Some websites only present one side of the story. That's where we help out...

2: How Matthew Vines’ Video Misrepresents Homosexuality

partner statisticsEarly in the presentation, the presenter states that the homosexual has the same needs, desires and “identical” quality of love as the heterosexual. He offers little foundation for this statement though, so the viewer simply has to hope that the presenter is basing his statement on reliable sources (NB there is questionable information out there when it comes to things GLBT EG2EG3, EG4, EG5, EG6, EG7EG8. EG9, EG10, EG11, EG12, EG13, EG14, EG15, EG 16Ref.13, Ref.14, Ref. 15, Ref. 16, Ref. 17, Ref. 18, Ref. 19, Ref. 20, Ref. 21, sometimes even from supposed Christian leaders !) But in fact the presenter ignores statistically determined differences in average relationship longevity (Ref. 2, Ref. 3, Ref. 4contradictory example), monogamy (Ref. 2, Ref. 3, Ref 4, Ref. 5, Ref. 6) even if married, average number of sexual partners (Ref.2), tendency to “hook up“, desire to marry, mortality rates compared to heterosexuals (I previously included intimate partner violence (Ref. 2, Ref. 3), in this list, but I now note that reports on this vary, perhaps geographically). Gay men sometimes acknowledge that their approach to relationships tends to differ from heterosexuals. Statistics also indicate a higher number of sexual partners, for homosexuals of his own generation even at highschool level. By not acknowledging these differences, the presenter is either knowingly  misleading the viewers, or he’s revealing that his knowledge of human sexuality is only superficial. His angle differs from other academics such as the author of gay literature, Dennis Altman, who has reflected (FODI marketing, 2013) on gay marriage by stating “If the mobilising issue for the gay community is the right to emulate the traditional family with marriage and children, homosexual identity has been sacrificed for social acceptance.”

MLKJr

Later in section 9, I detail how the presenter oversimplifies the wavering that occurs between heterosexual and homosexual sexual behaviour.

Next topic in the Matthew Vines series

Stasis Online Contents Page for Matthew Vines


6 Comments on “2: How Matthew Vines’ Video Misrepresents Homosexuality”

  1. Mike Pemberton says:

    First of All I know several heterosexuals that have or had open relationships, That may be out of line with your belief system but doesn’t mean that heterosexuals are different, just the gays may be more open to talking about it. Sex also doesn’t equal love.

    So YOUR reference for domestic abuse says a third of almost 7,000 people (I’m rounding up which should help your argument). So that is roughly 2,333. According to this site
    http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1280
    The rate of women in England and Wales is 12.9 MILLION. then add another 2.3 MILLION men. So I will let you shave off half of both those numbers since the first artice (that you posted) said about 3,000 people over their LIFETIME in Britian have experienced domestic abuse, So in 2006 (and dividing the numbers in half to help you out just a little) thats 6.5 Million and 1.1 million (look and I rounded down). You REALLY need to research this stuff more. In case you feel that 2006 is too far back. Heres another link
    http://www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk/Resources/violence_against_women

    I noticed that you didn’t bring up the fact that the same survey mentions how many gays have struggled with mental health and drug problems. Attempted suicide or wanted to kill themselves was also a notice in that study. You think that would be the case if people like YOU were not making their mission to to promote bigotry. BTW why are you spending time reading GAWKER.com for research. That was a sensationalized article written by one person without ANY research for the humorous read of other gays. Not for research purposes.

    I came across this waste of web space because you state you claim to find the TRUTH in news stories but you actually twist the truth to fit your anti gay agenda. Telling half truths or leading someone to believe something untrue is the same as LYING. I’m finding it fun that ANY page I go from you it’s the same thing. The sad thing is I’m sure you will delete my posts and keep on speading the hate. Because that is the real truth you seem to have been taught by Jesus.

    • stasisonline says:

      Hi Mike,

      Yes, certainly there are heterosexuals who have open relationships. I dont deny that. But my understanding is that the proportion of male homosexuals who have open relationships is far far higher than heterosexual males; perhaps around 50% compared to a few %.

      I definately agree with you that sex does not equal love.

      Yes my reference stated that more than a third of almost 7,000 gay and bisexual men who responded to the survey, have experienced at least one incident of domestic abuse in a relationship with a man. The study did not conclude that “about 3,000 people over their LIFETIME in Britian have experienced domestic abuse”, but rather that it was approx 1/3 of the survey respondents. The implication is that approx 1/3 of gay and bisexual men in Britain are likely to have experienced domestic abuse. The survey comments that by comparison, 14% of men in general have experienced domestic abuse from a partner.

      The reason that I didnt bring up the fact that the same survey mentions how many gays have struggled with mental health and drug problems, was because that part of my post was in response to a statement that the homosexual has an “identical” quality of love as the heterosexual. IE abuse from a partner, and having multiple partners is much more relevant than mental health and drug abuse.

      I accept that the Gawker article is not scientifically framed, using statistics etc, and is written as infotainment. But if you are claiming that the article is just a joke, I dont agree. It seems to have been written by a gay male who is writing from his personal knowledge of gay culture, which although subjective, can be more reliable than research by someone unfamiliar with their topic. And the content lines up with what other gays have expressed elsewhere, but in an easy-to-read format.

      I genuinely believe that I dont twist the truth, especially in the name of Jesus. If you can find any examples where I have, Id appreciate knowing so that I can look into correcting this.

      Thanks for your time.

  2. bk13 says:

    The irony in your response… I was disappointed. You can’t bash a fallacy by using a generalization. SO the argument is that there are gay people, gays should be able to get married, and the christian stance on homosexuality is wrong. (for lack of better words. by the way, I was saying his argument). And your rebuttal is simply stating that more gays do this [insert everything you stated] than straights. But what if we all used this same type of argument style as you? i.e. then we can say that since a certain population drop out of school more or have lower academic achievement, then we should be anti-integration. (Thus, if someone does not do [A] well, then it should be enough to say that they should not get [B]). Instead, we should see the most basic argument as ‘should gays be allowed to married’. Also, you can’t hold a standard to gays that you are not willing to hold up to straights. I mean, it is perfectly legal for prostitutes to marry (so your sexual partner count have no legal standing). I will follow your blog.

    • stasisonline says:

      Thanks for your feedback, bk13. I think you have generalised though. When I listed characteristics that distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals, I was not simply arguing against same-sex marriage. The secular legality of same-sex marriage is not the focus of my 14-part post. Rather the focus of my 14-part post is whether the presenter’s presentation is valid and whether homosexual sex is Biblically compliant.

      When I listed distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexual relationships, I was responding to a particular point that the presenter made, which was that homosexuals have the same needs, desires and “identical” quality of love as heterosexuals. But I suggest that the characteristics and statistics that I linked to, indicate that there are considerable differences between average homosexual and average heterosexual relationships.

      I suggest that the comparison of prostitutes marrying, comes with category confusion. A heterosexual prostitute is in sinful employment. A homosexual prostitute is in sinful employment. That’s the same standard applied. If the heterosexual prostitute wanted to get married, then it’s a secular marriage to some degree, because the prostitute is not entirely Christian. Likewise if homosexuals marry each other, then it’s a secular marriage to some degree, mainly because the marriage suggests that they spouses would likely engage in gay sex, which according to the Bible, is sinful. You could argue that allowing heterosexuals to marry but not homosexuals, means holding the two groups to different standards. Yes, it is correct that the Bible does discriminate on this issue.

      • bk13 says:

        Sure, sure and sure. When considering the biblical viewpoint of marriage, how do we justify denouncing certain permitted ones? (i.e. multiwives, marrying children, etc). Yet, we talk about the biblical marriage. ( I can predict your rebuttal:Yes, true–just because we no longer believe in certain types of marital arrangements, but that does not mean that we can add a new type and justify it as biblical). I will think of something to counter this later.

        Second paragraph response. Marriage is not about past relationships. My point is that many men have more partners then women. Why would we discuss partner counts as if it is something relevant to marriage status. The speaker even said that he was a virgin, why does it matter if other men and other gays have had sex a lot. Again, you can compare the sex life of any group and it wouldnt mean that a certain group shouldnt be allowed to get married. I used the prostitute example bc that profession includes a lot of sexual activities and nothing would stop her from marrying. She could marry in the church if she wants.

      • stasisonline says:

        bk13, You are correct that there is a limit to what can be justified as Biblical. I always aim to be well reasoned in my thinking, ie to have a reasoned basis for all my statements. So if someone claims something to be Biblical, I believe that they have an obligation to justify that claim. I come from a Protestant outlook, IE the Bible is supposed to be the foundation. Lets look at your two examples of alternate marriage arrangements –

        Firstly multiple wives. Polygamy was practised in the Old Testament by people who are portrayed as heroes of the faith. However, the New Testament of the Bible came afterwards, and portrays itself to have priority over the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christian marriage is portrayed as being one to one. EG 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6. Secondly, marrying children. This is not an issue I have thought about previously. But I notice for example in Matthew 19, when Jesus refers to a male marrying, in the English it is worded ‘man’, IE adult male. Although I cant think of an explicit statement in the Bible that states that children should not marry, I cant think of any clear example in the Bible where children do marry (though such an unclear example may quite possibly exist, of which Im not familiar). Overall, it seems to me that the Bible seems to portray that marriage is for adults. When the Bible refers to marriage, in all cases where gender is identified, the marriages are between male and female. There are many examples in the Bible of men who love each other (probably platonically) but no cases in the Bible of men marrying each other or women marrying each other.

        When you point out that the speaker said he was a virgin, you seem to be claiming that denying him gay marriage on the grounds that other gays have many sexual partners, is unfair to him personally, because he is not like them. I see your point. And I think you are saying that even from a Christian point of view, when a Christian gets married, their number of previous sexual partners is irrelevant. This is true too. But my blog was not claiming that people who have a history of many sexual partners are ineligible for Christian marriage. From a Christian point of view, the main reason that gay marriage is not regarded as Biblically compliant for him, is that the Bible depicts Christian marriage as being between male and female. The reason I raised the differences in number of sexual partners at that point, was primarily to show that his argument at that point (where he portrays gay love and straight love as the same), was flawed.

        In parts of your last paragraph, you seem to be framing your case from a secular point of view. My blog takes a Christian point of view though. My mind is just not set to disregard Christian teaching. I can see though, that a prostitute who marries, is not entering a Christian marriage. Any priest/pastor who performs a marriage ceremony for her would be providing a secular service, even if that priest/pastor includes some Christian symbolism or performs the ceremony in a building that is generally called a church. A priest/pastor marrying two men or two women (as does happen in some churches in some places), is likewise secular service as far as I can see, since it is not Biblically compliant.


Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s