According to this site:
So, in comparison, what is the length of heterosexual relationships in the Netherlands by comparison (inclusive of non-married relationships)?
(I know, this has the propensity to be contentious and trying to compare these is a bit of apples and oranges", but I’m looking more for facts which are probably a little hard to come by).
Is “relationship” define as “marriage” in this study? This would imply that gay marriages have been around for 12 years(1.5X8) at least. 
Yeah, that’s a great question. I tried to find the study online but couldn’t. I would like to know what the definition of relationship would be as well. Gay marriage has only been legal in the Netherlands since Sept 2000, so the obvious average couldn’t be more than 4 years maximum.
Hmm, a civil union was possible much longer than marriage, so perhaps that’s what they’re thinking of. Either way, yes, we need some cites here before this means anything.
I think I’ve found the study here
The study seems to be based on a sample of young (younger than 30) homosexual men from Amsterdam, which may not (probably not IMO) be representative of homosexuals in general.
The objective of the study was:
So it seems the object of the study wasn’t to make any conclusion about homosexual and their promiscuity. The figures quoted seem to refer to figures in table 1, “Duration of steady partnership” (1.5 years) and “Rate at which men with a steady partner acquire casual partners” (8/year). It seems that those are the averages of those studied.
I hear the paying heterosexual relationships typically last 5-10 minutes. YMMV, of course. 
The ‘study’ doesn’t indicate whether the relationships used to ‘calculate’ the 1.5 year ‘figure’ includes only people who are married. It merely states that same-sex marriage is legal in the Netherlands, then states the average length of a same-sex relationship as determined by the ‘study’. This may be misleading.
It may well have been a general ‘study’ of the length of same-sex relationships. In that case, a large number of short ‘relationships’ would bring down the average. Unmarried heterosexuals also have frequent, short ‘relationships’ (which are not necessarily sexual). If you calculated the average length of ‘relationships’ between unmarried heterosexuals, the figure may well be close to 1.5 years. Many heterosexual ‘couples’ date for a few weeks or a few months, then break up; few people marry the first person they date. This is manipulation of ‘statistics’, if it is anything.
The number of sexual partners is not particularly significant except that it helps to reinforce the idea that gay people are promiscuous and therefore evil. Some heterosexuals have a large number of sexual partners – some have well more than eight per year. (Also, the average is misleading; a few people with 50 or 100 partners per year would offset the number with one.) Some people, regardless of sexual orientation, have multiple sexual partners despite being in a relationship. If both partners agree to this, it is not appropriate for moralists to condemn a consensual practice between adults which does not harm them. (It is inappropriate to invoke HIV here; this is an arm-waving veil for the real reason, which is religion. The actual risk of contracting HIV through protected heterosexual intercourse is trivially small. Saying that heterosexuals should not be permitted to consensually have multiple partners because of the risk of STDs is merely a cover for saying that they should not do so because it is forbidden by a religion they do not practice.)
A Google search for “AIDS Magazine” found nothing; besides, a ‘study’ of this nature would not be published in “AIDS Magazine”, if such a thing exists. (I have a suspicion that, if it does, it is actually a conservative publication – one that focuses on the purported health risks of homosexuality, or argues that HIV does not cause AIDS.) Statistical studies are only trustworthy if they are published in peer-reviewed journals. There is a journal called “AIDS”, but I could not find the study reported in this journal or any other peer-reviewed journal using a Medline search.
Also, using irony quotes/scare quotes is absolutely childish.
I didn’t see that someone found the study =| I don’t think my search found it.
It’s interesting, and clearly the numbers have just been lifted from the table of parameters. Remember this is from a group of self-identifying men who chose to participate in the study; it’s not necessarily a reflection of all gay men in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, or the world. It is very likely that the men who chose to participate in the ACS are not those who are in long-term monogamous relationships; thus that portion of the population will not be included in the study, and the parameters will be skewed accordingly.
Now, I’m really sorry about making a third sequential post, but after reading the study more carefully I’m able to understand how they arrived at the 8 partners per year figure.
Half of all men in the group reported having a steady partner at the time the study was conducted (i.e. when they were asked, presumably on a single day). These had an average of 8 partners per year. This does not mean that they had a steady partner for the entire year; they may have had, say, two steady relationships each lasting two months, and six casual partners in the eight months in which they did not have a partner. This does not mean that they had eight sexual partners while in the steady relationship. The percentage of those in steady relationships who had outside sexual partners is not given, but the percentage of those who had unprotected intercourse while in a relationship is 12.5%. Those who were not in a steady relationship had 22 partners per year; again, this is subject to the properties of averages. Some may have had zero, others numbers in the hundreds. (This study is among young gay men, so these figures should not be compared to middle-age heterosexuals. Many young heterosexual men have short relationships and a considerable number of sexual partners.) The most important thing, I think, is to remember that this study reflects the participants only to the degree that they were honest with their self-reported reports, and does not accurately reflect the population of any other city or country, or gay men in general. (Other populations may have smaller or larger numbers for either statistic.)
The linked site in the OP is a conservative “Christian” (I put that in quotes, because these people do not speak for all Christians, many of whom accept gay people or are gay themselves) website. In that website you will also find a warning that allowing kids to read Harry Potter books will lead them to explore witchcraft. I don’t know anything about the cited study, but I think the context is important.
As another poster pointed out, the “average” number of sexual partners for under-30 gay or straight persons is not all that telling. A few may have many while the majority may have few. I don’t know if the study specifies sexual acts occuring in these relationships or whether condoms are used. This would be relevant info., too.
That being said, those with MANY different sex partners per year are generally at higher risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, than those with few partners, for obvious reasons. There is no question that HIV spread quickly through the gay community in North America and Europe in part because of a component of this community having sex with many, many partners. In the past, many people were afraid to say this aloud because of the political and religious overtones and implications. It’s important to say aloud, as many gay activists and HIV activists are now finally doing.
HIV is not God’s punishment. There are different diseases that are spread via food, water, air and mosquitos; this one just happens to be spread via blood and sex. We have the responsibility to protect ourselves and also to protect those we claim to love. Unfortunately, those who have few civil rights, are stigmatised, isolated and underground, are unlikely to care enough about themselves or others to make these important behavior changes. It’s hard enough for those who don’t face such burdens.