Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]WMD wrote:
None of this is true. Where do you get this crap?
[/quote]

Where? http://www.peoplecanchange.com

But I guess if you don’t believe it it can’t be true, right!

Typical! Blame society for your own behavior. You must be a liberal? Sure nothing is your fault. It is always someone else’s fault (usually middle aged white guys). So Sad!

Earth to WMD, hello! How many woman could hold any guy down and rape him? Not many. (Ok, so not many guys would resist unless the woman was butt ugly). But the point is that men are bigger and stronger than most all woman. Just being bitchy is not the kind of “threatening” I was talking about.

Civil rights? Where does the right exist to marry someone of the same sex? Also, why isn’t a civil union (with all of the perceived rights that go along with it) good enough? Why do you need to denigrate a religious institution and call it marriage?

Well, I think your response here clearly shows who is hostile. We can just leave it at that.

[quote]
Not asking for approval or validation. We are asking to be treated like
American citizens. And since you don’t know anything about my “lifestyle”, perhaps you could quit projecting your own issues all over me. It’s really gross. Myabe deep down inside you really are afraid you are gay. Maybe you feel a bit threatened by gay women. After all, we are hotter and get more women than you do even in your fantasies.

Oh, the pathos.[/quote]

Wow! Right out of the liberal gay handbook! Looks like you have been doing your homework. Sure, anyone who doesn’t agree with the gay lifestyle most be afraid that they are gay. Yeh, that makes a lot of sense. So I guess the reason the law was passed to outlaw child molestation must also be because those lawmakers were also afraid that they themselves were child molesters? Sure!

Maybe you might want to start thinking for yourself and stop just regurgitating what other have told you.

WMD:

I had the same problem with the quote function a few posts back. One of your cohorts felt a need to insult my intelligence and claim that I didn’t know how to use it properly. I understand that it misfires on occasion, not to worry.

What I did was pick out the most salient points in your previous post, which we can discuss here.

[quote]WMD wrote:

Well, I didn’t push the gay marriage issue. It was thrust upon me by Christian conservatives. [/quote]

I am sure you are kidding here, but you never know. Obviously there would be no gay marriage issue if there was no original push from your side on the issue. I don’t think that one day a Christian conservative decided to bring up the issue so that they could then shoot it down.

And probably a bit naive of any pro gay individual (and pro gay lobbies) to think that there would be no opposition to gay marrige.

Actually, I am for people of the same sex or opposite sex having rights that they currently do not have. For example, if any combination of two people have been living together for a X amount of time and want to declare the other as their “significant other” for want of a better term, then they should be able to do so.

It matters not if they are having sex. And no I would not call it a “civil union.” I would give it some sort of legal name that assures that each can act on the others behalf in legal events, hospital visitation etc.

Each may have no family and the “significant other” acts as a family member. It seems fair to me. Sex does not have to enter into this relationship so it would not be a condition of this particular legal structure. I think this would help many who are not gay yet have no desire to marry. It would also help the gay population as well as a consequence.

And it stands a good chance of passing because it does not look like an overt act to accommodate the gay population (did I tell you that about 70% oppose gay marriage :). You know how some would hate it if it looked like that.

Do I have an idea here?

[quote]Not all who oppose are lazy or stupid, but they most assuredly are ignorant. The things said about gay people that are just not true make me sick. Something can be true about a segment of a population, yet not be true about all of them or even most. The problem with most of the people is that they do not take the extra step required to go past propaganda to find out truth.

Lots of people hold misguided beliefs about marriage and gay people. It will probably take along time for the truth to get out. I’m patient.

The problem is the lies being told regarding gay people, how we live our lives, what our lives are like, etc. in the name of preserving the traditional family structure. And if that structure is the issue, why no polemics against single parenting or divorced couples with combined families? I think it has more to do with entrenched hostility toward gay people in the culture.

Most people who speak against gay marriage have no idea what they are talking about when they speak of gay people. That is ignorant. I don’t think it is militant to call a spade a spade. Stupidity is bad enough but it probably can’t be changed. Ignorance is a treatable condition. The evil lies in the refusal to get accurate information, maybe even from people who know what they are talking about. Like gay people.
[/quote]

Are people laboring under the wrong impression. There is plenty of information regarding gay lifestyles. Some of it is false, some quite true.

For example, the following was taken from a web site which speaks directly to the homosexual lifestyle and the consequences thereof:

“The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide–and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old”

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=73

If the above is true and correct perhaps people are not as ignorant as you accuse them of being. However, If you find the above web site false regarding the details given on this let me know. I did not post the site in order to irritate (or entertain) you. I am seriously interested in your opinion of the “facts” given on this web site.

If the web site is correct, or even partially correct, it might be easier for you to see one reason why people are somewhat opposed to our culture changing to embrace what seems to be something very negative for society as a whole.

Again, please read it and let me know if you feel (based upon fact) it is a factual site or simply geared to make homosexuals look bad.

Last night my family and I were watching our one hours worth of TV for the evening (yes we do limit it). As I was flipping through the stations I happened on a show entitled “What It Means To Be Gay In Rural America.” I may not have the title exactly right, but I’m very close.

We watched part of the program as a family. I thought it would be good for my children to see from an educational stand point.

I was treated to the biggest fluff job that had ever been produced! Granted we watched only about 15 minutes, because it was obvious that the piece was produced to evoke sympathy for gays and the gay agenda.

I just want you to know that I thought of you!

The media is absolutely pro gay and in a big way. And I think anyone who even pays a modicum of attention to television, movies or print media is well aware of this.

And yet Americans continue to vote down gay marrige in overwhelming fashion!

Do Americans have a visceral dislike for the idea of gay marriage?

That is for sure!

Again, if we are going to go back to the Bible to debate this point you are going to lose.

Homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Christian Bible, PERIOD. I won’t quote scripture and verse as I have done that repeatedly on this very thread early on. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, Christians sin, we all sin, it is part of the human condition. However, we are supposed to repent of the sin and not call it a “lifestyle” and embrace it.

Remember what Christ said to the whore?

He first asked anyone without sin to cast the first stone. In those words he was urging people to be compassionate and forgive as they were not blameless themselves. And to continue to give people a chance to change.

However, then he commanded the whore to “go and sin no more.”

I think people can oppose an issue without “hating” it. They might even understand why others would support it.

Speaking for myself, I look at the gay population not with hate, but with compassion.

Here are a group of people who have an attraction to people of the same sex. They surely didn’t ask to be this way. However, now that they are what are they supposed to do?

I can even understand groups forming to further the gay cause. I don’t hate them in any way. I simply disagree with them.

I hold a different point of view. That does not mean I have to “hate” them. I may not care for their point of view on the issue, because I think it happens to be wrong. However, there is no hate involved.

How can anyone call themselves a Christian and actually hate someone because they are gay? That flies in the face of what the Bible teaches and is wrong at it’s most rudimentary level.

In short, gay people are doing what they think they need to do to further their cause. I don’t hate them anymore than I hate labor unions, business executives, or any other group that attempts to push their agenda in order to make what they think is a better life for themselves.

Or vice versa-But either way those who pursue name calling and really do hate people from the other side are wrong.

Over to you WMD…

I sort of feel like we are now co-anchors…lol

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
WMD wrote:
None of this is true. Where do you get this crap?

Where? http://www.peoplecanchange.com

But I guess if you don’t believe it it can’t be true, right![/quote]

Did you even read this website? It does not reflect your attitude in any way, shape, form or fashion. This website is for people who are conflicted over their homosexuality, not those who are comfortable in it. They seem to have compassion for people in that conflict, unlike you.

[quote]It couldn’t be that gay people are hated, reviled and demonized by this society. Maybe the society needs treatment. Starting with you.

Typical! Blame society for your own behavior. You must be a liberal? Sure nothing is your fault. It is always someone else’s fault (usually middle aged white guys). So Sad![/quote]

I didn’t blame society for my behavior. Please try to keep up. You asked why I thought gay teens commited suicide at a higher rate. I offered what seems a plausible explanation besides your “Fags suck and that’s why they die” crap. Apparently you are one of those middle aged white guys, since you took it so personally.

[quote]If you think women are less threatening than men, you have clearly never been with a woman.

Earth to WMD, hello! How many woman could hold any guy down and rape him? Not many. (Ok, so not many guys would resist unless the woman was butt ugly). But the point is that men are bigger and stronger than most all woman. Just being bitchy is not the kind of “threatening” I was talking about. [/quote]

So your clearly informed opinion is that I am gay because I fear men. Not that I like women. That’s why I train in male dominated dojos and why I joined the Army and went to war. Because I am scared. Not because women are hot or anything. Right. Because I would date someone who would rape me, if I were straight. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[quote]What statistics? And what the hell are you talking about?

[/quote]

So one website and approx 200 respondents from that same website makes it scientific. Ever heard of peer reviewed studies? Not to mention it is pretty clear this website is for people with internal conflicts with their homosexuality and it is exclusively addressed to men. What has that to do with those who are confortable with their sexuality or women?

[quote]I don’t want your approval. I want you to keep your dirty little hands off my civil rights. You are really bad at pop psychology.

Civil rights? Where does the right exist to marry someone of the same sex? Also, why isn’t a civil union (with all of the perceived rights that go along with it) good enough? Why do you need to denigrate a religious institution and call it marriage?[/quote]

I personally could care less about any religious institution. If marriage were about religion, people couldn’t get married in Vegas wedding chapels or at Justices of the Peace. So no denigration to religious institutions would be done to marriage that has not already been done by heterosexuals. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not guaranteed in any of our founding documents, yet you assume that you have the right to marry anyone you want to marry. As a citizen I believe I should have the same right to marry the person of my choice. I could care less if it recieves religious sanction as long as it is legally protected. I don’t care if it’s called marriage or howling at the moon in matching outfit.

[quote]No, not just anyone. You, in particular, are stupid. Everything you write is something you pulled out of your ass. Your hostility towards gay people radiates through everything you write. It is clearly your problem.

Well, I think your response here clearly shows who is hostile. We can just leave it at that.
[/quote]

Heh, you should reread your own posts.

[quote]Not asking for approval or validation. We are asking to be treated like
American citizens. And since you don’t know anything about my “lifestyle”, perhaps you could quit projecting your own issues all over me. It’s really gross. Myabe deep down inside you really are afraid you are gay. Maybe you feel a bit threatened by gay women. After all, we are hotter and get more women than you do even in your fantasies.

Oh, the pathos.

Wow! Right out of the liberal gay handbook! Looks like you have been doing your homework. Sure, anyone who doesn’t agree with the gay lifestyle most be afraid that they are gay. Yeh, that makes a lot of sense. So I guess the reason the law was passed to outlaw child molestation must also be because those lawmakers were also afraid that they themselves were child molesters? Sure! [/quote]

Again with comparing gay people to child molesters. And calling me a liberal. Oh, the pain. Will I ever recover. It is your own responses and attitudes that make me think you’ve got a real issue here. Oh and being gay is a sexual preference not a lifestyle unless you are assuming that the millions of gay people in the world are all living exactly the same way. You know, like there is only one hetero lifestyle.

If you were to do any reading in the psychology field, you would learn that humans often have very hostile reactions to things that they fear. They fear those things because they think it means something about them. So I would certainly not be surprised to find any number of legislators who have fantasies about children passing laws against child molestation. Just like closeted gay legislators voting against gay marriage.

[quote]Maybe you might want to start thinking for yourself and stop just regurgitating what other have told you.
[/quote]

Like you?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
WMD:

I had the same problem with the quote function a few posts back. One of your cohorts felt a need to insult my intelligence and claim that I didn’t know how to use it properly. I understand that it misfires on occasion, not to worry.

What I did was pick out the most salient points in your previous post, which we can discuss here.

WMD wrote:

Well, I didn’t push the gay marriage issue. It was thrust upon me by Christian conservatives.

I am sure you are kidding here, but you never know. Obviously there would be no gay marriage issue if there was no original push from your side on the issue. I don’t think that one day a Christian conservative decided to bring up the issue so that they could then shoot it down.
[/quote]

I am kidding. There has been a push, I personally disagree with it. I believe we deserve the right to marry or whatever you want to call it(at this point seems more a battle of semantics). But at this point in time people are not ready for it, so I would have found civil union a reasonable intermediate step in the right direction.

[quote]And probably a bit naive of any pro gay individual (and pro gay lobbies) to think that there would be no opposition to gay marrige.
[/quote]

I never had any illusions about this. It would have truly been naive.

[quote]Actually, I was sound asleep when all of a sudden everybody was yelling about all this gay marriage crap. Seriously, it would not be an issue for me or for many other gay people but for the virulent opposition. Being married was not on the table for so much of my life, that it didn’t even bear consideration. I would like legal protections for my relationship and the property held in common. I’d have been perfectly happy with a civil union. But the opposition was so knee jerk and nasty in many quarters that it just pissed me off. Now probably isn’t the time for gay marriage. It’ll probably happen down the line at some point. In the meanwhile, what about civil unions?

Actually, I am for people of the same sex or opposite sex having rights that they currently do not have. For example, if any combination of two people have been living together for a X amount of time and want to declare the other as their “significant other” for want of a better term, then they should be able to do so.

It matters not if they are having sex. And no I would not call it a “civil union.” I would give it some sort of legal name that assures that each can act on the others behalf in legal events, hospital visitation etc.

Each may have no family and the “significant other” acts as a family member. It seems fair to me. Sex does not have to enter into this relationship so it would not be a condition of this particular legal structure. I think this would help many who are not gay yet have no desire to marry. It would also help the gay population as well as a consequence.

And it stands a good chance of passing because it does not look like an overt act to accommodate the gay population (did I tell you that about 70% oppose gay marriage :). You know how some would hate it if it looked like that.

Do I have an idea here?
[/quote]

Sounds good to me. Now we just have to convince everybody else.

[quote]Not all who oppose are lazy or stupid, but they most assuredly are ignorant. The things said about gay people that are just not true make me sick. Something can be true about a segment of a population, yet not be true about all of them or even most. The problem with most of the people is that they do not take the extra step required to go past propaganda to find out truth.

Lots of people hold misguided beliefs about marriage and gay people. It will probably take along time for the truth to get out. I’m patient.

The problem is the lies being told regarding gay people, how we live our lives, what our lives are like, etc. in the name of preserving the traditional family structure. And if that structure is the issue, why no polemics against single parenting or divorced couples with combined families? I think it has more to do with entrenched hostility toward gay people in the culture.

Most people who speak against gay marriage have no idea what they are talking about when they speak of gay people. That is ignorant. I don’t think it is militant to call a spade a spade. Stupidity is bad enough but it probably can’t be changed. Ignorance is a treatable condition. The evil lies in the refusal to get accurate information, maybe even from people who know what they are talking about. Like gay people.

Are people laboring under the wrong impression. There is plenty of information regarding gay lifestyles. Some of it is false, some quite true. [/quote]

This is true.

[quote]For example, the following was taken from a web site which speaks directly to the homosexual lifestyle and the consequences thereof:

“The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide–and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old”

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=73

If the above is true and correct perhaps people are not as ignorant as you accuse them of being. However, If you find the above web site false regarding the details given on this let me know. I did not post the site in order to irritate (or entertain) you. I am seriously interested in your opinion of the “facts” given on this web site.
[/quote]

Did you know there is a direct correlation between the decline of the spirograph and the rise in gang activity? (Sorry, I do watch too much Simpsons.)

My concern with the data presented here is that is seems to have been gleaned from alot of other articles on AIDS and risky sexual behavior. The rise in AIDS among straight people world wide seems to be completely ignored. The CDC website shows that African-Americans women are the largest group getting infected among women. They got it from heterosexual contact. Actually the CDC website has alot of really interesting info. You should check it out. My point is that what is being called a homosexual problem is not exclusive to gay people or even gay men. It seems that the issue is risky behavior, not necessarily sexual preference. Heck, it seems like sex with men is the real problem, so I should be safe. (I’m joking, sheesh.) And I am really confused about how being a lesbian will make me more likely to die in a car wreck. What has my sexual preference got to do with that? I tend to be skeptical about statistics anyway. I took a stats course during my first degree and it was really eye opening, as far as how easy they can be manipulated to show practically anything. I would be more inclined to lend some credence to stats from CDC but even then I would want more info.

[quote]If the web site is correct, or even partially correct, it might be easier for you to see one reason why people are somewhat opposed to our culture changing to embrace what seems to be something very negative for society as a whole.
[/quote]

That would follow if people were logical creatures and the material from the Family Institute were unbiased and true across the board for all gay people. Thing is, while many gay people, male and female practice risky behavior, so do many straight people. By the same token, many gay people (and straight) do not. The assumption that the behavior of gay people is uniform is really misinformed. Is straight behavior uniform across the board? I would imagine not.

[quote]Again, please read it and let me know if you feel (based upon fact) it is a factual site or simply geared to make homosexuals look bad.
[/quote]

Done. See above. I don’t know if they are deliberately trying to make all gay people look bad, but it certainly does not allow for the diversity of behavior among gay people. Also, he says that the major religions of the major civilizations condemned homosexuality. This is patently untrue. Neither Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian or any other ancient religious cults condemned homosexuality. It was an accepted or at least common practice among almost all these cultures. So I’m not sure what he is up to here.

[quote]I’m not so sure about the media being on board, across the board. The media tend to be whores to popular opinion, because they want to keep their jobs. I haven’t seen anything in the media advocating for gay marriage, but then I don’t watch TV that much. There are some gay characters on shows but the ones I’ve seen are caricatures of gay stereotypes. This is not the same as advocating gay marriage.

Last night my family and I were watching our one hours worth of TV for the evening (yes we do limit it). As I was flipping through the stations I happened on a show entitled “What It Means To Be Gay In Rural America.” I may not have the title exactly right, but I’m very close.

We watched part of the program as a family. I thought it would be good for my children to see from an educational stand point.

I was treated to the biggest fluff job that had ever been produced! Granted we watched only about 15 minutes, because it was obvious that the piece was produced to evoke sympathy for gays and the gay agenda.
[/quote]

Didn’t see it, but it does not sound like it was helpful to my side or yours if it was a fluff piece. I’d like to see more stuff about the diverse nature of the gay population, like the gay doctors and lawyers and cops and grad students who are trying to lead decent, peaceful lives that have nothing at all to do with bath houses or multiple anonymous sex partners. But that is pretty boring material.

[quote]I just want you to know that I thought of you!
[/quote]

Thanks!

[quote]The media is absolutely pro gay and in a big way. And I think anyone who even pays a modicum of attention to television, movies or print media is well aware of this.
[/quote]

Maybe they are. Apparently I need to watch more TV. ;p

[quote]And yet Americans continue to vote down gay marrige in overwhelming fashion!
[/quote]

Well hopefully that will change over time. Meanwhile, nothing wrong with civil union or whatever anyone wants to call it.

[quote]Do Americans have a visceral dislike for the idea of gay marriage?
[/quote]

Alot of them seem to.

[quote]And you Christian folk need to try a little harder with the trying not to sin. Because if what I see in the news is any indicator, ya’ll aren’t trying very hard. I believe the message was “Let he who is WITHOUT sin, cast the first stone.” Not let he who is sinning the least beat the shit out of the fags and dykes.

Again, if we are going to go back to the Bible to debate this point you are going to lose.
[/quote]

Jesus didn’t say “Judge not lest ye be judged”?

[quote]Homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Christian Bible, PERIOD. I won’t quote scripture and verse as I have done that repeatedly on this very thread early on. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
[/quote]

We’ve had this discussion. I reckon we don’t need to rehash it. You know where I stand on it.

[quote]Yes, Christians sin, we all sin, it is part of the human condition. However, we are supposed to repent of the sin and not call it a “lifestyle” and embrace it.
[/quote]

I don’t call it a lifestyle. Being an outlaw biker is a lifestyle. I call it a sexual preference. I can either be true to myself or pretend to be soemthing I am not so other people will approve of me. I don’t share the same understanding of God as many others seem to. As far as repenting goes, I figure that if everyone who needed to repent were to repent there would be a constant dull roar of “Mea culpa!” all the time.

[quote]Remember what Christ said to the whore?

He first asked anyone without sin to cast the first stone. In those words he was urging people to be compassionate and forgive as they were not blameless themselves. And to continue to give people a chance to change.

However, then he commanded the whore to “go and sin no more.”
[/quote]

That is true. However if sin is part of the condition, then we can never be without sin, no matter how much repenting there is. Again, my interpretation of those scriptures regarding homosexuality is grounded in an understanding of Jewish religious prejudice and the context of those scriptures. You and I differ on this and we’ve gone over it ad nauseum. No need to rehash.
.

[quote]Most people can’t oppose soemthing without having some sort of hostile feeling. Why else oppose it?

I think people can oppose an issue without “hating” it. They might even understand why others would support it.

Speaking for myself, I look at the gay population not with hate, but with compassion.

Here are a group of people who have an attraction to people of the same sex. They surely didn’t ask to be this way. However, now that they are what are they supposed to do?

I can even understand groups forming to further the gay cause. I don’t hate them in any way. I simply disagree with them.

I hold a different point of view. That does not mean I have to “hate” them. I may not care for their point of view on the issue, because I think it happens to be wrong. However, there is no hate involved.

How can anyone call themselves a Christian and actually hate someone because they are gay? That flies in the face of what the Bible teaches and is wrong at it’s most rudimentary level.

In short, gay people are doing what they think they need to do to further their cause. I don’t hate them anymore than I hate labor unions, business executives, or any other group that attempts to push their agenda in order to make what they think is a better life for themselves.

As far as the gay lobbies rhetoric, it mirrors the anti-gay rhetoric pretty well.

Or vice versa-But either way those who pursue name calling and really do hate people from the other side are wrong.[/quote]

I agree with most of this.

[quote]Over to you WMD…

I sort of feel like we are now co-anchors…lol
[/quote]

Tune in tomorrow…

[quote]WMD wrote:

Did you know there is a direct correlation between the decline of the spirograph and the rise in gang activity? (Sorry, I do watch too much Simpsons.)[/quote]

So…you do watch TV!

Since the topic is gay marriage I’m not going to separate gay women from gay men in terms of health statistics. And in fact that’s not what the general public is doing either. in all fairness the topic is not “lesbian marriage.”

Basically there seems to be a plethora of statistics to back up the assertion that the gay lifestyle (gay sex or any other way you want to state it) is a very unhealthy one. This proves out both physically and psychologically

This might be just one reason why the heterosexual community is not ready with open arms to embrace the idea of gay marriage. Or for that matter to promote any sort of homosexual activity in their community.

If you find any of the articles, or links to be incorrect please point it out as I have used statistics from various sources including the CDC (as you recommended).

The following information was taken directly from the CDC site:

“Editorial Note: These data suggest that the number of gonorrhea cases in homosexually active men in King County may triple in 1989 from 1988.”

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001496.htm

The following article while just over one year old places further doubt upon the homosexual practice:

Sunday, November 14th, 2004

"In Europe CDC Issues Alert On New Disease Infecting Gays And Bisexuals

November 1, 2004 - The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued an alert to health officials on October 29 on a rare venereal disease (STD) spreading through Europe among homosexual and bisexual males. The CDC believes it is just a matter of time before the disease reaches the U.S.
The disease is Lymphogranuloma Venereum (LGV), a variety of the Chlamydia trachomatis bacterium. According to the CDC, this STD rarely occurs in industrialized nations but has appeared in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Sweden.

LGV has increased dramatically in the Netherlands, which typically has less than five cases a year. During the 17 months preceding September, 2004, the nation had diagnosed 92 cases. Thirty of these cases occurred in 2003 and 62 during 2004.

Of the 62 patients diagnosed in 2004, all of the patients were white and among the 30 whose HIV status was known, 23 (77%) were HIV positive. According to the CDC, “Other preliminary findings suggested that concurrent sexually transmitted infections were prevalent and that the majority had participated in casual sex gatherings (e.g., ‘leather scene’ parties) and unprotected anal intercourse or other unprotected anal penetration (e.g., fisting) during the 12 months before onset of symptoms.” The STD is associated with genital ulcers and various gastrointestinal ailments.

The CDC also noted: “Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of LGV in the United States are difficult to obtain; the disease is not nationally reportable, and the diagnosis is not straightforward. The clinical presentation of LGV might easily be missed, as evidenced by the large number of retrospective cases identified in the Netherlands.”

The complete CDC report is available in the October 29, 2004 issue of the MMWR: Lymphogranuloma Venereum Among Men Who Have Sex with Men — Netherlands, 2003–2004."

MORE BAD NEWS REGARDING HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Some of the following was taken from CDC. All information is well documented. It seems that legitimizing homosexual practice may not lead to a better healthier society.

While all of the facts are disturbing, here are some that seem to refute your argument that only a small “subculture” of gays are overly promiscuous:

  1. A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[9]

  2. In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]

(THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR GAY MARRIAGE PROPONENTS)

  1. In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]

  1. A CDC report documents “significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM,” indicating that “safe sex” practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]

  2. The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that “gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals).”[26] Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea–15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men.[27]

READ THE ARTICLE IN IT’S ENTIRITY:

"Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]
Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable stds. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:

Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.

? 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.[2]

? The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]

Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
? A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.[5]

? A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]

Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.

? A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]

? A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex–the riskiest sexual behavior–in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]

Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

? A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[9]

? In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]

? A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

? In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[12]

Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.

? In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]
? In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]

Unhealthy Aspects of “Monogamous” Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.

? The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

? The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[16]

Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts.

? HPV is “almost universal” among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: “A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV.”[17]

? HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that “most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies.”[18]

? The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that “HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women.”[19]

Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.

? Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: “Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world.”[20]

? Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM are at increased risk for hepatitis B.[21]

? Hepatitis C is an inflammation of the liver that can cause cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. The virus can lie dormant in the body for up to thirty years before flaring up. Although less so than with hepatitis A and B, MSM who engage in unsafe sexual practices remain at increased risk for contracting hepatitis C.[22]

Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. Gonorrhea traditionally occurs on the genitals, but has recently appeared in the rectal region and in the throat. Although easily treated by antibiotics, according to the cdc only "about 50 percent of men have some signs or symptoms, and “many women who are infected have no symptoms of infection.”[23] Untreated gonorrhea can have serious and permanent health consequences, including infertility damage to the prostate and urethra.

? A CDC report documents “significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM,” indicating that “safe sex” practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]

? The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that “gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals).”[26] Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea–15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men.[27]

Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, and death. The initial symptoms of syphilis are often mild and painless, leading some individuals to avoid seeking treatment. According to the National Institutes of Health, the disease may be mistaken for other common illnesses: “syphilis has sometimes been called ‘the great imitator’ because its early symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases.” Early symptoms include rashes, moist warts in the groin area, slimy white patches in the mouth, or pus-filled bumps resembling chicken pox.[28]

? According to the CDC, “transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex.”[29] In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.[30]

? The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: “It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring hiv infection when syphilis is present.”[31]

Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[32] The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as “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: 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.”

? Enteritis is inflammation of the small intestine. According to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “enteritis occurs among those whose sexual practices include oral-fecal contact.”[36] Enteritis can cause abdominal pain, severe cramping, intense diarrhea, fever, malabsorption of nutrients, weight loss.[37] According to a report in The Health Implications of Homosexuality by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, some pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis [see below] “appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with men.”[38]

HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.

? Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, “men who have sex with men” and “men who have sex with men and inject drugs” together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.[39]

? Women risk contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual relations with infected MSM. According to the CDC, “HIV infection among U.S. women has increased significantly over the last decade, especially in communities of color. cdc estimates that, in the United States, between 120,000 and 160,000 adult and adolescent females are living with HIV infection, including those with AIDS.” In 1999, for example, most of the women (40 percent) reported with AIDS were infected through heterosexual exposure to HIV.[40] That number is actually higher, as “historically, more than two-thirds of AIDS cases among women initially reported without identified risk were later reclassified as heterosexual transmission.”[41]

? Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have “a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer.”[42]

HIV/AIDS Among Young People
? AIDS incidence is on the rise among teens and young adults. The CDC reports that, "even though AIDS incidence (the number of new cases diagnosed during a given time period, usually a year) is declining, there has not been a comparable decline in the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among youth.[43]

? Young homosexual men are at particular risk. The CDC estimates that “at least half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under twenty-five, and the majority of young people are infected sexually.”[44] By the end of 1999, 29,629 young people aged thirteen to twenty-four were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. MSM were the single largest risk category: in 1999, for example, 50 percent of all new AIDS cases were reported among young homosexuals.[45]

? Sexually active young women are also at risk. The CDC reports: “In 1999, among young women the same age, 47 percent of all AIDS cases reported were acquired heterosexually and 11 percent were acquired through injection drug use.”

Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.[46] A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: “[S]yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs.”[47] The CDC report concluded: “Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection.”[48]

Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.

? Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is “roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer.”[49]

? At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV “was raised 37-fold compared with the general population.”[50]

Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM
? Many Lesbians also have had sex with men. The homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reported that “the study’s data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men.”[51] The study added that “sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV.”[52]

? Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: “Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman’s sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of ‘lesbian’ women reporting sex with (often high risk) men.”[53] The study found that “the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners.”[54]

? A study in the American Journal of Public Health concurs that bisexual women are at increased risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases: “Our findings corroborate the finding that wsmw (women who have sex with men and women) are more likely than WSMO (women who have sex with men only) to engage in various high-risk behaviors” and also “to engage in a greater number of risk-related behaviors.”[55] The study suggested that the willingness to engage in risky sexual practices “could be tied to a pattern of sensation-seeking behavior.”[56]

? MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492 homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter “said they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women.” Nearly 7 percent of the men in the study were HIV positive."[57] “The study confirms that young bisexual men are a ‘bridge’ for HIV transmission to women,” said the CDC.[58]

“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]

? In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]

Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:

? The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]

? A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,

It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.[73]

High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:

Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.[74]
Greater Risk for Suicide.

? A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry,found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.[75]

? Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as “gay,” lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems.[76] Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that “widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill.”[77]

Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexualsconcluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[78]
In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other stds became widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals of her fellow activists: “We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item.”[79] Debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems, and early death suffered by homosexuals is the legacy of this tragically misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an “agenda” above saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to represent.

Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens. –

END NOTES

  1. Bill Roundy, “STD Rates on the Rise,” New York Blade News, December 15, 2000, p. 1.
  2. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men–San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), January 29, 1999, p. 45.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ulysses Torassa, “Some With HIV Aren’t Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher’s 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference,” The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000).
  5. Jon Garbo, “Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV,” GayHealth News (July 18, 2000). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Jon Garbo, “Risky Sex Common Among Gay Club and Bar Goers,” GayHealth News (January 3, 2001). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/97863827496203.../ index.html?record=35.
  8. “Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women With HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000). Available at: www.mb.com/ph/scty/2000-07/sc073004.asp.
  9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
  10. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
  11. “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.
  12. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.
  13. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.
  14. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited byJ. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
  15. A.P.M. Coxon et al., “Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 877-882.
  16. G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 863-869, cited in “Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand,” Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.
  17. Bill Roundy, “STDs Up Among Gay Men: CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV Misperceptions,” The Washington Blade (December 8, 2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/a.
  18. Richard A. Zmuda, “Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men,” Cancer News (August 17, 2000). Available at: Cancerlinksusa.com /081700analcancer.
  19. “Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer,” The Washington Blade (June 2, 2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000602hm.
  20. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) September 4, 1998, p. 708.
  21. “Viral Hepatitus B–Frequently Asked Questions,” National Center for Infectious Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)September 29, 2000. Available at: Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC.
  22. “Hepatitus C: Epidemiology: Transmission Modes” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1998.Available at: Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC /c/edu/1/default.htm.
  23. “Gonorrhea,” Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) September, 2000. Available at: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC Fact_Sheets/FactsGonorrhea.htm.
  24. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea.”
  25. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) January 29, 1999, p. 48.
  26. J. Vincelette et al., “Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721.
  27. SPR Jebakumar et al., “Value of Screeningfor Oropharyngeal Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection,” Journal of Clinical Pathology 48 (1995): 658-661.
  28. “Some Facts about Syphilis,” Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.
  29. “Syphilis Elimination: History in the Making,” Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC.
  30. C. M. Hutchinson et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516.
  31. “Syphilis Elimination.”
  32. Homosexual advocates object to the use of this term (Gay Bowel Syndrome), which they say unfairly stigmatizes homosexual behavior. Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 55.
  33. “STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis,” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1993. Available at: /www.ama-assn.org/special/std /treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm.
  34. Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women (San Francisco: Down There Press, 1998), p. 220.
  35. Health Implications, p. 56.
  36. “STD Treatment Guidelines.”
  37. Health Implications; See Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health, p. 220, 1.
  38. Health Implications.
  39. “Table 9. Male Adult/Adolescent AIDS Cases by Exposure Category and Race/Ethnicity, Reported through December 1999, United States,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention: available at: www/cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102/table9.
  40. “HIV/AIDS Among US Women: Minority and Young Women at Continuing Risk,” Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.
  41. Ibid.
  42. “Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer.”
  43. “Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS among America’s Youth,” Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm.
  44. Ibid.
  45. Ibid.
  46. “Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men,” Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.
  47. “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease among Men Who Have Sex with Men–King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Centers for Disease Control, September 10, 1999, pp. 773-777. Available at: www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ mm4835a1.
  48. “Need for Sustained HIV Prevention.”
  49. Bob Roehr, “Anal Cancer and You,” Between the Lines News (November 16, 2000). Available at: www.pridesource.com/cgi-bin/article?article=3835560.
  50. “Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer.”
  51. Rhonda Smith, “HPV Can be Transmitted between Women,” The Washington Blade (December 4, 1998). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/9901011h.
  52. Ibid.
  53. Katherine Fethers et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000):348.
  54. Ibid., p. 347.
  55. V. Gonzales, et al., “Sexual and Drug-Use Risk Factors for hiv and STDs: A Comparison of Women with and without Bisexual Experiences,” American Journal of Public Health 89 (December 1999): 1846.
  56. Ibid.
  57. “Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women with HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000).
  58. Ibid.
  59. “Sexually Transmitted Infections,” p. 347.
  60. Ibid.
  61. Rhonda Smith, “Childbirth Linked with Smaller Breast Tumor Size,” The Washington Blade (December 17, 1999). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000114lh.
  62. “HPV can be Transmitted between Women.”
  63. Katherine Fethers et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, July 2000, p. 345.
  64. Joanne Hall, “Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations,” Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
  65. Peter Freiberg, “Study: Alcohol Use More Prevelent for Lesbians,” The Washington Blade, January 12, 2001, p. 21.
  66. Ibid.
  67. Karen Paige Erickson, Karen F. Trocki, “Sex, Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A National Survey,” Family Planning Perspectives 26 (December 1994): 261.
  68. Ibid.
  69. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (December 1994): 469-492.
  70. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
  71. D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
  72. “Violence Between Intimates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
  73. Health Implications, p. 79.
  74. J. Bradford, et al., “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
  75. R. Herrell, et al., “A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
  76. D. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999), p. 876-884.
  77. Ibid.
  78. Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
  79. Quoted in Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 286."

MORE EVIDENCE OF AN UNHEALTHY LIFSTYLE:

Practicing Homosexuals at Greater Risk of Psychological Problems Says Study
LONDON, September 8, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The UK magazine, the Independent, has reported on a study made of the psychological problems associated with the homosexual “lifestyle”.

Researchers at University College London, have found that two thirds of persons active in the homosexual lifestyle suffer from mental health problems. In 1992, the World Health Organization followed the trend of other mental health organizations and declared that homosexual inclinations were not a mental disorder. Homosexual activists have for years claimed that those who indulge in the homosexual lifestyle and subculture are at greater risk for mental health problems such as depression. This study, taken of over 2,400 gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals over three years, coroborrates this claim. Current research from the US also shows high rates of suicide and depression among those practicing the homosexual “lifestyle”.

However, objective analysis is almost impossible in the politically charged atmosphere of the studies. None of the studies questioned the assumption that it is the “homophobia” of others that causes depression. At no point was the question of the psychological healthiness of such “lifestyles” raised, such a question itself being identified as “homophobic”.

More very credible informaion which points out the seemingly destructive behavior of homosexuals:

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

this link was previously posted.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html

Interesting article regarding the rise in HIV among homosexuals:

Quite honestly the more I read on the topic the less likely I am to ever back any sort of gay union. And if the majority of Americans become aware of the above information more gay ballots will be defeated by even a larger margin than the most recent Texas measure which was 77%! I honestly think that what is needed is more research as I have suggested in my earlier posts. We really need to put the politically correct propaganda aside and find out how people become gay!

It has been the persistent assertion by the gay community and social liberals that gays are born that way and should be simply accepted. This in light of no conclusive evidence to back them up. However, I have repeatedly shown that some gay people can in fact drop their same sex attraction and become heterosexual (see the study of 200 gay and lesbians). This should be of interest to those who classify themselves as gay. However, because it flies in the face of what gay lobbies and the social liberals want to hear it is ignored, or worse, ridiculed!

It’s time for those who are on your side of the issue to stop blaming the heterosexual community, inparticular those of religious faith for the pain that homosexuals seem to suffer. As the facts above bear out that the pain which most gays undergo is self administered.

Back to you WMD.

[quote]WMD wrote:
Did you even read this website? It does not reflect your attitude in any way, shape, form or fashion. This website is for people who are conflicted over their homosexuality, not those who are comfortable in it. They seem to have compassion for people in that conflict, unlike you.
[/quote]

Ok, try and stay focused babe. We have statistically way more adult and teen gay suicide attempts than straight. And you are saying that this website is only for “conflicted” gays. Based on the suicide attempt rate, I would say many more are conflicted than you want to believe. You, of coarse would never be conflicted. But for all those less fortunate souls out there, I’m glad they have this site, if at least for the guys to help them sort this stuff out.

Really? Less plausible I suppose than gays actually being conflicted about their sexually orientation? Wonder why that seems to be an issue for others and yet something you seem to have no clue about? Sorry, but the facts would also indicate that being unsure about one’s sexual orientation is also a very plausible reason for the high suicide rate.

As far as the “fags such…” comment. I have no idea what you are talking about. But it does appear you get some comfort from believing that I feel that way.

I didn’t mean you fear men, I said that there could be some trauma involving a man or men that was the issue. No, doesn’t sound like you fear men. Sounds like you want to be one.

Does one’s comfort with their own behavior determine if those behaviors are right or wrong? If a killer, child molester, some one who cheats on their taxes, wants to have sex with animals, etc. feels totally great about their behavior, does that then make it acceptable?

Fortunately, society as a whole has determined what is and isn’t acceptable. Each special interest or deviant group (deviant from general society) does not get to set the rules. So one own comfort with their behavior has little to do with whether society as a whole will support that behavior.

First, you have the right to marry any guy you want to. That is the only criteria for marriage set from its DOCUMENTED historical origin. That is still the criteria today. So what you want is for society to agree to change those parameters to include same sex. Well, since the majority of people support those parameters I wouldn’t count on them changing all to soon.

Now if you want some legal arrangement that allows you to visit your partner in the hospital, get insurance benefits, wear each others clothes, etc. I don’t really care. Go for it. But marriage, not going to happen.

Maybe you should be the one rereading. Don’t recall ever calling you stupid.

Now who’s confused? I thought you said you were gay from a child? That would indicate you are genetically gay. Now you say it’s a “sexual preference”. Perhaps you are more conflicted than you realize?

Comparing gays to child molesters is reasonable as mostly it is same sex (men to boys) and they also feel totally comfortable with their behavior, as you do. They both are also deviant in terms of society and are considered a choice by most. And like pedophilia, the gay sex acts are still illegal in most all US States. So they are almost identical in all ways accept for the age of the participants.

However, in the Gay March on Washington about 10 years ago, one of the “demands” that was made by the leaders of the March was to lower the age of statutory rape. So looks like many of the gays want most all the same things as child molesters. So comparing the two is reasonable as they are very alike in many ways.

Who said that anyone fears gays? I’m sure they fear the results of the gay lifestyle working into the hetero population like HIV, but other than that fear would not be an accurate description. More like disgust or indignation. Again, I know it supposed to help to believe that those who disagree with your sexual behavior fear you somehow, but that is not really accurate.

Streaming video on Winamp when I’m at work. I gotta have my Simpsons.

[quote]My concern with the data presented here is that is seems to have been gleaned from alot of other articles on AIDS and risky sexual behavior. The rise in AIDS among straight people world wide seems to be completely ignored. The CDC website shows that African-Americans women are the largest group getting infected among women. They got it from heterosexual contact. Actually the CDC website has alot of really interesting info. You should check it out. My point is that what is being called a homosexual problem is not exclusive to gay people or even gay men. It seems that the issue is risky behavior, not necessarily sexual preference. Heck, it seems like sex with men is the real problem, so I should be safe. (I’m joking, sheesh.) And I am really confused about how being a lesbian will make me more likely to die in a car wreck. What has my sexual preference got to do with that? I tend to be skeptical about statistics anyway. I took a stats course during my first degree and it was really eye opening, as far as how easy they can be manipulated to show practically anything. I would be more inclined to lend some credence to stats from CDC but even then I would want more info.

Since the topic is gay marriage I’m not going to separate gay women from gay men in terms of health statistics. And in fact that’s not what the general public is doing either. in all fairness the topic is not “lesbian marriage.”
[/quote]

I know people don’t separate lesbians from gay men. They lump us in like we are going to bath houses, having anonymous sex in public parks and racking up thousands of sex parteners like gay men. We don’t and that cite a little later down the line here where it says gay women have more male partners than hetero women is a complete and stinky crock of shit. These people apparently don’t know what lesbian means. Women who have regular sex with both male and female partners are bisexual.

[quote]Basically there seems to be a plethora of statistics to back up the assertion that the gay lifestyle (gay sex or any other way you want to state it) is a very unhealthy one. This proves out both physically and psychologically

This might be just one reason why the heterosexual community is not ready with open arms to embrace the idea of gay marriage. Or for that matter to promote any sort of homosexual activity in their community.
[/quote]

Here is my question: Gay sex consists of say back door action, oral sex, etc. Straight people do these things, too. How is it that it is only among gay people that these things become A)defined as a lifestyle rather than sexual practice and B) why is it so much worse for gay people to do it than straights? Why is it that what we do, which many straight people do, is somehow dirty and disease provoking? There is something not quite right about this.

[quote]If you find any of the articles, or links to be incorrect please point it out as I have used statistics from various sources including the CDC (as you recommended).

The following information was taken directly from the CDC site:

“Editorial Note: These data suggest that the number of gonorrhea cases in homosexually active men in King County may triple in 1989 from 1988.”

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001496.htm

The following article while just over one year old places further doubt upon the homosexual practice:

Sunday, November 14th, 2004

"In Europe CDC Issues Alert On New Disease Infecting Gays And Bisexuals

November 1, 2004 - The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued an alert to health officials on October 29 on a rare venereal disease (STD) spreading through Europe among homosexual and bisexual males. The CDC believes it is just a matter of time before the disease reaches the U.S.
The disease is Lymphogranuloma Venereum (LGV), a variety of the Chlamydia trachomatis bacterium. According to the CDC, this STD rarely occurs in industrialized nations but has appeared in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Sweden.

LGV has increased dramatically in the Netherlands, which typically has less than five cases a year. During the 17 months preceding September, 2004, the nation had diagnosed 92 cases. Thirty of these cases occurred in 2003 and 62 during 2004.

Of the 62 patients diagnosed in 2004, all of the patients were white and among the 30 whose HIV status was known, 23 (77%) were HIV positive. According to the CDC, “Other preliminary findings suggested that concurrent sexually transmitted infections were prevalent and that the majority had participated in casual sex gatherings (e.g., ‘leather scene’ parties) and unprotected anal intercourse or other unprotected anal penetration (e.g., fisting) during the 12 months before onset of symptoms.” The STD is associated with genital ulcers and various gastrointestinal ailments.

The CDC also noted: “Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of LGV in the United States are difficult to obtain; the disease is not nationally reportable, and the diagnosis is not straightforward. The clinical presentation of LGV might easily be missed, as evidenced by the large number of retrospective cases identified in the Netherlands.”

The complete CDC report is available in the October 29, 2004 issue of the MMWR: Lymphogranuloma Venereum Among Men Who Have Sex with Men — Netherlands, 2003–2004."
[/quote]

My main problem with this report is the extremely small sample size. There is no way to compare these cases with a hetero sample. It also draws these cases from yet another subset in the gay population, leather dudes. Not all gay people participate in such gatherings. So again we are looking at a subculture within the gay population that is not representative. Still seems like risky behavior is the problem, rather than just being gay.

[quote]MORE BAD NEWS REGARDING HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Some of the following was taken from CDC. All information is well documented. It seems that legitimizing homosexual practice may not lead to a better healthier society.

While all of the facts are disturbing, here are some that seem to refute your argument that only a small “subculture” of gays are overly promiscuous:

  1. A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[9]
    [/quote]

On the face of it, they only refer to a statistic on gay men, nothing about women. And 43 percent doing this still leaves 57 percent who apparently are not.

[quote]2. In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]
[/quote]

This comes as no surprise. How many people, gay or straight have had sex with only one person in the entire lives? Professional athletes tell of having thousands of encounters. I am also not surprised that older gay men, who probably did a lot of partying when they were younger, would have had a lot of partners. Still tells us nothing about lots of gay men and women today.

[quote](THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR GAY MARRIAGE PROPONENTS)

  1. In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]
[/quote]

Again, an extremely small sample size. Science demands much larger samples than 156 men, since it does not represent women, among other things. I am not surprised that many of the couples made provisions for sex outside of the relationship. Men often stray in hetero relationships. These gay men are making provisions for outside interests while keeping the primary relationship intact. This is accepted practice in some hetero circles.

[quote]4. A CDC report documents “significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM,” indicating that “safe sex” practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]
[/quote]

No surprise here. I wonder what the rate of gonorrhea is among young single heterosexual people.

[quote]5. The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that “gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals).”[26] Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea–15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men.[27]
[/quote]

So it is a surprise that gay men have throat gonnorhea more often than straight guys? You know, seeing as how straight guys are not so much for the giving of blow jobs to other guys. I wonder again what the rate is among straight women who give blow jobs.

READ THE ARTICLE IN IT’S ENTIRITY:

[quote]"Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]
Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable stds. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:
[/quote]

Again this is referring to gay MEN and risky behavior, such as unprotected sex and multiple partners. Instability and promiscuity characterize SOME gay realtionships. And straight relationships as well, if my court TV shows are any indication. (Yes, one of the few things I watch on TV are things like Divorce Court, etc. I like Judge Mablean.)

[quote]Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.

? 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.[2]
[/quote]

This is a problem but not just among gays. But it seems to me that the reports are again referring to men. I would be interested in seeing stats for condom use among single straight people.

[quote]? The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]
[/quote]

Young men like to have alot of sex. This is no surprise. HOw often to young women get pregnant because of unprotected sex?

[quote]Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
? A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.[5]
[/quote]

This sort of thing goes on in the straight community as well. A man was recently convicted for doing this and infecting several young women. The problem in Africa is most assuredly not exclusive to gay men, since alot of women are becoming infected after having sex with their husbands who frequent prostitutes.

[quote]? A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]
[/quote]

I would like to know the sample size. I cannot deny that people having unprotected sex is a huge problem but it is not exclusive to gay men.

[quote]Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.

? A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]
[/quote]

No surprises here but, again, not a problem exclusive to gay men. I work on a college campus. Lots of young boys and girls doin’ the naughty and at least three homes for unwed mothers in a 7 block area.

[quote]? A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex–the riskiest sexual behavior–in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]
[/quote]

Again, these figures focus on men. Again, having unprotected sex is not a practice associated exclusively with gay men. I have no idea how often straight people engage in anal sex, but I think we know they do. Are they always wrapping the rascal?

[quote]Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
[/quote]

I bet studies would indicate that straight male athletes, rock stars, actors and what have you get more ass than a car seat. Didn’t Magic Johnson say he’d been with thousands of women? Seriously, this may be more an indicator of male horniness than anything else.

[quote]? A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, ? In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals
[/quote]
I responded to these above.

[quote]? A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]
[/quote]

And 76 percent appear to have had considerably fewer sex partners. Hard to say without the rest of the data.

[quote] In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[12]

Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.
[/quote]

So is there a surprise that in a group for whom marriage has never been an option that committment means something different than marriage? It gives that group room to experiment, if nothing else.I would imagine that 2 men committing to each other would look very different from 2 women committing to each other or from a man and woman committing to each other.

[quote]? In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison
[/quote]
Already responded to this.

[quote]? In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]
[/quote]

That would be the average of their sample. No indication of the sample size or demographic.

[quote]Unhealthy Aspects of “Monogamous” Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.

? The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.[
[/quote]

I would imagine that people in relationships loosely termed monogamous (whatever that means) would be doing IT alot more. They seem to not know how to to do right if they are getting infections from it. They probably assume they don’t need protection if they are being monogamous. Bad assumption. Women often get bacterial infections after anal sex then switching to vaginal sex with male partners. Latex is a sexually active persons friend.

[quote]? The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[16]
[/quote]

What I said above applies here.

[quote]Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts.

? HPV is “almost universal” among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: “A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV.”[17]
[/quote]

I call bullshit on this one. Almost universal? If they did the study in only in San Fran then the results are skewed. I bet these viruses are common among straight people too.

[quote]? HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that “most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies.”[18]
[/quote]

I am not surprised that unprotected butt-sex is dangerous.

[quote]? The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that “HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women.”[19]
[/quote]

No unprotected sex for anyone…

[quote]Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.

? Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: “Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world.”[20]
[/quote]

See above.

[quote]? Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM are at increased risk for hepatitis B.[21]
[/quote]

Unprotected sex is definitely a high risk behavior. I know more than one straight person with Hep B. So again it seems risky behavior is the culprit rather than simply being gay.

[quote]? Hepatitis C is an inflammation of the liver that can cause cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. The virus can lie dormant in the body for up to thirty years before flaring up. Although less so than with hepatitis A and B, MSM who engage in unsafe sexual practices remain at increased risk for contracting hepatitis C.[22]
[/quote]

Again with the risky behavior. Men hate condoms.

[quote]Gonorrhea:
homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]
[/quote]

Familiar refrain…

[quote]Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, and death.

? According to the CDC, “transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex.”[29] In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.[30
[/quote]

I’d love to see all the data and how they arrived at the 10 times the rate figure.

[quote]? The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: “It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring hiv infection when syphilis is present.”[31]
[/quote]

Syphilis is bad news but that has been known since at least the Classical Greek period.

[quote]Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[32] The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as “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: 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]
[/quote]

Risky behavior, etc, etc.

[quote]? 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.”
[/quote]
Sounds pretty gross. No. Butt. Sex. (without latex anyway)

[quote]? Enteritis is inflammation of the small intestine. According to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “enteritis occurs among those whose sexual practices include oral-fecal contact.”[36] Enteritis can cause abdominal pain, severe cramping, intense diarrhea, fever, malabsorption of nutrients, weight loss.[37] According to a report in The Health Implications of Homosexuality by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, some pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis [see below] “appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with men.”[38]
[/quote]

Again with the grossness. And risky behavior.

[quote]HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.

? Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, “men who have sex with men” and “men who have sex with men and inject drugs” together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.[39]
[/quote]
No doubt about this at all. But this has been known for years. Again, unprotected sex and promiscuity are a problem, but it isn’t exclusive to gay men.

[quote]? Women risk contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual relations with infected MSM. According to the CDC, “HIV infection among U.S. women has increased significantly over the last decade, especially in communities of color. cdc estimates that, in the United States, between 120,000 and 160,000 adult and adolescent females are living with HIV infection, including those with AIDS.” In 1999, for example, most of the women (40 percent) reported with AIDS were infected through heterosexual exposure to HIV.[40] That number is actually higher, as “historically, more than two-thirds of AIDS cases among women initially reported without identified risk were later reclassified as heterosexual transmission.”[41]
[/quote]

Yes indeed. But if the men are MSM, how’d they get it to the women? Someone isn’t being honest.

[quote]? Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have “a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer.”[42]
[/quote]
HIV reduces the ability of the immune system to fight disease, so no surprises here.

[quote]HIV/AIDS Among Young People
? AIDS incidence is on the rise among teens and young adults. The CDC reports that, "even though AIDS incidence (the number of new cases diagnosed during a given time period, usually a year) is declining, there has not been a comparable decline in the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among youth.[43]
[/quote]
Pretty tragic. But for a condom a life is lost…

[quote]? Young homosexual men are at particular risk. The CDC estimates that “at least half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under twenty-five, and the majority of young people are infected sexually.”[44] By the end of 1999, 29,629 young people aged thirteen to twenty-four were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. MSM were the single largest risk category: in 1999, for example, 50 percent of all new AIDS cases were reported among young homosexuals.[45]
[/quote]
YOung men, hormones and poor judgment. A recipe for disaster whether gay or straight.

[quote]? Sexually active young women are also at risk. The CDC reports: “In 1999, among young women the same age, 47 percent of all AIDS cases reported were acquired heterosexually and 11 percent were acquired through injection drug use.”
[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.[46] A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: “[S]yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs.”[47] The CDC report concluded: “Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection.”[48]
[/quote]
I bet this would be true of straight people with the same infections. I wonder if there is any data?

[quote]Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.

? Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is “roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer.”[49]
[/quote]

I don’t know anything about anal cancer but if pathogens are introduced I would not be surprised at the above info. LATEX!

[quote]? At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV “was raised 37-fold compared with the general population.”[50]
[/quote]
See above.

[quote]Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM
? Many Lesbians also have had sex with men. The homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reported that “the study’s data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men.”[51] The study added that “sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV.”[52]
[/quote]
I’m sorry but someone is full of shit here. See, the definition of lesbian is a woman who loves and has sex with women, exclusively. If you try it one or even a few times with a man, you can still claim to be a lesbian. But if you are sleeping with men on a regular basis, your lesbian card gets revoked and replaced with a bisexual card.

[quote]? Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: “Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman’s sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of ‘lesbian’ women reporting sex with (often high risk) men.”[53] The study found that “the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners.”[54]
[/quote]
I’m sorry but this is pure bullshit. See my explanation above. YOu sleep with 50 men, you are not gay. Unless of course you are man. I think someone at the Blade was either having some fun or was smoking crack.

[quote]? A study in the American Journal of Public Health concurs that bisexual women are at increased risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases: “Our findings corroborate the finding that wsmw (women who have sex with men and women) are more likely than WSMO (women who have sex with men only) to engage in various high-risk behaviors” and also “to engage in a greater number of risk-related behaviors.”[55] The study suggested that the willingness to engage in risky sexual practices “could be tied to a pattern of sensation-seeking behavior.”[56
[/quote]
The bi women I know are pretty kinky. But again this seems tied to risky behavior rather than sexual preference.

[quote]? MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492 homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter “said they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women.” Nearly 7 percent of the men in the study were HIV positive."[57] “The study confirms that young bisexual men are a ‘bridge’ for HIV transmission to women,” said the CDC.[58]
[/quote]

Latex barriers for everybody.

[quote]“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]
[/quote]
I’d be interested in seeing the sample size and the demographic because I suspect that most of your vanilla, low profile, professional and working class lesbians do not have sex with men, bisexual women (if they can help it; there is a lot of prejudice among lesbians towards bi women) or IV drug users. They tend to be pretty conservative actually.

[quote]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]
[/quote]

So all those fat-assed, chain smoking, beer swilling wenches I see are gay? I don’t think so. These risk factors exist quite heavily in the straight population.

[quote]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]
[/quote]
I would really like to see their research design. It sounds like these folks don’t know much about gay women or their sexual practices.

[quote]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]
[/quote]

They survey heavy drinkers and somehow that extrapolates to all lesbians? I don’t think so. Talk about bad study design.

[quote]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]
[/quote]
This sounds pretty dubious. I spent 7 years working in the chemical dependency field and only had about 10 lesbians come through the treatment center in that whole time. Meanwhile at least 200 straight women passed through the doors in the same period. So this one is pretty fishy.

[quote]? 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]
{/quote]
Now I know these people are full of it. If they see a link between lesbians and alcoholism but not gay men, they are full of crap. And the idea that gay men are more likely than straight men to have alcohol problems is not borne out by the populations of
chemical dependency treament centers.

[quote]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]
[/quote]
Domestic violence is a problem shared by gay and straight people.

[quote]? In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]
[/quote]

Which is why there are so many battered women’s shelters. Again, domestic violence is rife in America.

[quote]Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:

? The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]
[/quote]
What the hell? So all those women in battered womens’ shelters who are in terror of the men they left are lying and are really afraid of lesbians? Bullshit, I’m afraid.

[quote]? A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,

It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.[73]
[/quote]

Good reason for gay marriage.

[quote]High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:

Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.[74]
[/quote]
All these problems are found in great numbers in the hetero population.

[quote]Greater Risk for Suicide.

? A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry,found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.[75]
[/quote]
I wonder if the stresses associated with being part of a small and widely reviled group could have anything to do with this?

[quote]? Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as “gay,” lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems.[76] Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that “widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill.”[77]
[/quote]

What does D. Baily attribute it to then? Just because you’re gay you are just prone to being crazy? Please. He needs his license revoked.

[quote]Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexualsconcluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
[/quote]

Based on what?

[quote]In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[78]
[/quote]

I am really interested to note that no data or reasons for these conclusions are given.

[quote]In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other stds became widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals of her fellow activists: “We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item.”[79] Debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems, and early death suffered by homosexuals is the legacy of this tragically misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an “agenda” above saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to represent.

Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens. –
[/quote]
I have no way of ascertaining where you got this last bit. I am familiar with Urvashi’s work and she in no way suggests that no work be done to curb unsafe practices. What seems to be put forth here is that being gay is somehow inherently more unhealthy and dangerous than being straight. The problems are those associated with risky behavior and a meta-analysis of the data might show this has more to do with being a man who has no cultural or social or familial obligations to be monogamous or fuss with the inconvenience of latex barriers. There is precious little data about mainstream lesbians or gay men in committed monogamous relationships.

[quote]END NOTES

  1. Bill Roundy, “STD Rates on the Rise,” New York Blade News, December 15, 2000, p. 1.
  2. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men–San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), January 29, 1999, p. 45.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ulysses Torassa, “Some With HIV Aren’t Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher’s 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference,” The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000).
  5. Jon Garbo, “Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV,” GayHealth News (July 18, 2000). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Jon Garbo, “Risky Sex Common Among Gay Club and Bar Goers,” GayHealth News (January 3, 2001). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/97863827496203.../ index.html?record=35.
  8. “Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women With HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000). Available at: www.mb.com/ph/scty/2000-07/sc073004.asp.
  9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
  10. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
  11. “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.
  12. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.
  13. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.
  14. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited byJ. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
  15. A.P.M. Coxon et al., “Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 877-882.
  16. G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 863-869, cited in “Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand,” Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.
  17. Bill Roundy, “STDs Up Among Gay Men: CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV Misperceptions,” The Washington Blade (December 8, 2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/a.
  18. Richard A. Zmuda, “Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men,” Cancer News (August 17, 2000). Available at: Cancerlinksusa.com /081700analcancer.
  19. “Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer,” The Washington Blade (June 2, 2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000602hm.
  20. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) September 4, 1998, p. 708.
  21. “Viral Hepatitus B–Frequently Asked Questions,” National Center for Infectious Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)September 29, 2000. Available at: Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC.
  22. “Hepatitus C: Epidemiology: Transmission Modes” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1998.Available at: Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC /c/edu/1/default.htm.
  23. “Gonorrhea,” Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) September, 2000. Available at: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC Fact_Sheets/FactsGonorrhea.htm.
  24. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea.”
  25. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) January 29, 1999, p. 48.
  26. J. Vincelette et al., “Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721.
  27. SPR Jebakumar et al., “Value of Screeningfor Oropharyngeal Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection,” Journal of Clinical Pathology 48 (1995): 658-661.
  28. “Some Facts about Syphilis,” Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.
  29. “Syphilis Elimination: History in the Making,” Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC.
  30. C. M. Hutchinson et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516.
  31. “Syphilis Elimination.”
  32. Homosexual advocates object to the use of this term (Gay Bowel Syndrome), which they say unfairly stigmatizes homosexual behavior. Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 55.
  33. “STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis,” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1993. Available at: /www.ama-assn.org/special/std /treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm.
  34. Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women (San Francisco: Down There Press, 1998), p. 220.
  35. Health Implications, p. 56.
  36. “STD Treatment Guidelines.”
  37. Health Implications; See Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health, p. 220, 1.
  38. Health Implications.
  39. “Table 9. Male Adult/Adolescent AIDS Cases by Exposure Category and Race/Ethnicity, Reported through December 1999, United States,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention: available at: www/cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102/table9.
  40. “HIV/AIDS Among US Women: Minority and Young Women at Continuing Risk,” Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.
  41. Ibid.
  42. “Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer.”
  43. “Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS among America’s Youth,” Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm.
  44. Ibid.
  45. Ibid.
  46. “Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men,” Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.
  47. “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease among Men Who Have Sex with Men–King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Centers for Disease Control, September 10, 1999, pp. 773-777. Available at: www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ mm4835a1.
  48. “Need for Sustained HIV Prevention.”
  49. Bob Roehr, “Anal Cancer and You,” Between the Lines News (November 16, 2000). Available at: www.pridesource.com/cgi-bin/article?article=3835560.
  50. “Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer.”
  51. Rhonda Smith, “HPV Can be Transmitted between Women,” The Washington Blade (December 4, 1998). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/9901011h.
  52. Ibid.
  53. Katherine Fethers et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000):348.
  54. Ibid., p. 347.
  55. V. Gonzales, et al., “Sexual and Drug-Use Risk Factors for hiv and STDs: A Comparison of Women with and without Bisexual Experiences,” American Journal of Public Health 89 (December 1999): 1846.
  56. Ibid.
  57. “Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women with HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000).
  58. Ibid.
  59. “Sexually Transmitted Infections,” p. 347.
  60. Ibid.
  61. Rhonda Smith, “Childbirth Linked with Smaller Breast Tumor Size,” The Washington Blade (December 17, 1999). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000114lh.
  62. “HPV can be Transmitted between Women.”
  63. Katherine Fethers et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, July 2000, p. 345.
  64. Joanne Hall, “Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations,” Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
  65. Peter Freiberg, “Study: Alcohol Use More Prevelent for Lesbians,” The Washington Blade, January 12, 2001, p. 21.
  66. Ibid.
  67. Karen Paige Erickson, Karen F. Trocki, “Sex, Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A National Survey,” Family Planning Perspectives 26 (December 1994): 261.
  68. Ibid.
  69. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (December 1994): 469-492.
  70. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
  71. D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
  72. “Violence Between Intimates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
  73. Health Implications, p. 79.
  74. J. Bradford, et al., “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
  75. R. Herrell, et al., “A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
  76. D. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999), p. 876-884.
  77. Ibid.
  78. Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
  79. Quoted in Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 286.
    [/quote]
    I am beginning to think that your ploy is simply to wear me out by making me wade through huge posts.

[quote]MORE EVIDENCE OF AN UNHEALTHY LIFSTYLE:

Practicing Homosexuals at Greater Risk of Psychological Problems Says Study
LONDON, September 8, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The UK magazine, the Independent, has reported on a study made of the psychological problems associated with the homosexual “lifestyle”.

Researchers at University College London, have found that two thirds of persons active in the homosexual lifestyle suffer from mental health problems. In 1992, the World Health Organization followed the trend of other mental health organizations and declared that homosexual inclinations were not a mental disorder. Homosexual activists have for years claimed that those who indulge in the homosexual lifestyle and subculture are at greater risk for mental health problems such as depression. This study, taken of over 2,400 gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals over three years, coroborrates this claim. Current research from the US also shows high rates of suicide and depression among those practicing the homosexual “lifestyle”.
[/quote]
My life experience and experience in the mental health field suggests that the vast majority of people have some sort of mental health problems.

And yeah, all us queers do the same exact things, think the same exact way, vote for the same people, have the same kinds of friends, live in the same kind of dwelling, throw the same kinds of parties, etc, etc, etc. We all live exactly the same way. Hell we have exactly the same kind of sex, with no variation whatsoever. That’s why it’s called the homosexual lifestyle. What a crock. It’s more of the same “othering” language used by anti-gay people.

[quote]However, objective analysis is almost impossible in the politically charged atmosphere of the studies. None of the studies questioned the assumption that it is the “homophobia” of others that causes depression. At no point was the question of the psychological healthiness of such “lifestyles” raised, such a question itself being identified as “homophobic”.
[/quote]
Exactly

[quote]More very credible informaion which points out the seemingly destructive behavior of homosexuals:

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

this link was previously posted.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html
[/quote]

What is so credible about these reports? Family Research has a pretty clear bias and so does Dr. Diggs. His report contains numerous problems, such as basing all conclusions regarding lifespan of gay men on one very old study. Not to mention the Aussie study that says gay women have more sex with men than straight women. Maybe that is true in Australia, but it is not true in the US. For many years it was difficult to get gay men and women to even share space in bars, much less sleep together. So I got to say that my credulity is stretched a bit thin in these cases.

[quote]Interesting article regarding the rise in HIV among homosexuals:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031126-113618-3742r.htm[
[/quote]

Safe sex. Gay or straight.

[quote]Quite honestly the more I read on the topic the less likely I am to ever back any sort of gay union. And if the majority of Americans become aware of the above information more gay ballots will be defeated by even a larger margin than the most recent Texas measure which was 77%! I honestly think that what is needed is more research as I have suggested in my earlier posts. We really need to put the politically correct propaganda aside and find out how people become gay!
[/quote]

I’d like it if people just minded their own business but that will never happen. I’m sure if people get the info above they will become even more likely to vote against gay marriage or union or whatever. Because, like you, they will assume that all the above is true for gay people across the board, even though it is not. Like I have said, I am not promiscuous, I have no STDs, I don’t use IV drugs, I rarely drink alcohol, I was rated mentally healthy by the Army(for what that is worth), I am in a committed relationship, I am faithful to her and vice versa, I hold a full time job and I go to school full time, in short I live my life with dignity and honor. Tell me again why my partner and I should not have the same legal rights regarding our relationship as any straight couple?

[quote]It has been the persistent assertion by the gay community and social liberals that gays are born that way and should be simply accepted. This in light of no conclusive evidence to back them up. However, I have repeatedly shown that some gay people can in fact drop their same sex attraction and become heterosexual (see the study of 200 gay and lesbians). This should be of interest to those who classify themselves as gay. However, because it flies in the face of what gay lobbies and the social liberals want to hear it is ignored, or worse, ridiculed!
[/quote]

The other side has no conclusive evidence it is not genetic. Just a visceral, emotional revulsion. Those 200 converts that keep getting trotted out were all men and all were severely conflicted about their sexual attraction to men. Not particularly scientific. And the only people who should be interested in it are those who have a problem with being gay. These assertions about changin sexual preference get ridiculed because they have no scientific basis, no empirical data and no longevity. We should be accepted whether it is a choice or not because we are free adults in what is supposed to be a free society. Someone elses problem with homosexuality is not my problem and my sex life is no one elses business. No one tells straight people who they can and cannot marry even though there are some real messes of marriages out there and a good 50% end in divorce.

[quote]time for those who are on your side of the issue to stop blaming the heterosexual community, inparticular those of religious faith for the pain that homosexuals seem to suffer. As the facts above bear out that the pain which most gays undergo is self administered.
[/quote]

And it’s time for those on your side to quit lumping all gay people into one amorphous mass and recognize that many of us are quietly leading healthy lives full of integrity and joy. We are not all the same any more than all straight people are the same. But making us faceless makes it easier to reject us wholesale. Admit that your sides hostility, stereotyping and unwarranted pity have created an atmosphere that makes being gay incredibly terrifying and difficult. Gay people live in a culture which hates them. Don’t try to equivocate, you know it is true. It may be mixed with pity, which a lot of people mistake for compassion, and they say they don’t hate gay people, they hate the sin. Try it on for size. Pretend for a while everyone you know hates the fact you are straight. Think about it for a while, pretend your best friends and your family are ashamed of you and even hold you in contempt. Try it for a while. It really sucks. It takes tremendous strength to live with it day in and day out. So if some of us are a little fucked up, we come by it honestly. What excuse do all the fucked up straight people have? YOu keep trying to make us into aliens or things you cannot relate to, but the fact is gay people are alot like straight people. We drink, we get drunk, we fall down, we get up. Just like you. This whole issue is about making all gay people seem more screwed up than the worst straight people. Recognize the faults of your side. I happily admit there are people on my side that do the things you claim.

You said you would expect anyone who treats me with disrespect deserves a fight.

Guess what? That is why I speak out and that is why I won’t let anyone treat me like I am someone deserving of contempt, pity or violence.

[quote]Back to you WMD.

[/quote]

ping…

[quote]WMD wrote:

Here is my question: Gay sex consists of say back door action, oral sex, etc. Straight people do these things, too. How is it that it is only among gay people that these things become

A)defined as a lifestyle rather than sexual practice and

B) why is it so much worse for gay people to do it than straights? Why is it that what we do, which many straight people do, is somehow dirty and disease provoking? There is something not quite right about this.[/quote]

I’m sure there are plenty of straight guys who do some of the above. However, there is really only two (main) ways that gay men can have sex and it seems that they are spreading disease at a very rapid rate by doing this!

I don’t think that it’s a “subculture.” It seems from the stats that I have read gay people are very very promiscuious! And on top of that they are not very careful as they seem to avoid protection, thus spreading disease. (See Stats)

Come on WMD…43% is a HUGE number and you know it.

The statistics show that gays are more promiscuious than straights. And in addtion to this they are not careful about it.

Again, an extremely small sample size. I am not surprised that many of the couples made provisions for sex outside of the relationship. Men often stray in hetero relationships. These gay men are making provisions for outside interests while keeping the primary relationship intact. This is accepted practice in some hetero circles.

That particular stat is staggering! The overwhelming majority of gays who find themseleves in a committed relationship make provisions to CHEAT!

DOES THAT TELL YOU THAT GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE A SUCCESS?

(sorry I had to holler:)

Much lower than the gay population. Why don’t you check with the CDC, you will be surprised!

So basically you are saying that straight women who participate in a lot of oral sex are at risk too. Ooookay…but what about gay men? Um the lifestyle…remember the topic? It’s riddled with disease!

It seems to categorize a very large percentage of gays. Far and away more than straights. See the problem yet?

[quote]This sort of thing goes on in the straight community as well. A man was recently convicted for doing this and infecting several young women. The problem in Africa is most assuredly not exclusive to gay men, since alot of women are becoming infected after having sex with their husbands who frequent prostitutes.
I would like to know the sample size. I cannot deny that people having unprotected sex is a huge problem but it is not exclusive to gay men[/quote]

Then tell me why the rate of STD’s and AIDS is higher in places like San Francisco where there is a much larger gay population in comparison to other cities of it’s size?

One reason: Gays spread sexual disease at a much higher rate than straights do. At least that’s what the CDC seems to imply. And every other source that I have checked!

Then you should not be surprised that 70%+ of all Americans do not want to legitimize gay marriage. One very popular way that gay men have sex (according to all the stats) is for one many to place his penis in the other mans anus: BUTT SEX!

And since we see by the stats that so called committed partners still have sex outside of that relationship “marriage” will not stop the spread of STD’s. And in fact might just promote it, as it may also promote gay sex.

And let’s not forget: we have no idea how or why people become gay as there is no conclusive prooof!

Why promote a lifestyle that:

  1. Cuts the persons life span by 5 to 20 years.

  2. Carries a higher suicide rate.

  3. Carries a much higer rate of STD’s

  4. Carries a much higher rate of AIDS

  5. Carries a much higher rate of anxiety problems.

  6. Carries a much higher rate of depression.

And in general simply is not healthy to gays themselves or people who they come in intimate contact with.

How does this help our nation? How does this even help the gay population?

The statistics are clear. If you doubt them please show me some stats where it clearly demonstrates that gays are healthier, happier, live longer and have a low incidence of STD’s and AIDS?

You can’t!

(Pong)

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why promote a lifestyle that:

  1. Cuts the persons life span by 5 to 20 years.

  2. Carries a higher suicide rate.

  3. Carries a much higer rate of STD’s

  4. Carries a much higher rate of AIDS

  5. Carries a much higher rate of anxiety problems.

  6. Carries a much higher rate of depression.

And in general simply is not healthy to gays themselves or people who they come in intimate contact with.

How does this help our nation? How does this even help the gay population?

The statistics are clear. If you doubt them please show me some stats where it clearly demonstrates that gays are healthier, happier, live longer and have a low incidence of STD’s and AIDS?

You can’t!

(Pong)

[/quote]

LOL I told you that you were just full of shit, ZEB.

“Oh, I’m not anti-gay, I just don’t want our 5000000000000+ year old institution changed…”

Whatever, homophobe. You are a NIMBY-minded, just as I have been saying all along. Don’t worry, you won’t catch the gay cootie butt flu if you just keep your distance from them. Wash your hands frequently when you’re around those gay employees of yours.

PS Remember what we always say around here about statistical bias? There are lies, damned lies, and what else? What… you can’t meet some nice, upstanding, deserving gay folks and make up your own damn mind about this? Oh… wait, that’s right… you already have.

Yeah, all gay people have AIDS, live a dangerous lifestyle of excess accentuated by promiscuity and drug abuse… just like how all young hispanic men are in a gang, young black men steal everything, and chinese people know kung fu.

LOL The gay men and women who would actually get married don’t fit the stereotypical image you have of them. Sure, there’s all kinds of people in this world, some of them are gay drug addict HIV positive people, but you of all people shouldn’t let that stop you from making a good judgment call about this.

For shame.

Here’s my new proposal based on your logic:

Due to statistical findings, no one should be able to get married until they are at least 36 years of age.

Think about it. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Of course, this is the path of fascism.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why promote a lifestyle that:

  1. Cuts the persons life span by 5 to 20 years.

  2. Carries a higher suicide rate.

  3. Carries a much higer rate of STD’s

  4. Carries a much higher rate of AIDS

  5. Carries a much higher rate of anxiety problems.

  6. Carries a much higher rate of depression.

[/quote]

I think you just described our military lifestyle (short of #1, but then again, being gay doesn’t cut your lifespan).

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

LOL I told you that you were just full of shit, ZEB.[/quote]

The funny part about that first comment is this: After lothario insults me he fails to produce even one fact that negates the many that I have posted!

That my friends is liberal hubris!

[quote]“Oh, I’m not anti-gay, I just don’t want our 5000000000000+ year old institution changed…”

Whatever, homophobe.[/quote]

Ah, that’s more like it! A social liberal in his natural state, calling people names. Good for you lothario 30 some pages later and the only thing you have to offer is name calling in the face of hard evidence which shows that the homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy one.

YOU LOSE! Once again you put up a post which is void of logic. Void of facts. And void of even one good to allow gay marriage. Yet another emotional tirade written to squelch the oppostion.

LIBERAL LOGIC: When facts get in the way of what you want retaliate with name calling.

I clearly stated “intimate contact.” You either didn’t see it, in which case I forgive you. Or, you saw it and chose the low road, in which case you are once again using liberal logic.

If the truth hurts sometimes you just have to suck it up!

There are plenty of reasons NOT to allow gay marriage. I have debated just about every one of them. YOU have not yet given me ONE good reason to allow gay marriage, other than it would make your gay friends happy.
I’m sure that’s one reason why you fall back on liberal hate speech.

Show me one place where I stated “ALL.” Dang those facts they just keep coming back to spit in the face of your liberal propaganda.

Remember liberal logic folks. Rule number one: When facts are presented that cannot be refuted jump immediately to name calling and other intimidation techniques.

You are now stretching for the minority bias tie in. It’s predictable, but as you and anyone else who read the the thread knows, I never once stated “ALL.” And I most certainly never mentioned minority groups in that light.

But let’s see there is someone on this thread who has stated “ALL” before about one particular group. Oh yes, that would be YOU attacking ALL Christians. Funy how those who are biogoted, like YOU try to turn it around and make it look like your opposition is bigoted. More liberal logic!

Oh darn WRONG AGAIN! According to the studies above a large percentage of gay men who are in “committed relationships” actually set up provisions FOR CHEATING! Wow…now I’m sure your gay friends are perfect in every way but that just does not represent a large portion of other gays.

[quote]Here’s my new proposal based on your logic:

Due to statistical findings, no one should be able to get married until they are at least 36 years of age.

Think about it. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Of course, this is the path of fascism.[/quote]

Logic? You dare bring up the word “logic?” (Shaking head and smiling). It’s amazing how absurd that is. You attack me solely on emotion then accuse me of having no logic. LOL, sorry I have to say it: more liberal logic!

Actually, you might be surprised at how heterosexuals under the age of 36 are quite a bit healthier phsyically and mentally than homosexuals AT ANY AGE!

Go look at the CDC site-it’s free.

But, those are just facts and who needs those when you can use liberal logic, which needs only name calling and intimidation. Do you really want to be an open minded individual? Then look up the facts the way I did.

Here is my proposal:

Take a look at the CDC site regarding homosexuals. Have you ever actually looked at the facts? While you are skipping along in la la land it might be a good idea to at least take a look at my original post to WMD with some very interesting the facts regarding homosexual behavior and disease rate. I didn’t make up the facts. That you continue to want to live in denial speaks to your own closed mindedness on the topic.

You wouldn’t even do a barbell routine if the FACTS demonstrated that it would not produce muscle. Facts are important whenever it comes to just about everything in our lives. However, when it comes to an issue where you are emotionally attatched, such as gay marriage, you say “dam the facts full speed ahead. Besides I can always call the oppostion names…”

It’s time for you to point out where gay people are happier, healthier, live longer, and have a lower rate of STD’s and AIDS. Can you do that? Why don’t you try?

Go ahead, look for these statistics. Let me know when you find them.

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why promote a lifestyle that:

  1. Cuts the persons life span by 5 to 20 years.

  2. Carries a higher suicide rate.

  3. Carries a much higer rate of STD’s

  4. Carries a much higher rate of AIDS

  5. Carries a much higher rate of anxiety problems.

  6. Carries a much higher rate of depression.

but then again, being gay doesn’t cut your lifespan).[/quote]

Oh but it does:

"Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexualsconcluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[78]

More information gleaned from a “gay publication.” Can’t accuse them of being from the far right."

"Gay men are six times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight counterparts and the numbers increase exponentially during the holidays. This story appears in the Dec/Jan 99 issue of Genre and examines the issues behind why they are taking their own lives, and offers some solutions to the holiday blues.

(Also see our own # 7 Happy Holidaze A report from P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) states that in a study of 5,000 gay men and women, 35 percent of gay men and 38 percent of lesbians have considered or attempted suicide. The statistics are even higher among gay teens: The Department of Health study indicates that gay youth are up to six times more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens, and gay teenagers account for up to 30 percent of all teenage suicides in the nation."

MORE STUDIES:

“In 1994, an obituary study revealed that the median age of death for homosexual males was 42 and for lesbians was 49. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, " The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic, " Omega Journal of Death and Dying,” 1994."

“Life expectancy for a 20 year old gay or bisexual man is 8 to 20 years less than all men. The authors estimate that " nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O’Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., " Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? “, Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.”

Now, if all of the above is somehow not true, please point it out to me as I do not want to be mislead by false information.

But, please post a counter argument which refutes these “facts” one by one. Let’s not name call, but have a real discussion. I am very interested in seeing counter facts if they are available.

Thank you.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
PS Remember what we always say around here about statistical bias? There are lies, damned lies, and what else? What… you can’t meet some nice, upstanding, deserving gay folks and make up your own damn mind about this? Oh… wait, that’s right… you already have.
[/quote]

Riiiight! Don’t you mean if the statistic doesn’t support your current belief it must be lies!

Zeb has presented so many facts that it is staggering. And yet you act as if he just made it up. Sorry sport, but it’s coming from the CDC (GOVERNMENT) website. So if you have a problem with that maybe you should write the CDC and call them “Homophobos” (a made up word Liberals use when they have nothing else to support their position).

Unlike all the other racial stereotypes you have just perpetuated (you must be so proud), the gay lifestyle is statically associated with disease and poor health.

Also, on what logical basis do you associate race with a lifestyle choice? What does being black or Asian have to do with a sexual preference choice?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but statistically facts are not stereotypes. They represent a percentage of the population (gay). I guess you are clueless about how much you actually rely of stats.

Did you know that your doctor prescribes medications to you based on statistical research? So do you not go to the doctor when you are sick because he uses that newfangled witchcraft called evidenced based statistical medicine to deliver healthcare?

BREAKING NEWS:

“New York-A state appeals court overturned a ruling that would have allowed gay couples to marry in New York. The court ruled 4-1 that Justice Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state’s domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it doesn’t permit marriage between people of the same sex.”

When the liberal courts of New York go against you…YIKES!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
BREAKING NEWS:

“New York-A state appeals court overturned a ruling that would have allowed gay couples to marry in New York. The court ruled 4-1 that Justice Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state’s domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it doesn’t permit marriage between people of the same sex.”

When the liberal courts of New York go against you…YIKES![/quote]

I guess if it is truly a choice, might be time to choose something more positive.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ah, that’s more like it! A social liberal in his natural state, calling people names. Good for you lothario 30 some pages later and the only thing you have to offer is name calling in the face of hard evidence which shows that the homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy one.[/quote]
Bummer about your blindfold, buddy. I have offered plenty of “good enough” reasons for us all to stop being dicks and let those few gay people who want to get married go ahead and do it and have it be legal. The reason I don’t repeat myself for the thirtieth time is because it ain’t sinking in. Why?

Because you are a homophobe, and no amount of common sense is going to work, so now I’m just having fun with you. Maybe if I continue to point out how goofy you are some little bell in your head will eventually ring… maybe not. All I know is that I am going to continue to have fun, at your expense… one way or another. That means calling you names (which definitely apply), pointing out your inconsistencies in your so-called “logic” (which are glaring and obvious), and tossing around some LOL’s and :)'s.

As soon as you come up with a good reason to deny this tiny concession to the gay community that doesn’t rely on “back in my day”, “you’re all a bunch of heathens”, and “this country is going to hell in a handbasket”, then maybe I will have something credible to refute here.

It will be a first.

[quote]If the truth hurts sometimes you just have to suck it up!

There are plenty of reasons NOT to allow gay marriage.[/quote] No there aren’t! LOL!! Holy shit you are cracking me up ZEB! “Because I don’t like gayness” is NOT (repeat) NOT a “good reason”! Like I have said over and over this is YOUR hangup. This is your lack that you are projecting onto others so that you don’t have to face your own insecurities. I can hear your internal monologue even over the internet from way over here in Tallahassee, pal:

“Well, gayness gives me the willies, so that must mean that there is something wrong with it.”

And then you find that there are some statisitics which seem to reinforce your insecurity, so you can step back and feel justified in your shortsightedness. BIG HINT: I can use statistics to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the key to achieving a very low crime rate in the US is to lock up all young men until they hit 36.

That’s when the T levels drop and we can be trusted to behave ourselves after the rigorous brainwashing and programming we would receive in prison. Individual merit, under your manner of thinking, doesn’t matter because the demographic is what determines worthiness, remember? I won’t bore you with umpteen thousand links about how youth and crime go hand in hand. I also won’t do this with the fact that males commit the vast majority of crime in the US, because I think you can agree with me at least this far. So what’s so wrong with my idea of locking us all up until we are 36? Makes absolutely perfect sense. We’ll get the drunk drivers, gang members, thieves, muggers, etc, with one fell swoop.

The error occurs when I judge an individual’s merit based upon the statistical actions of a group that I have placed him in. That’s what you are doing here with your homophobia, ZEB, and you don’t see it at all. A marriage is an individual thing, a contract, a commitment. You are discounting the value and deserving worth of the commitment of two loving women or two loving men based upon their demographic. Your words… not mine:

[quote]Why promote a lifestyle that:

  1. Cuts the persons life span by 5 to 20 years.

  2. Carries a higher suicide rate.

  3. Carries a much higer rate of STD’s

  4. Carries a much higher rate of AIDS

  5. Carries a much higher rate of anxiety problems.

  6. Carries a much higher rate of depression.

And in general simply is not healthy to gays themselves or people who they come in intimate contact with.[/quote]

I won’t argue those statistics because even if they are right, it doesn’t matter. The fact that you apply them at all is the problem. A much higher rate of anxiety? So I guess pre-menstrual women don’t deserve equality? A higher rate of depression? So I guess kids who dress up in black goth clothes and listen to Nine Inch Nails are lesser people? (LOL maybe some of them are) Cuts the life span by 5 to 20 years? So get rid of alcohol, tobacco, TV, suntans, cars, “high-stress” jobs, etc.? Because if we are going to apply the demographic without any other consideration, then it’s only fair, right? Can you see how you are being unreasonable here?

You look at these stats about gayness, and then draw the conclusion that it is bad. Okay. Do the same with other stuff too. Being younger than 36, for example. Being male, for example. Might as well judge me as being unworthy of marriage too, while you are at it. I am a male under the age of 36. I also cannot be trusted to not commit crimes. You guys are taking a chance by letting me roam around the place… better get me in a pen before I hurt somebody. I might impregnate a young lady and not pay child support. I might have a few beers and get behind the wheel and slide my car into a family of six. I might grab a gun and hold up the liquor store down the street from my house.

Just be more careful when you use statistics to judge people, ZEB. That’s all I’m saying here.

[quote]I have debated just about every one of them. YOU have not yet given me ONE good reason to allow gay marriage, other than it would make your gay friends happy.
I’m sure that’s one reason why you fall back on liberal hate speech.[/quote]
I fall back on liberal hate speech because I think it’s funny. I am not in any danger of losing points to your side in this issue. At all. You have nothing but fearmongering, insecurity, and immaturity to argue with. You want a good reason for this? Okay here’s the very best one:

Because it’s fucking fair.

The very same reason we adopted women’s suffrage. There was no good logical reason for that either, and yet we did it. A bunch of women made a stink, and we had to grow up and realize we were being dicks about women not voting. Same thing with gay marriage. We need to stop being dicks.

If you weren’t using statistics to make allusions to the unworthiness of gay people in general, that what was your point in posting them? You know damn well why you posted that crap, it was to make gayness look bad. Well, fine. So what. Like I said before, it is a far worse evil to be young and male. You have proven nothing, unless you also want to make a point of how I in my youthful virility represent all that is mean and wrong in our country while you are at it. I am the face of crime, irresponsibility, and selfishness. Judge me too… it makes just as much sense.

Remember conservative logic folks. When your points are shown to be full of shit, repeat yourself over and over while ridiculing the liberals as young, foolish, inexperienced, and stupid. Because that’s a lot better.

Then what was your point in making that list ZEB? Why post all those “gay people are more likely to be X, Y, Z” if you weren’t trying to show that gayness in general is bad? Why backpedal? I could make a same kind of list about young black men and crime and make just as much sense as you do.

And just as I called you homophobe, if I made that list of how young black men are more likely to commit violent crimes, I would be called a racist, and rightly so. It’s not like I would be lying, but it’s the fact that I made a judgment call based on statistics… I used a demographic to judge the merit of individuals. Bad idea. Once again you miss the point of my super kick-ass analogies because you are a doo-dee head. (It’s been awhile since I called you a name… gotta keep the ol’ liberal logic kickin’ LOL)

Ah yes, but this is the difference between us; a fine line, but a line nonetheless:

By definition, every single christian (and thus, ALL of them… no exaggeration) on this planet believes that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. That is the undisputed litmus test of your faith. You cannot refute this. Then, I take one simple fact: rising from the dead after three days is impossible. Therefore, I can make the fun and logical conclusion that every single christian believes in the impossible as gospel truth, and that makes me laugh. Sorry, you guys are goofy. I don’t make this shit up… y’all do.

So we are back to making judgment calls based on demographics? Okay. A large percentage of girls in their teens report that they have had sex before 18. The only solution is to bring back the chastity belt. Any teenageer caught having sex needs to go to jail.

[quote]Logic? You dare bring up the word “logic?” (Shaking head and smiling). It’s amazing how absurd that is. You attack me solely on emotion then accuse me of having no logic. LOL, sorry I have to say it: more liberal logic!

Actually, you might be surprised at how heterosexuals under the age of 36 are quite a bit healthier phsyically and mentally than homosexuals AT ANY AGE!

Go look at the CDC site-it’s free.

But, those are just facts and who needs those when you can use liberal logic, which needs only name calling and intimidation. Do you really want to be an open minded individual? Then look up the facts the way I did.

Here is my proposal:

Take a look at the CDC site regarding homosexuals. Have you ever actually looked at the facts? While you are skipping along in la la land it might be a good idea to at least take a look at my original post to WMD with some very interesting the facts regarding homosexual behavior and disease rate. I didn’t make up the facts. That you continue to want to live in denial speaks to your own closed mindedness on the topic.

You wouldn’t even do a barbell routine if the FACTS demonstrated that it would not produce muscle. Facts are important whenever it comes to just about everything in our lives. However, when it comes to an issue where you are emotionally attatched, such as gay marriage, you say “dam the facts full speed ahead. Besides I can always call the oppostion names…”

It’s time for you to point out where gay people are happier, healthier, live longer, and have a lower rate of STD’s and AIDS. Can you do that? Why don’t you try?

Go ahead, look for these statistics. Let me know when you find them.
[/quote]

Those aren’t facts to be used to judge individuals, ZEB. Until you understand that, you will be lost. Careful how and when you judge others, my friend.

If I take those statistics and see a gay dude, am I justified in thinking “well, he probably has HIV… high risk category, probably has toyed with suicide, probably does drugs, suffers from depression, etc.”? After all, he’s in the demographic, isn’t he? Only thing is, I really have no idea what this guy does with himself. He may be an upstanding person who tries his best to help others and get along in this life without getting his ass kicked by drunk rednecks (where’s RJ when you need him LOL). He may not engage in high-risk behavior… I have no idea, do I? So why am I judging him in the first place? Who am I to say that he doesn’t deserve the opportunity to marry some other fruitcake who likes leather pants and shopping for boots? Is it gonna hurt anybody or anything? No. Then why am I being a dick and having a problem with this?

All those statistics mean jack shit when we are determining what is fair and just for an individual. Just like we can’t lock up kids because they are young. We can’t call a man a thief because he is black. We can’t arrest a guy for gang violence because he is hispanic and drives a chevy with neon lights underneath it, we can’t say a person can’t drive for shit because she is a woman.

Are women shitty drivers? Statistically, yeah. Even anecdotally, for me: my mom, my ex-wife, all of my past girlfriends, and my roomate; none of them can drive for shit. But the State of Florida still gave them all a driver’s license, man! LOL what a mistake.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Bummer about your blindfold, buddy.[/quote]

On the contrary it’s a bummer about the one that you have on which hides all the facts from your very eyes!

Yes, more name calling in the face of hard evidence. That won’t work :).

But wait let me play too-You are a “factophobe.” Yea, that it, you fear the truth!

I see, so basically you are surrendering the debate to me and are going on a childish rant. Since the facts are on my side I guess you have little choice. It’s either stop posting, agree that I am correct, or act like a nut job. I now assume you are choosing the final of the three. True?

[quote]As soon as you come up with a good reason to deny this tiny concession to the gay community that doesn’t rely on “back in my day”, “you’re all a bunch of heathens”, and “this country is going to hell in a handbasket”, then maybe I will have something credible to refute here.

It will be a first.[/quote]

I understand that you don’t like the statistics that I posted. However, they are (mostly) from the CDC. If you don’t like them you can always write your government with your politically correct nonsense, maybe they will listen.

I also understand that you didn’t like the quotes that I posted from the Bible. It’s well known that you have no respect for any religion or the Bible. I suggest you take that one up God. Maybe God will rewrite the good book in order to please your homosexual pals. Um…but I don’t think so.

I present facts, you present emotion. More liberal logic…(yawn).

Who is projecting now? I never stated that in any of my many posts on this or any other thread regarding homosexuality! Does that make you a liar, or just confused?

It seems that those statistics are pretty solid. And, might I add instead of refuting them, you go on another emotional tirade. That stuff doesn’t work with people who can think and speak on their own.

You can? Well goody for you! But you see your real problem is you cannot find any stats that can counter the ones which I posted on gay behavior and disease. You see that’s your real problem right now. :wink:

I never once stated (and there are no statistics to support) that every homosexual is promiscuious. However, prior to changing the heterosexual institution (did I mention that it is 5000+ years old?) of marriage we need to examine the group who is requesting this change. Your little (about 1% of the population) group has been examined and has come up quite short!

And that’s why when there are pro gay marriage ballot initiatives they go down to defeat faster than the Buffalo Bills in a Super Bowl game! Texas alone voted 77% against gay marriage. And (I believe) 15 other states have also had similar results.

Oh I forgot you don’t like facts when it comes to gay marriage. You only like them when you want to rely on a good workout and EVERYTHING ELSE IN YOUR LIFE -

[quote]Why promote a lifestyle that:

  1. Cuts the persons life span by 5 to 20 years.

  2. Carries a higher suicide rate.

  3. Carries a much higer rate of STD’s

  4. Carries a much higher rate of AIDS

  5. Carries a much higher rate of anxiety problems.

  6. Carries a much higher rate of depression.

And in general simply is not healthy to gays themselves or people who they come in intimate contact with.

I won’t argue those statistics because even if they are right, it doesn’t matter. The fact that you apply them at all is the problem.[/quote]

You have just lost any credibility in this debate that you might have had! We should NEVER apply facts in order to obtain a good conclusion? WOW! Go play with your gay friends lothario because you are not doing your side any good on this thread!

They are just confused and also have not had the proper guidance at home. (just a guess).

Thank you for proving my point: There are limits on most of the things that you listed, do you realize that?

Can’t smoke until you are 18-Can’t consume alcohol until you are 21.-Can’t drive until a certain age (varies according to state laws).

Two homosexuals can have all the sex that they want. It is afer all a free country (and I’m happy about that). But, they cannot marry! I guess that is their limit.

Why can’t they marry?

A myriad of reasons. You don’t like any of them. However, the biggest reason is that you have not yet given a Good (as in valid) reason to change a 5000+ year old heterosexual institution!

you see you just don’t make a huge change like that without some valid reasons. You have to say more than “it seems fair to me.”

Not at all true! See how confused you are? I look at the total picture: Religious, tradition, health stats, majority view etc. I then look at the argument on the other side: “My gay friends would be so happy.”

I then draw this conclusion: Gay marriage would not be the best thing for our country.

See the difference?

This should not come as a shock to you. the AIDS and STD stats for males under 36 in no way rivals that of the gay population!

[quote] I am a male under the age of 36. I also cannot be trusted to not commit crimes. You guys are taking a chance by letting me roam around the place… better get me in a pen before I hurt somebody. I might impregnate a young lady and not pay child support. I might have a few beers and get behind the wheel and slide my car into a family of six. I might grab a gun and hold up the liquor store down the street from my house.
[/quote]

If you knew something about policing procedures you would already know that groups of young males are always “watched” more than groups of say women who are 65 or older and involved in a knitting club.

Wake up man.

You think “hate speech is funny?” Well what if someone called your friends “fags” and “butt pirates” to their face? Would you think that’s funny? No, you probably would not think that is too funny, and neither would I! But as usual the left thinks that they can use whatever words that are available to them right or wrong. In this case you fall back on hate speech because you have no argument!

Think about it!

We debate the Bible. I bring quotes from every credible version.

You say “it’s all a fairy tale who cares.”

We debate public opinion. I bring legitimate poll numbers and results from referendums.

You say “they are all closed minded so who cares?”

We debate health matters. I bring statistics from the CDC.

You say: “who cares stats mean nothing.”

We debate cause of homosexuality. I bring stats that show it has never been provem to be genetic. Let’s do more studies.

You say “I think it’s genetic that’s good enough.”

So all you are left to debate with is your unequalled emotion on the topic, and hate speech!

Do you see why you and the rest of the social liberals are losing this debate?

[quote]You want a good reason for this? Okay here’s the very best one:

Because it’s fucking fair.

The very same reason we adopted women’s suffrage. There was no good logical reason for that either, and yet we did it. A bunch of women made a stink, and we had to grow up and realize we were being dicks about women not voting. Same thing with gay marriage. We need to stop being dicks.[/quote]

You are falling back on the “homosexuals are no different than women (or blacks) in terms of equal rights” argument. Hey, you left out blacks this time.

Let me (gently) remind you that being black and being female are genetic. (You know what comes next), Being gay has never been proven to be genetic. In in some studies same sex attracton has been shown to be changed! Here is where I raise a good idea: let’s find out why people become gay BEFORE we rush out and change the institution of marriage.

Here is where you call me a homophobe because you have no argument.

Yea …that about sums it up.

First of all being “young and male” does not carry the same unhealthy consequences as being gay does. Not mentally or physically, so you should really stop posting that it does.

To your rant: These statistics that I have shown you demonstrate that people whom you claim to love are in a great deal of pain! Do you ever see that? Did it ever occur to you that this could be the case?

The statistics demonstrate that these same people whom you want to expand rights for might be better off if we first figured out how to help them.

In one study of 200 gay people it was shown that 66% of gay men actually stopped having same sex attraction and began relationships with women. It also showed that only a tiny minority of these men even had same sex thoughts DURING HETEROSEXUAL SEX!

Why don’t you spit out that social liberal pill that they gave you and actually think outside the box?

If someone is in pain do you continue to give them what is causing their pain or do you try to help them?

These statistics show that gay people are not in fact happy or healthy as a group! Why should this be promoted in the name of “love” when in fact “love” dictates that we try to help them!

OPEN YOUR EYES!

lothario, this may come as a shock to you, but you have not refuted even one of my points!

Please see above your emotional responses to the facts that I have presented. You are almost like a child who wants what they want even though they cannot give any logical reason why. All you do is stomp your feet up and down and say I WANT IT!

I ask again, why do you want something which causes so much pain for the people whom you say you love?

The facts show that same sex attraction leads to a life of pain in just about every area that I looked at. You don’t like the statistics, I know. But what do you do about them? Do you further promote a life of pain for these folks in the name of “love?”

That’s not the kind of love that helps anyone!

We need to help young black men who are caught up in a world of crime. We don’t hurt them do we? We show compassion and love, but we don’t allow them to continue in their criminal activites do we?

If we promote a lifestyle which causes pain to those with same sex attractions we hurt them don’t we? As all the statistics show that this lifestyle is unhealthy in most every category.

It is a bad behavior which causes pain. That is what the stats prove. Would you let your yougn son play with a loaded gun because he states that it will make him happy?

Once again you take the opportunity to attack Christianity. What if someone said that “your gay friends are confused little faggots?” You see that’s hate speech and you use it all the time to attack Christians. Yet, you would not tolerate it if it were used to attack your gay friends.

You have, like most social liberals, your own bias on various issues. You like to champion an open mind. Unfortunately, most social liberals minds are as closed as up good and tight!

Closed to reason.

Closed to facts.

Closed to (certain) religions.

Closed to everything but their little social agendas.

Pathetic.

I am judging a behavior-Not any particular person!

Got it?

lothario, let me put it to you this way: what if (and I’m not saying this is the case at all), the statistics showed that every single gay person who had homosexual sex was going to die with in 15 years?

Or, what if they showed that every single gay person was going to kill themselves by the time they were 40? Or, every single gay person was going to have to be on anxiety and depression drugs?

Would you then change your mind and think: “Hey we better help these folks?”

Tell me lothario what exactly would it take for you to actually want to help these people instead of offering them more of what has harmed them?

What effect would those possibilities have on your thought process?

At what point do you put away the social liberal mantle and actually think for yourself?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I also understand that you didn’t like the quotes that I posted from the Bible. It’s well known that you have no respect for any religion or the Bible. I suggest you take that one up God. Maybe God will rewrite the good book in order to please your homosexual pals. Um…but I don’t think so.[/quote]

God doesn’t write books. People do. My problem isn’t with your God because that is like yelling at the TV when my team is losing. My problem is with people losing their good common sense because they are afraid to die, and they take that fear and twist themselves inside because of it.

[quote]I wrote about you:
“Well, gayness gives me the willies, so that must mean that there is something wrong with it.”

You wrote:
Who is projecting now? I never stated that in any of my many posts on this or any other thread regarding homosexuality! Does that make you a liar, or just confused?[/quote]
Oh, I’m sorry… wasn’t it YOU who asked that we change the label “homophobic” to “homorepugnant” because it wasn’t the fact that you personally weren’t so much “afraid” as you were “disgusted by their sexual behavior”?

I’m going to go home from work this morning at 7am and watch lesbian porn… just on priniciple. I might even get my roommate and her girlfriend involved too. Life is good. I’ll pick up some popcorn from the store on the way home.

Already talked about this. Those statistics aren’t to be used to judge individual merit, and I explained why… in a way I thought was pretty clear. We don’t use algebra to check off a christmas shopping list, man! Apples and oranges.

Let me try again:
When we break down prison statistics by race, we find that most violent incarcerated criminals are black as opposed to any other race. This is a simple fact which is just as irrefutable as the facts about American gay men and HIV status, by percentage. The problem here is when we take this statistic and draw conclusions about the worthiness of individuals as a result of the statistics.

“I’m sorry, Jamal. We can’t trust you to be a police officer. You see, you’re black… we can’t let you have a gun or a badge because you are too violent.”

IS THE SAME AS

“I’m sorry, Tom Cruise. We can’t trust you to get married. You see, you’re gay… we can’t let you have marriage benefits and a marriage license because your personal lifestyle is too emotionally and physically damaging for you.”

I hope this is starting to help you, ZEB. I have this idea that you don’t quite realize how you sound to yourself. Quote as many statistics as you want. Those numbers don’t apply to individual merit. Maybe if I boldface it you will understand.

That’s right… the institution of marriage is dependent upon those CDC numbers you have found, isn’t it? I suppose that if the numbers ever equalize in the future in terms of who gets infected by HIV and how often, then heteros will lose our marriage privileges too. After all, we won’t be worthy any more.

This is how you sound, ZEB. I’m sorry, but you sound retarded right now.

No, those votes failed miserably because the people casting the votes had mindsets like yours.

“Those fags and rugmunchers are sinners! Marriage is a man and a woman… like me and my cousin here.”

Sound familiar? :slight_smile:

I’m saying make sure your facts apply to the matter at hand. Because you just make yourself look like an idiot otherwise. I hope you have stopped patting yourself on the back by now.

On the contrary, you aren’t doing your side any bit of good at all. You got nothing. Or do you…

[quote]Why can’t they marry?

A myriad of reasons. You don’t like any of them. However, the biggest reason is that you have not yet given a Good (as in valid) reason to change a 5000+ year old heterosexual institution![/quote]

Because it’s fair isn’t good enough for you? Because we can get some kids in foster care and orphanages some parents isn’t good enough? Because we can help to solidify the family units of gay and lesbian partners with their existing and future children isn’t good enough for you? Because we can show the gay community by making this small concession to them (which costs us NOTHING), and help them try to understand that they are different, yes, but not outcasts and unnatural freaks that we “normal people” hate and despise… that’s not good enough for you?

I just thought of something… fuck you. Fuck you, ZEB. I’m going home to a couple of lesbians this morning. If their relationship keeps progressing the way it has been, and they decide to move in together… years go by, and they see all their hetero friends celebrating getting married and having kids, etc., etc., they won’t be able to do the same because of shortsighted selfish fuckers like you.

It’s not because they won’t deserve it. It’s not because they aren’t committed or because they are irresponsible. It’s just because they are gay, and nothing else.

THAT’S the whole picture? Your own narrow definition of who is deserving of marriage benefits? LOL

[quote]If you knew something about policing procedures you would already know that groups of young males are always “watched” more than groups of say women who are 65 or older and involved in a knitting club.

Wake up man.[/quote]

Ah yes… but are actions taken against us because of our demographic? This is where the statistics come in handy. We know that groups of young men wearing gang colors may be up to more trouble than those old ladies, and it makes law enforcement a bit more effective… that’s just good sense.

Now, if a dude looking all thugged up with tattoos comes into a store, does that make him a criminal? Do we search his pockets as he tries to leave because he most likely stole something? Do we frisk him every time he tries to get into a building to make sure he doesn’t have a gun on him?

You see, the demographic statistics do not determine individual merit. And that’s what we are talking about here. Do gays, on a couple by couple basis, merit recognition of their commitment to one another? Is their relationship and the family involved thereupon worthy of marriage benefits?

Let go of your fear and hate, ZEB. You have grabbed onto anything to reinforce your disgust, bringing in HIV stats for example, like that has anything to do with a gay couple’s merit at all. You are afraid of what direction this country will take if this is adopted… and this exactly saying what?

“This country is going to go to hell in a handbasket…”

You are speaking to tradition as if it was an unchanging thing, too perfect in its present incarnation to acquire more character and flavor and diversity…

“Back in MY day…”

And you are clinging to your religious beliefs to justify your disgust. You wear your religion on your chest like a badge which gives you some larger voice in the lives of others due to its supposed overwhelming might and justified authority.

“You’re all a bunch of heathens!”

You have nothing but fear, misconceptions and hate. Strong words? Maybe. But something has to shake you out of your complacency. You don’t get somebody’s attention all the way across a big room by whispering.

Too late. I already do that. Hey! They fuck with me right back. That’s a real friend, man. A friend is somebody you can say “fuck you!” to, and still get along. I have done this with you in this very post. Are you something of a friend? Can you tell me to “fuck off” right back? I wonder. :slight_smile:

[quote]We debate the Bible. I bring quotes from every credible version.

You say “it’s all a fairy tale who cares.”[/quote]
Close enough.

[quote]We debate public opinion. I bring legitimate poll numbers and results from referendums.

You say “they are all closed minded so who cares?”[/quote]
Close enough.

[quote]We debate health matters. I bring statistics from the CDC.

You say: “who cares stats mean nothing.”[/quote]
That’s right. THOSE statistics do not bear at all in this.

[quote]We debate cause of homosexuality. I bring stats that show it has never been provem to be genetic. Let’s do more studies.

You say “I think it’s genetic that’s good enough.”[/quote]
Stop right there. I have shown using the studies we have already that it is AT LEAST partly genetic. Please don’t make me go back eight pages and re-post them again. If it’s NOT ENTIRELY a simple choice, then what’s the problem here? Understand that sexual orientation is not some whimsical thing. It is an ingrained part of our personality, and part of who we are. Most of the guys who post here on T-nation are like me and revel in our big titty-loving and curvy ass-worshipping. Look at today’s Powerful Image. That girl is SWEET!

Now turn the tables for a moment, and try to imagine a world where heterosexuality is not only discriminated against, but looked down on with disgust as something unholy and unnatural. “Oh my GOD! Dude, we have gene-splicing baby-tube incubator thingys to make new human beings! You are filthy to want to procreate like some kind of wild animal! DOGS acts like that! You are a filthy disgusting PERVERT!!! You are a lowly, primitive, unwashed HETEROSEXUAL!!! EEEWWWWWW!!!”

But I can’t help myself. I look at the curve of that girl’s butt, and the sweet little booby sticking out underneath her pretty, enticing smile, and I start wondering if I could ever get a chick like that into the sack with me.

How confused and fucked up am I going to be? As long as people look down on me with disgust at my “sexual issues”, I am going to feel like an outcast. I am going to be depressed, I am going to be more likely to try to escape somehow. Drugs, suicide, etc. etc. Is it MY fault that I wasn’t strong enough to stand up to everybody else and tell them to fuck off I am what I am so kiss my ass? Hell, it’s tough enough to be a T-man these days.

Gays don’t look at us like we are the enemy. They just want to belong like the rest of us. Why do we see them as the enemy?

[quote]Tell me lothario what exactly would it take for you to actually want to help these people instead of offering them more of what has harmed them?

What effect would those possibilities have on your thought process?

At what point do you put away the social liberal mantle and actually think for yourself?
[/quote]
Coming from a superstitious christian like yourself, I’ll take the “think for yourself” comment as a joke. Thanks. :slight_smile:

And about helping my friends:
I am asking y’all to stop demonizing them. You guys are being assholes. Stop treating my pals as second-class citizens who are unworthy of your respect. They are who they are. Gay people are in whatever pain from their gayness that they are because people like you treat them like they are diseased and y’all idiots try to fucking “cure” them.

Get over yourselves you shortsighted, stuck-up, self-righteous pricks.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

God doesn’t write books.[/quote]

This is just one more area that we don’t agree on. I believe that the Bile is Gods inspirid word.

2Timothy 3:16

“All Scripture is God breathed…”

You only have that part right my twisted friend :slight_smile:

I suggested that “some people” might be more repulsed than afraid. Hence the term “homorepugnant.” However, if you look closely at my many posts from that particular thread, never once did I say that “I” was repulsed. But, as long as we are on the topic, I’m sure as heck not afraid!

I just don’t want to change a 5000+ year institution for about 1% of the population. But then you know that already huh?

That is certainly your right in America. Since we are telling agendas here’s mine for this morning:

When I am finished answering your post I am going to have a sprint workout and maybe do some squats after. Then I’m going to go to church with the family. After that we migh go to the Mall for some Christmas shopping.

Speaking of getting people involved: This past year I asked 6 or 7 people to come to my church. People who were not yet Christians. You know most of the still attend.

Oh and my entire family likes popcorn too. We usually eat it when watching “Little Hose On The Prarie” reruns.

Life is indeed good…My enternity will also be good :slight_smile:

You never compare apples to apples. You compare “behavior” to genetics all the time however.

Once again homosexuality is a behavior and cannot be compared in any way shape or form to something that is genetic.

Got that yet?

[quote]Let me try again:
When we break down prison statistics by race, we find that most violent incarcerated criminals are black as opposed to any other race.[/quote]

There is no comparison-Remember apples to apples? No I guess you don’t.

Because the “BEHAVE” in a certain way. Um apples to apples like you said…right?

Yes, we draw the conclusion that certain behaviors are dangerous. One such behavior seems to be same sex indulgence! Why promote this dangerous behavior and cause a group you say you love even more pain?

Crazy huh?

[quote]“I’m sorry, Jamal. We can’t trust you to be a police officer. You see, you’re black… we can’t let you have a gun or a badge because you are too violent.”

IS THE SAME AS

“I’m sorry, Tom Cruise. We can’t trust you to get married. You see, you’re gay… we can’t let you have marriage benefits and a marriage license because your personal lifestyle is too emotionally and physically damaging for you.”[/quote]

Oh darn you forgot your “apples to apples” again.

Black Americans have suffered greatly in our country. They were brought in as slaves, remember? Then it took until the 1960’s for laws to be enacted in order to prevent discrimination. Even then there continues to be discrimination by some small brained white folks.

I think we owe something to the Black population. That’s one reason that we currently have special programs to ensure that a certain percentage of blacks make it into college etc. We are trying to help and imporove the odds and to help eradicate poverty.

Affirmitive Action is a hot topic. I think it has some merit (some problems with it too) peronally. But that’s another subject huh?

Also, might I remind you that (I have to holler here sorry) BEING BLACK IS GENETIC! It’s not a “BEHAVIOR.”

Your comparison to use the common vernacular, SUCKS!

[quote]I never once stated (and there are no statistics to support) that every homosexual is promiscuious. However, prior to changing the heterosexual institution (did I mention that it is 5000+ years old?) of marriage we need to examine the group who is requesting this change. Your little (about 1% of the population) group has been examined and has come up quite short!

That’s right… the institution of marriage is dependent upon those CDC numbers you have found, isn’t it? I suppose that if the numbers ever equalize in the future in terms of who gets infected by HIV and how often, then heteros will lose our marriage privileges too. After all, we won’t be worthy any more.[/quote]

That is perhaps the most foolish thing you have yet written, at least in this post.

If a certain groups behavior is counter productive do we encourage that behavior? You want to tout rights of the individual? If that individual is participating in dangerous behavior which could in turn effect others who are totally innocent why is it a good idea to encourage that behavior? It isn’t!

[quote]And that’s why when there are pro gay marriage ballot initiatives they go down to defeat faster than the Buffalo Bills in a Super Bowl game! Texas alone voted 77% against gay marriage. And (I believe) 15 other states have also had similar results.
No, those votes failed miserably because the people casting the votes had mindsets like yours.[/quote]

Right! And do you know why they had “mindsets” like mine" Because folks who have mindsets like yours have not given us any reason to allow gay marriage.

And do you know why that has happened? It’s because when the issue comes to debate you folks have no good (as in valid) reasons to give us as to why a 5000+ year old heterosexual institution should be changed for about 1% of the population.

And do you know why you have not given us a valid reason?

BECAUSE (I am starting to think) NONE EXIST!

I wonder who looks like the idiot?

The behavior is proven to be dangerous yet you promote it. It kills your gay friends at a higher rate than any disease ever could yet you promote.

You are a really good friend to gay folks. LOL you are nothing more than an enabler!

[quote]Why can’t they marry?

A myriad of reasons. You don’t like any of them. However, the biggest reason is that you have not yet given a Good (as in valid) reason to change a 5000+ year old heterosexual institution!

Because it’s fair isn’t good enough for you?[/quote]

Now you sound like the starry eyed social liberal that you are. (I’m leaping through a field of daisy’s smiling with a far out look in my face and repeating…“it’s fair, it’s fair. Can’t we all just be fair.”…LOL sorry)

You can use that inane reason for just about anything!

Some think it’s only fair that two adults who happen to be brother and sister be able to get married. Now you have stated before on this thread that that idea sort of makes you sick.

Oh my…IS THAT FAIR? Come on lothario…these two people really love each other and you are denying them. HOW UNFAIR OF YOU! Turn in your social liberal card at the door.

You don’t know how people become gay and neither do I. But since the lifestyle obviously causes much mental and physical pain to those who participate in it, is it wise to do this until we have some long term studies? NO!

Acording to the studies the majority of gay relationships are not “committed” gay relationships. Remember those nasty studies that you hate so much? Well they say that most gay relationships actually have provisions for cheating built in them.

Since you have not been able to refute this statistic I have to go with it. Nice environment for kids huh?

“Hey Daddy…no not you the other Daddy. How come my Daddy, not you the other Daddy brings strange men home and they make funny noises in the bedroom every Saturday?”

Don’t like reading the much huh? Well, until you refute the facts that I have brought to the debate this is what I have to believe. And to be quite honest with you I had no idea that these stats existed until I recently.

Please refute them…or I must continue to believe them.

First, it’s a HUGE concession that will never be made (until there is more research with certain conclusions). And secondly. they participate in a dangerous behavior which at this point should not be promoted.

Please refute my facts if you think otherwise. Emotion won’t win you gay marriage…your side has already proven this.

More emotion which will not win your side any points. But thanks for thinking of me :slight_smile:

[quote]Not at all true! See how confused you are? I look at the total picture: Religious, tradition, health stats, majority view etc.
THAT’S the whole picture? Your own narrow definition of who is deserving of marriage benefits? LOL[/quote]

lothario, you are starting become a joke. I’m sorry I had to say that but just look at the above once more.

I have tradition, Religion, health statistics and the majority view on my side. I have given you fact upon fact upon fact! Many of those facts I recently discovered and had no idea that they were available. I wanted to see for myself. Granted you don’t like them but I have nonetheless given them to you.

You on the other hand are stomping up and down like a child and screaming: “It’s only fair.”

Now I ask you (and the readers) Who is looking at this topic through their own narrow definition?

Are there gay couples who do not cheat on one another on a regular basis? Of course there are!

Now let me see if about 1% to 2% of all people view themselves as gay what would be the percentage of all gay couples who are truly faithful to one another?

I don’t know the answer to this. But from the stats that I have reviewed that is a very very tiny figure.

Shall we rush out and change a 5000+ year old hetersexual institution for this miniscule figure? Not in this lifetime. :slight_smile:

I have no fear of gays and I certainly don’t hate them. This is more liberal logice folks! I give lothario facts and figures and good hard logic. He comes back to me with emotion calling me names.

You are one closed minded man.

Dangerous behavior which has proven to harm people both physicaly and emotionally is not important?

You are gone lothario…Earth to lothario…(he’s now circling the moon folks) lol

I want to make the country better not worse! Please refute the facts lothario. Um…actually I wouldn’t mind if you just presented some facts. Okay, just maybe one or two facts would be nice.

No actually, I am echoing the majority of the 90%+ people who believe in God (when God is the topic-Otherwise I present facts and figures that you don’t like but can’t refute). What badge are you wearing on your chest? The badge of emotion and name calling? You can’t possibly wear that with honor. At least not in the eyes of most around here.

You also don’t get their attention by lying about them. No, wait, you do get their attention. But you don’t win them over. I don’t hate anyone. I really don’t!

[quote]You think “hate speech is funny?” Well what if someone called your friends “fags” and “butt pirates” to their face?
Too late. I already do that. Hey! They fuck with me right back. That’s a real friend, man. A friend is somebody you can say “fuck you!” to, and still get along. I have done this with you in this very post. Are you something of a friend? Can you tell me to “fuck off” right back? I wonder. :)[/quote]

My point exactly! You can say that to your friend. Why? Because you both believe in the same thing. One black person can call another a derogatory name. But I don’t suggest that you walk into the middle of Harlem and shout out that same name.

So, don’t be insulting my religion if you want to call me friend.

You like to be “fair” so fair enough?

We debate the Bible. I bring quotes from every credible version.

You say “it’s all a fairy tale who cares.”

We debate public opinion. I bring legitimate poll numbers and results from referendums.

You say “they are all closed minded so who cares?”

We debate health matters. I bring statistics from the CDC. They are important as they show that homosexual behavior leads to pain and suffering FOR HOMOSEXUALS!

You say: “who cares stats mean nothing.”

We debate cause of homosexuality. I bring stats that show it has never been provem to be genetic. Let’s do more studies.

You say “I think it’s genetic that’s good enough.”

lothario my friend, you may not know this but just about everything is “partly genetic.” And that is the best that liberals can come up with? LOL

I guess there is a natural order to things and unfortunately for your side the natural order is one man one woman. You see lothario that’s how we make babies and the species continues on. They call it “natural” because it is.

Here is where you really drop the ball. You say that it’s because gays are not accepted as the reason they are having emotional and physical sickness.

Now I ask you to show me your proof!

There is none!

The reason that they are depressed and have more STD’s and AIDS than the general population has nothing to do with how heteros look at them. It has everything to do with their own actions. They are living a lifestyle that is not conducive to peace of mind or physical well being.

the stats prove this out. To sanction such a thing would be to cause more harm to the gay population. I want to help them not hurt them like you do. Do you know why? Because I do love them as I do all people and I don’t want to see them continue to suffer, you (and your social liberals) do! And that is the shame of it all.

I think there is a percentage who do. Where did the term “homophobia” come from? Why the constant hate speech from your side and YOU? I think there is plenty of hate to go around on both sides however.

Let me remind you for the 6th or 7th time: I am the one supplying the facts. I am the one who has done at least some research. I am the one who stated that if it was proven genetic then I need to reevaluate my postion.

You are the one who has done nothing but rant on pure emotion, never waivering. And might I add doing plenty of name calling.

Start thinking outside the narrow minded liberal box my friend.

You’re argument is a joke…really. I supplied a study of 200 gay people of which 66% of the males have dropped their same sex attraction.

You won’t even reply to that!

I also asked you a question from the last post which you did not answer. Please answer it:

lothario, let me put it to you this way: what if (and I’m not saying this is the case at all), the statistics showed that every single gay person who had homosexual sex was going to die with in 15 years?

Or, what if they showed that every single gay person was going to kill themselves by the time they were 40? Or, every single gay person was going to have to be on anxiety and depression drugs?

Would you then change your mind and think: “Hey we better help these folks?”

Tell me lothario what exactly would it take for you to actually want to help these people instead of offering them more of what has harmed them?

What effect would those possibilities have on your thought process?

At what point do you put away the social liberal mantle and actually think for yourself?

(Sorry for any spelling errors or typo’s. I have no time to proof read as I am late for my workout which will make me late for Church and I can’t have that. :slight_smile:

Zeb, your statement that depression, etc… has to do with the lifestyle and not the stigmatization and the way society views them is completely subject. And can’t be proven either way.