job and a house are way past any real consideration when it comes to current day political initiatives when it comes to sexuality - in the current year the "bad times" of less recent past "don't ask don't tell" are supposed to be the epitome of evil conservative oppression of LGBT, while it specifically means they should have no issue with such individual, material concerns that the average person doesn't have.
Employment and housing discrimination banning was a big thing before Bostock. It didn't happen often since 2010, but there was a long legacy from the 20th century about this.

On the face of it...
But once you dwell into the details, only further questions arise, like the proportion of transtrenders, activists, and other oddbals in the movement, or specific of how exactly do we define properly functioning marriage.

And then comes the controversial question of "how seamlessly exactly is as seamlessly as possible"? You know the political side of the movement will have endless complaints there, and a perverse incentive to press these complaints forever.
This is relatively new. More accurately, the weirdos (which every movement has), suddenly came to prominence only recently, as transtrenders began. I'm taking a view of the movement as a whole, and also put in a statement in my original post specifically excluding this:
So this will sound weird, but what the average LGBT person wants out of the LGBT political movement is ultimately conservative.
Trans trenders are not what I consider an average LGBT person, or even a LGBT person, any more than I consider Elizabeth Warren an Indian. The weirdos from before the trending are probably LGBT, but in no way the average.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
2,075
We don't actually know (unless you have a link to the study?). It was cited in a book from 1994, that's all we know about it. It could have been from anywhere before then.
Yes, that's the source, it is a survey based book, about surveys done in 1992.

But this is the point I was trying to make, that LGBT people were pursuing conservative goals. You might not agree with how they are pursuing them, but the goals are good.
To the degree they are even achievable at all (which they definitely aren't 100%), yes.
The dangerous territory starts when to make more achievable, the lobby starts to play around with definitions of these goals.

Employment and housing discrimination banning was a big thing before Bostock. It didn't happen often since 2010, but there was a long legacy from the 20th century about this.
How widespread was it actually (so that we don't talk about outlier cases in high profile cushy jobs), and how would a lot of them even be known to be discriminated against in the first place in the age of DADT?

This is relatively new. More accurately, the weirdos (which every movement has), suddenly came to prominence only recently, as transtrenders began. I'm taking a view of the movement as a whole, and also put in a statement in my original post specifically excluding this:

Trans trenders are not what I consider an average LGBT person, or even a LGBT person, any more than I consider Elizabeth Warren an Indian. The weirdos from before the trending are probably LGBT, but in no way the average.
Is it truly new, or are the weirdos just coming out of the woodwork because now they feel comfortable to do so?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,290
I would say that they kept the union part, the commitment part, and are working on the raising kids part of marriage.
I have had statistics quoted to me that the average homosexual 'marriage' participant has sexual relations with multiple other people every year. I have not seen these statistics for myself, so I can't confirm them.

But that's okay, because you're the one making an assertion here, so it's on you to defend it. What are the statistics on homosexual 'wedded' couples actual being monogamous? Can you support the claim that they're actually committed?

I'll give you partial points on raising kids. They have to be adopted of course, but some actually do try. One of my cousins who is a lesbian has been doing a decent job of raising a son. Do you have any statistics on how much of a minority or majority that is though?
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
Yes, that's the source, it is a survey based book, about surveys done in 1992.
I know, but I'm not sure if this is one of the studies they did, or a study they referenced. From the phrasing of the article, I expect the second:
The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.
EDIT: I checked the book out from the Internet Archive, and I could find no reference to it in the chapter on homosexual partners, nor any reference to a study dealing with gays having an "85" or "37" appear anywhere.

EDIT EDIT: I did the same for "Searching For Gay America", a book that is heavily talked about in the chapter on homosexual partners, and nothing there either.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: I found it: The book is called "The Male Couple" (1985), which is largely anecdotal and geographically limited. Specifically about fidelity, they mention that:
"Sexual exclusivity among these couples is infrequent, yet their expectations of fidelity are high. Fidelity is ... defined... by their emotional commitment to each other. Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others at some time under certain conditions... all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."
Given this book happened just as the AIDS epidemic was getting into full swing, rates of non-monogamy would crash soon after this. Also, this isn't infidelity, but non-monogamy.
EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: The study the book was based on took place from 1974 to 1979.

To the degree they are even achievable at all (which they definitely aren't 100%), yes.
The dangerous territory starts when to make more achievable, the lobby starts to play around with definitions of these goals.
I think they are mostly achievable, but this is basically my point. Once any movement succeeds, all the activists left need to keep having things to be activists.

How widespread was it actually (so that we don't talk about outlier cases in high profile cushy jobs), and how would a lot of them even be known to be discriminated against in the first place in the age of DADT?
Recently? I'd say it was pretty rare. But historically (think 1940s-1980s)? Pretty common if it got out you were gay. There was a 20 year ban on gays being employed by the federal government at all from 1953 to about 1973, when a judge overturned it. This wasn't a DADT type thing, the government would actively investigate people and basically set police on them. The way private citizens and HR would find out people were gay was generally when they were outed. New York's vice squad would raid gay bars, arrest everyone there then put their names in the newspaper as being perverts.

Is it truly new, or are the weirdos just coming out of the woodwork because now they feel comfortable to do so?
The weirdos were always there, just drowned out by the normals (much like any other movement). When the normals win what they want, they fade out of the movement, leaving the infrastructure to the weirdos and grifters. Look at Louis Farrakhan for a weirdo and Al Sharpton for a grifter in regards to race.

I have had statistics quoted to me that the average homosexual 'marriage' participant has sexual relations with multiple other people every year. I have not seen these statistics for myself, so I can't confirm them.

But that's okay, because you're the one making an assertion here, so it's on you to defend it. What are the statistics on homosexual 'wedded' couples actual being monogamous? Can you support the claim that they're actually committed?

I'll give you partial points on raising kids. They have to be adopted of course, but some actually do try. One of my cousins who is a lesbian has been doing a decent job of raising a son. Do you have any statistics on how much of a minority or majority that is though?
For cheating in relationships, I found this:

In regard to sexual orientation, a significant relationship was not found between sexual orientation and history of cheating on one’s current partner, history of being cheated on by one’s current partner, or history of being cheated on by a past partner. However, sexual orientation was significantly related to history of being unfaithful in a past relationship, with 40.7% of heterosexual participants reporting a history of cheating on a past partner as compared to 58.1% of lesbian and gay participants (χ 2 = 8.577, df = 1, p = 0.003). This had a small effect size of .172. Follow-up chi-square analyses were then conducted to examine if lesbian and gay participants differed from heterosexuals regarding which type(s) of infidelity they had experienced in their current and past relationships: emotional infidelity, sexual infidelity, or both types (co-occurrence of emotional and sexual infidelity). Sexual orientation was not significantly related to which type of infidelity participants’ current or past partners had committed. On the other hand, sexual orientation was significantly related to which type of infidelity participants had committed in their current (χ 2 = 7.487, df = 1, p = 0.024) and past relationships (χ 2 = 7.272, df = 1, p = 0.026). In both current and past relationships, heterosexual participants were significantly more likely to commit emotional infidelity than sexual or both types of infidelity, whereas lesbian and gay participants were significantly more likely to commit sexual or both types of infidelity than emotional infidelity.
There was also this study:

It found that being LGBT was positively associated with cheating online (sending nudes to someone not with you, etc), but not associated with cheating in real life.

There's also this article in Slate, referencing a study I can't find (the link to a USA Today article about the study is dead), which notes that:
Folks of all sexual orientations who are in committed relationships have become more monogamous over time, or that’s what a study that was published Family Process found. There are some hinky things in the reporting on this piece at USA Today. For instance, the only heterosexual couples mentioned are married, but gay couples who are committed but have no formal union were also recorded. Additionally, the reporting conflates cheating with sex outside of the relationship, even though many couples have an understanding that allows for outside relationships. In fact, nonmonogamous cultural norms in gay male culture go a long way toward explaining why they’re far more likely to have sex outside of a committed relationship than everyone else.

Still, even with those caveats in place, the results of this survey are stunning. The rate of sex outside of the marriage has dropped for every category of people studied dramatically between 1975 and 2000. Twenty-eight percent of straight men in 1975 had sex with a woman outside of their marriage, but in 2000, it was only 10 percent. For straight, married women, the rate dropped from 23 percent to 14 percent. For gay men, 83 percent to 59 percent, and for lesbians, 28 percent to 8 percent. The USA Today article focuses mainly on gay couples and how the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality has a lot to do with increasing rates of monogamy. There’s a lot to think about there, since it is true that cultural acceptance has introduced far more stability into the lives of gay people, and the gay marriage movement has also increased the pressure to value monogamy.
Unfortunately, I can't find a study that only looks at LGBT married couples.



As for children, there are a lot of factors, depending on what you mean. Are you asking what percentage of LGBT married couples help raise children, or what percentage of LGBT parents adopt, or something in between? Here's two studies:
From 2013:

  • An estimated 37% of LGBT-identified adults have had a child at some time in their lives.
  • Among those under age 50 who are living alone or with a spouse or partner, nearly half of LGBT women (48%) are raising a child under age 18 along with a fifth of LGBT men (20%)
  • Same-sex couples who consider themselves to be spouses are more than twice as likely to be raising biological, step, or adopted children when compared to same-sex couples who say that they are unmarried partners (31% versus 14%, respectively).
  • Same-sex couples raising children are four times more likely than their different-sex counterparts to be raising an adopted child. An estimated 16,000 same-sex couples are raising more than 22,000 adopted children in the US.
  • Same-sex couples are six times more likely than their different-sex counterparts to be raising foster children. Approximately 2,600 same-sex couples are raising an estimated 3,400 foster children in the US.
 
Last edited:

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,290
"Additionally, the reporting conflates cheating with sex outside of the relationship, even though many couples have an understanding that allows for outside relationships. In fact, nonmonogamous cultural norms in gay male culture go a long way toward explaining why they’re far more likely to have sex outside of a committed relationship than everyone else. "

There they go again, redefining what marriage means.

And again, even with everything you posted, substantially higher rates of sexual infidelity were reported. Further, what is this 'emotional infidelity' business? I can agree that there is a point where you're neglecting your spouse for a relationship with someone else, and that's not right, but why is someone trying to equate this to sexual infidelity?

Given even with the dropping infidelity rate you quote, homosexuals had substantially higher rates of infidelity overall, you're more supporting my argument than contradicting it. Given the generally lower sex drive of women, I'm not terribly surprised that lesbians are less likely to cheat, but it did surprise me a little bit that heterosexual women cheat more than heterosexual men. It's indicative though, that homosexual men cheat enough to drag the average for homosexuals in general way up.
 
Top Bottom