Brokeback Propaganda

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It proves, if anything, that homosexuals are promiscuous as the many studies which I posted clearly demonstrate.[/quote]

Nice try. You can’t logically prove that gay relationships wouldn’t benefit from marriage until you have actually given them the right to marry and looked at the results.

I’ll help you out. Did you know that gasp gay marriage has been practiced in other countries for a number of years now? Why don’t we take a look at the effects? Will Zeb’s proclamations of disaster come to pass? Will those sex-crazed gays see any benefit at all if they are allowed to marry?

Stay tuned…

[quote]Denmark has been registering same-sex partners since 1989, Norway since 1993 and Sweden since 1995. Marriage Protection Amendment supporters claim that marriage has eroded in these countries as a result of their experiment with same-sex marriage. Our book reports the actual evidence from these countries.

Before Denmark recognized same-sex couples in 1989, the Danish marriage rate was falling, and the divorce and nonmarital childbirth rates soared. If the president was right that gay marriage harms the institution, one would expect these trends to accelerate after that country recognized lesbian and gay partnerships. 

[b]The opposite occurred: After 1989, the marriage rate increased, the divorce rate fell and the rate of childbirths outside of marriage declined for the first time in decades.[/b] Similar but less dramatic trends occurred in other Scandinavian countries. 

State recognition of lesbian and gay unions does not harm the institution of marriage. 

Moreover, allowing same-sex couples to marry has a number of positive benefits. We interviewed a variety of Danish couples who had registered as partners. [b]They told us how their legal unions deepened their commitment to each other, helped legally protect the children they were raising, enriched their relationships with family members and co-workers, and educated the community.[/b] One couple reported that their enthusiasm for marriage inspired their heterosexual friends to formalize their own union in marriage. 

Our book documents the [b]numerous social and community benefits from Scandinavian recognition of lesbian and gay partnerships.[/b] Because marriage and partnership serve private social welfare functions, legal recognition stands to save the state money. Recognition helps integrate lesbian and gay families into the larger society and helps attract productive workers to the country. 

[b]We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.[/b]

[b]The Nordic nations have had 

marriage-like partnerships for 17 years now, and the sky did not fall.[/b] This suggests that the defense-of-marriage argument for the Marriage Protection Amendment is a lavender herring.

Eskridge and Spedale are authors of "Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence" (www.gaymarriagebook.com). Eskridge is a professor at Yale Law School specializing in statutory interpretation. Spedale, an attorney in New York, spent two years in Denmark researching same-sex marriage rights. [/quote] 

I’ll just repeat this tidbit for emphasis, given how hard I know it must be for you to swallow:

[b]"We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases."[/b]

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
"Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?

Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?

I can’t answer the question because your basic premise is flawed. The right to marry someone you love is not a special right at all. It is currently reserved for heterosexuals, it has thankfully been extended to blacks, and in time it will be extended to gays.[/quote]

I just hope I’m around long enough for them to extend this special right to hamsters.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
They wanted the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the right that whites have.

Do you really believe you’re being logical here? Let me spell it out for you, in the terms you have applied to gays.

“Blacks want the special right of being able to marry a white person. They already have the right to marry a black person, but they want the -special right- to marry someone white, given that they are black. Not going to happen.”

It boils down to a very simple concept: heterosexuals currently enjoy the right to marry someone they love, and gays do not. Gays are deprived that -identical right-.

And I am deprived from entering the military because of age. I could easily pass any fitness test, but I’m still denied. Now if they made an exception for me that would indeed be a special right…huh?

Blacks wanted and deserved the SAME rights as whites. Gays want, do not deserve and will not be getting (drum roll) special rights.

[/quote]

But they want it soooo bad and are going to hold their breath until you let them legitimatize whatever kind of perversion they can come up with.

Come on man, I say we become caring liberals and legalize gay marriage, suicide, drug use, and whatever twisted thing someone can come up with. After to all, that is the only caring liberal thing to do!

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Anyone who really studies the homosexual health statistics would in no way claim that promoting that sort of behavior is what “love” is all about. In fact, it seems to me that it’s the opposite of love.

Having experienced the “love” of religious bigots who insist they know what is best for me, they can keep it.[/quote]

Does name calling somehow help you feel better?

If I remember your story correctly (it has been a few months) you lived the life of a heterosexual married man for about 20 years. True?

If that is the case I respectfully submit to you that not unlike 87% of all “homosexual” men, you were also able to have sex with women as well.

In my opinion (and that’s what message boards are about) you should have continued on doing just that!

You could have been living with your two children and no amount of homosexual sex will ever replace the years that you have lost, and will continue to lose with that family of yours.

(You may now respond that you see your kids all the time, they love you and the relationship is somehow even better now that you can express your homosexual desires. We have been doing this for a while now huh?)

I’m sure that you are experiencing joy. But don’t discount the fact that it could be short term. And the possibility of various forms of pain could be around the corner…

[quote]I know also that you will insist that eventually, if I just wait long enough, my decision to come out will bring me misery instead of happiness. You are wrong on that count as well.

[/quote]

Well…actually when you get right down to it neither one of us knows the answer to this. I am looking at the evidence of so very many homosexual lives.

Will you be one of the rare exceptions? Could be…but then again maybe not. Time will tell for sure.

I wish you all the happiness in the world!

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
"Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?

Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?

I can’t answer the question because your basic premise is flawed. The right to marry someone you love is not a special right at all. It is currently reserved for heterosexuals, it has thankfully been extended to blacks, and in time it will be extended to gays.[/quote]

That answer was indeed a total cop out!

Let’s try it again Mr. dodge:

Do you want Polygamists and those who practice incest to have the right to marry too?

A yes or a no will do the trick. An explanation after that would be nice as well.

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It proves, if anything, that homosexuals are promiscuous as the many studies which I posted clearly demonstrate.

Nice try. You can’t logically prove that gay relationships wouldn’t benefit from marriage until you have actually given them the right to marry and looked at the results.[/quote]

Prove?

I don’t have to “prove” that gay “marriage” will do anything.

YOU have to PROVE why we should allow it. And you have not given even one good reason why a 5000+ year old institution should change for less than one percent of the population.

Prove…(shaking head) that was actually funny…I can’t “prove” a whole list of things. I can’t prove that men over 45 would be as good on the front line in the Army as 19 year olds either, but I doubt that the Army cares…

Really…you honestly have to do better than that.

The burden of proof is on you my friend!

Zeb,

Throught the thread you seem to make quite a bit point about dangers
(real or imaginary) of anal sex. I don’t think it is applicable. Firstly, marriage is not defined by sexual acts in it. Secondly, not all gays have anal sex. Thirdly, lesbians don’t have anal sex. The issue just doesn’t apply.

Driving cars is dangerous. Yet we don’t prohibit people from driving. On the contrary, we grant such right almost to everyone! Motorcycles are much more dangerous than cars. Yet we let people ride them.

Also, you protest gay marriage for it will popularize “dangerous” gay life-style. Why stop at just prohibiting marriage? Why not start discriminating against them and shaming their horrible lifestyle in all media sources?

Arguments against gay marriage cannot appeal to dangers (real or not) of anal sex. Neither can they appeal to any religion. After that, there is very little to

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Prove?

I don’t have to “prove” that gay “marriage” will do anything.

YOU have to PROVE why we should allow it. And you have not given even one good reason why a 5000+ year old institution should change for less than one percent of the population.[/quote]

Nice try, but it doesn’t work that way. People are constitutionally entitled to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, UNLESS you can prove that their actions will cause more harm than good. Clearly, you can’t do so logically or empirically when it comes to gay marriage.

It’s moot though, because I have done your job for you. I have assumed the burden of proof on your behalf, and shown you that GAY MARRIAGE DOES HAVE POSITIVE BENEFITS FOR SOCIETY.

Since you apparently missed my earlier post, here are some highlights:

“The opposite occurred: After 1989, the marriage rate increased, the divorce rate fell and the rate of childbirths outside of marriage declined for the first time in decades.”

“Moreover, allowing same-sex couples to marry has a number of positive benefits. We interviewed a variety of Danish couples who had registered as partners. They told us how their legal unions deepened their commitment to each other, helped legally protect the children they were raising, enriched their relationships with family members and co-workers, and educated the community.”

"Our book documents the numerous social and community benefits from Scandinavian recognition of lesbian and gay partnerships. Because marriage and partnership serve private social welfare functions, legal recognition stands to save the state money. Recognition helps integrate lesbian and gay families into the larger society and helps attract productive workers to the country.

We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wish you all the happiness in the world!
[/quote]

Your words mean nothing when you persist in discriminating against me because of my sexual orientation. I know you don’t think of yourself as a bigot, but that comes as no surprise. Bigots never see themselves as such.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Do you want Polygamists and those who practice incest to have the right to marry too?
[/quote]

Do you want me to answer this in a vacuum, or are you going to use my answer in order to push your slippery slope argument (which I’ve already shown to be sophistry)? If the former, I’m happy to share my thoughts…otherwise I refuse to feed your false logic.

[quote]skor wrote:
Zeb,

Throught the thread you seem to make quite a bit point about dangers
(real or imaginary) of anal sex. I don’t think it is applicable.[/quote]

That’s odd in one of your other more recent posts you were worried about the dangers of anal sex:

It seems that on that thread you are not so sure if it is “dangerous” or not. And I think you are smart in asking such a question.

Let me assure you that from everything that I have read it can be quite dangerous.

As I have cautioned forlife on this very thread, the rectum is not meant for sex. The rectum has a very thin lining unlike the vagina. And even if you do use a condom tiny “micro tears” can occur in the lining of the rectum without any pain occuring. This makes it highly susceptible to disease such as, gonorrhoea, syphilis HIV and other viral infections and also making the area open to anal cancer and a host of other communicable diseases.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) also state that "there is no “safe” way to have anal sex! I think they know what they’re talking about don’t you?

I agree this does seem to be the case. However over 60% of homosexual men do in fact have anal sex.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting “always” using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent. As stated above keep in mind that condoms DO NOT protect the person who is the recipient from contracting a disease as the lining of the rectum is quite thin and micro tears allow feces to infect and cause disease.

This from the Journal of the American Medical Association speaks of “Gay Bowel Syndrome.”

“sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes.”[33] Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system."

There’s more:

"According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, “[s]exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact.”[34]

“Proctitis and Proctocolitis are inflammations of the rectum and colon that cause pain, bloody rectal discharge and rectal spasms. Proctitis is associated with STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis that are widespread among homosexuals.[35]”

"The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that “[p]roctitis occurs predominantly among persons who participate in anal intercourse.”

You are correct again. But unfortunately lesbians are susceptable to many many health problems as well:

“Exclusive” Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk. The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false. The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: “The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW was similar to all WSW.”[59] One reason for this is because lesbians “were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user).”[60]

Cancer Risk Factors for Lesbians. Citing a 1999 report released by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade notes that “various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight.”[61] Elsewhere the Blade also reports: “Some experts believe Lesbians might be more likely than women in general to develop breast or cervical cancer because a disproportionate number of them fall into high-risk categories.”[62]

Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Lesbians

In a study of the medical records of 1,408 lesbians, the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections found that women who have sexual relations with womenare at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: “We demonstrated a higher prevalence of bv (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls.”[63]

Compulsive Behavior among Lesbians. A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors: “Like most problem drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34 percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6 percent).” In addition, “Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness.”[64]

Alcohol Abuse Among Homosexuals and Lesbians

The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.[65] Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent).[66]

Although the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists article found no significant connection between male homosexuals and alcohol abuse, a study in Family Planning Perspective concluded that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: “Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”[67] The study noted that problem drinking may contribute to the “significantly higher STD rates among gay and bisexual men.”[68]

Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.[70]”

You can read more about it here if you like:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1

You are right again!

But I think your comparison is a bit off.

Rather I would compare homosexual behavior and lifestyle to sticking your head in a Lions mouth. Unlike driving a car which CAN be dangerous, sticking your head in a Lions mouth IS dangerous.

I am the first person to state clearly that we don’t know why people become gay. There are many studies which put forth evidence that there are many social factors involved such as molestation, distant father figure, dominant mother figure etc. However, there are those who claim that it may also be gentetic.

Until the jury is in with conclusive evidence which demonstrates exactly how people become gay I want to hold off on allowing gays to marry. However, I am not for discriminating against anyone because they have chosen a dangerous lifestyle.

No more than I would ridicule an alcoholic or drug abuser. Each has chosen a dangerous lifestyle. I think help is needed in all of these cases. I would no more encourage an alcoholic to drink than I would encourage the homosexual act and lifestyle. It’s a toss up as to which is more dangerous!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I would no more encourage an alcoholic to drink than I would encourage the homosexual act and lifestyle. It’s a toss up as to which is more dangerous!
[/quote]

So why not make alcohol illegal? Some people can drink responsibly, and some gays can have sex responsibly. Does that mean you should categorically discriminate against the entire group?

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Prove?

I don’t have to “prove” that gay “marriage” will do anything.

YOU have to PROVE why we should allow it. And you have not given even one good reason why a 5000+ year old institution should change for less than one percent of the population.

Nice try, but it doesn’t work that way. People are constitutionally entitled to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, UNLESS you can prove that their actions will cause more harm than good. Clearly, you can’t do so logically or empirically when it comes to gay marriage.[/quote]

But you are not guaranteed the right to marry another man! Just like I am not guaranteed the right to join the Army at any age.

You are not thinking clearly. Your desire to pursue homosexual relationships is overriding your logical thought process.

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I wish you all the happiness in the world!

Your words mean nothing when you persist in discriminating against me because of my sexual orientation. I know you don’t think of yourself as a bigot, but that comes as no surprise. Bigots never see themselves as such.[/quote]

And homosexuals who want to marry never see themselves as wanting to disrupt a 5000+ year old institution to legitimize their homosexual relationships.

But I do wish you happiness…at least as much as you are capable of having without marrying your male lover.

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I would no more encourage an alcoholic to drink than I would encourage the homosexual act and lifestyle. It’s a toss up as to which is more dangerous!

So why not make alcohol illegal? Some people can drink responsibly, and some gays can have sex responsibly. Does that mean you should categorically discriminate against the entire group?[/quote]

Wow!

What a twisted mess you have presented huh?

Let’s look at it accurately:

We help alcoholics because they have a problem. We don’t encourage them to drink. In fact, we discourage them from drinking. We don’t hate them or discriminate against them. Instead we try to help them.

We certainly DO NOT legitimize their behavior by state sanction.

The fact is, their behavior, not unlike your own, is dangerous. The homosexual act and lifestyle is emotionally and physically danagerous. It harms many and also kills people. The statistics that I have provided is clear evidence of this.

You really need to try to take an objective look at what you are doing. I know it’s difficult but it might be time to try again!

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Do you want Polygamists and those who practice incest to have the right to marry too?

Do you want me to answer this in a vacuum, or are you going to use my answer in order to push your slippery slope argument (which I’ve already shown to be sophistry)? If the former, I’m happy to share my thoughts…otherwise I refuse to feed your false logic.[/quote]

All I want you to do is answer the question. That you have dodged this question 6 or 7 times now speaks volumes for your lack of candor in this little Internet debate that we have been having.

I’m ready to read your answer if you are now ready to actually answer.

“Do you want Polygamists and those who practice incest to have the right to marry too? Or is it just your rights that you are concerned about?”

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But you are not guaranteed the right to marry another man![/quote]

You enjoy the right to marry the person you love. I don’t. That is discrimination, no matter how you spin it.

[/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And homosexuals who want to marry never see themselves as wanting to disrupt a 5000+ year old institution to legitimize their homosexual relationships.[/quote]

I thought you just told us that Jesus started the institution of marriage between a man and a woman? Now we’re back to 5000+ years?

By the way…you never answered my question about polygamy in the bible. Not by heathens, but by prophets like Abraham. Does that fit your definition of “traditional marriage”?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But I do wish you happiness…at least as much as you are capable of having without marrying your male lover.[/quote]

If you wished me happiness, you would support my marriage to someone I love. As I’ve already shown you, gay marriage has proven to have numerous social benefits…despite your catastrophizing to the contrary.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The fact is, their behavior, not unlike your own, is dangerous.[/quote]

You ignored my question. Not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic. Similarly, not everyone that is gay practices unsafe sex.

You don’t advocate making alcohol illegal, nor should you advocate making gay marriage illegal. To discriminate against an entire class due to the actions of a subset of that class is bigoted and unfair.