Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.

News flash sport, gays cannot have children. (That’s the nice imagery I left you with last time). So unless they are let to procreate using a test tube and male/female donor, or adopt, they will not have any children to mess up.

So civil unions can be permitted without permitting these other options (to make what is not natural [same-sex] seem natural [by using other means to have a family]). [/quote]

Very good point. Unfortunatley, we know that taking our children into same-sex homes is the next step.

Gosh - Everything will be so much easier when we all evolve to have both male and female sex organs.

Here ya go:

Religious conservatives often attribute the cause of homosexuality to:

Domineering mothers.
Emotionally absent fathers.
Demon possession.
Sexual molestation during childhood by an adult.
Some combination of the above.

One logical result from this belief is that sexual orientation should be changeable through adult therapy for at least some gays and lesbians. Thus, we see many conservative Christian groups promoting reparative therapy and/or transformational therapy, which attempt to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals through prayer and counseling.

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

My own inclination, therefore, is to believe that most homosexuality is inborn, or acquired early in life, possibly by infection, or by biochemical imbalances in the womb, perhaps helped along by some genetic predisposition. As I have said, the human personality is a thing of fantastic complexity and mystery, and I am sure there are cases of socialization, “imprinting,” and conversion (in both directions), too. These are, however, fringe phenomena, occurring in small numbers. Most homosexuality is, I believe, inborn, or acquired very early in life.

As a chemist, I know that there is no such thing as a chemical reaction that has 100% yield of the preferred product. This is a fundamental prediction of thermodynamics. The yield is always less than 100%. Thus, when it is time for the chemical reactions to select the sexual attraction program, one would expect, from a simple chemical argument, that some fraction would not go the appropriate way. From the observations on the ongoing fraction of gay births, one would conclude that the reaction has about a 97% yield for males and a 99% yield for females. The remaining 3% males and 1% females are destined to be homosexual. Thus, homosexuality has a statistical, chemical yield cause. They are homosexual at birth but there is nothing unusual about their genetic makeup because it does not have a genetic cause. They can have the same fraction of normal children as non-gay people. As far as I know, I believe they do.

It is obviously absurd to judge homosexuals morally. In one sense they can be viewed has having been born with a birth defect even though many homosexuals who have found their path might disagree with that characterization. However, they would agree that it was not a choice they made. It was made for them. They are left with having to plot a course in life that recognizes it, accommodates it, and even exploit some of its special characteristics.

http://www.krysalis.net/homosexuality.htm

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Here ya go:

Religious conservatives often attribute the cause of homosexuality to:

Domineering mothers.
Emotionally absent fathers.
Demon possession.
Sexual molestation during childhood by an adult.
Some combination of the above.
[/quote]

Well, current studies seems to indicate that at least for men, abuse as a child is a contributing factor in being gay or associated with identifying with being gay as an adult. So perhaps conservatives do this because they actually have unbiased science to back it up.

“The highest absolute number of new HIV infections and AIDS cases still occur among men who have sex with men (MSM). Numerous theoretical approaches have been used to understand HIV risk behaviors among MSM; however, no theoretical model examines sexual risk behaviors in the context of gay identity and interpersonal violence. Using a model testing predictive correlational design, the theoretical relationships between childhood sexual abuse, adverse early life experiences, gay identity, substance use, battering, aversive emotions, HIV alienation, cue-to-action triggers, and HIV risk behaviors were empirically tested using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The relationships between these constructs are complex, yet childhood sexual abuse and gay identity were found to be theoretically associated with HIV risk behaviors. Also of importance, battering victimization was identified as a key mediating variable between childhood sexual abuse, gay identity, and adverse early life experiences and HIV risk behaviors among urban MSM.” J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2004 Mar-Apr;15(2):14-26.

“In recent years, researchers have found that a larger number of gay or bisexual men have been sexually abused as children than other men.” J Homosex. 2004;48(2):103-24.

You make a faulty assumption. The cause of turning gay has not been correlated to a cure. So just like psychotherapy for child molesters (have also been shown to have been abused as children) is rarely effective, so it may be for homosexuals. However, I don’t know of any studies that have looked at that issue.

And your rejection of a social cause seems to be related to your rejection of studies that support this hypothesis. So you look for a genetic cause, while interesting, is not based on any current accepted scientific understanding.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.

I am not a big fan on experimenting on our children. We already have stats available, much of which have been posted on this thread. Don’t you think we can pull something valid from what we have?[/quote]

What stats? Where is this data? There must be extremely few children being raised by same-sex couples. It has increased somewhat over the last few years. I’m not suggesting a controlled experiment such as taking a group of children and adopting them out to same sex couples and comparing to a control group. Rather, an observational study comparing a group of people where this already taking place and probably increasingly will over the years (because there are people that don’t see it as a problem). And seeing if the kids experience problems or more problems than kids adopted to heterosexual couples. I don’t believe there is currently much evidence to go on.

Hey, weren’t all the issues and opinions on pages 40-50 covered on pages 10-20?

I want all of you gay marriage opposeres to take this test and see what your result is:

Now tell us how you feel about gay marriage.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.

I am not a big fan on experimenting on our children. We already have stats available, much of which have been posted on this thread. Don’t you think we can pull something valid from what we have?

What stats? Where is this data? There must be extremely few children being raised by same-sex couples. It has increased somewhat over the last few years. I’m not suggesting a controlled experiment such as taking a group of children and adopting them out to same sex couples and comparing to a control group. Rather, an observational study comparing a group of people where this already taking place and probably increasingly will over the years (because there are people that don’t see it as a problem). And seeing if the kids experience problems or more problems than kids adopted to heterosexual couples. I don’t believe there is currently much evidence to go on.[/quote]

Stats regarding the health of homosexual relationships.

If you are suggesting that we let homosexuals adopt and wait 30 years, there is no way that I would ever agree with a notion like that. It would be like watching someone die of cancer for 30 years just so I can see what happens.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.

I am not a big fan on experimenting on our children. We already have stats available, much of which have been posted on this thread. Don’t you think we can pull something valid from what we have?

What stats? Where is this data? There must be extremely few children being raised by same-sex couples. It has increased somewhat over the last few years. I’m not suggesting a controlled experiment such as taking a group of children and adopting them out to same sex couples and comparing to a control group. Rather, an observational study comparing a group of people where this already taking place and probably increasingly will over the years (because there are people that don’t see it as a problem). And seeing if the kids experience problems or more problems than kids adopted to heterosexual couples. I don’t believe there is currently much evidence to go on.

Stats regarding the health of homosexual relationships.

If you are suggesting that we let homosexuals adopt and wait 30 years, there is no way that I would ever agree with a notion like that. It would be like watching someone die of cancer for 30 years just so I can see what happens. [/quote]

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Hey, weren’t all the issues and opinions on pages 40-50 covered on pages 10-20?[/quote]

hehe. probably. just by different posters

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

Those are problems with being gay not gay mariage…

Extremely good point. Pretty difficult to see how allowing civil unions would increase those issues. If anything, it creates a higher theoretical standard of monogamy and committment for them to hold themselves too. If they fall short of it, no different than now.

Not that I would put words in Zeb’s mouth, but I think he is demonstrating that he gay lifestyle/behavior in itself is damaging. And, creating civil unions tells the uninformed viewer that it’s OK to behave in that manner.

So, even if there are some gays that are commited to each other, there are plenty more non-commited people who see the behavior and try it out because it is socially acceptable. It just magnifies the problem.[/quote]

thats it lets ban fat people from getting married

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
WMD wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

True. Then we should just uphold the current laws banning same sex sexual acts. So gays can marry they just can’t engage in any homosexual sex acts, because to do so would be against the law.

You have just solved the debate for us. Married yes, gay sex no. This way they can have equal rights and still not break the law. Gee Tango, you are sooo smart.

Ban the act? Hmmm? This is probably the best idea tango has ever had.

It is already banned in most States.

lorisco, you ignorant slut, please read lawrence v. texas:
Lawrence & Garner v. State of Texas
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

The Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay sex are unconstitutional. Now that I have once again “owned” your ignorant ass, please STFU up about state laws against gay sex.

None of you people (ZEB, tinyivan, etc.) has proven that the things you fantasize gay men doing (butt sex, blow jobs, etc.) is somehow less harmful when straight people do them. Your logic and reasoning are perverse. You post stats that you understand not at all. Here are some stats for you:

"Researchers use the term “alcohol problems” to refer to any type of condition caused by drinking which harms the drinker directly, jeopardizes the drinker’s well-being, or places others at risk. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, nearly 14 million people in the United States-1 in every 13 adults-have alcohol problems, though most do not realize or acknowledge it.

It is additionally estimated that 43% of U.S. adults (76 million people) have been exposed to alcoholism in the family–they have a parent/guardian, spouse or other family member who is or was an alcoholic or a problem drinker."

I wonder if all those 14 million people are gay? Let’s look at some more.

“Recently, however, the proportion of HIV cases acquired through heterosexual contact has increased and almost equals the proportion of cases attributable to injection drug use. The proportion of all AIDS cases reported among women has tripled since the mid-1980s, primarily as a result of heterosexual exposure and secondarily through injection drug use. Minority groups are the most heavily affected by HIV associated with drug injection, and Blacks and Hispanics now account for an estimated 70% of all new AIDS cases.”

Who is at highest risk for suicide in the U.S.?

"There is a common perception that suicide rates are highest among the young. However, it is the elderly, particularly older white males that have the highest rates. And among white males 65 and older, risk goes up with age. White men 85 and older have a suicide rate that is six times that of the overall national rate. Why are rates so high for this group? White males are more deliberate in their suicide intentions; they use more lethal methods (firearms), and are less likely to talk about their plans. It may also be that older persons are less likely to survive attempts because they are less likely to recuperate.

Over 70 percent of older suicide victims have been to their primary care physician within the month of their death, many with a depressive illness that was not detected. This has led to research efforts to determine how to best improve physicians’ abilities to detect and treat depression in older adults."

"Are gay and lesbian youth at high risk for suicide?

With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account."

  1. Gay Relationships
    a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
    J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
    L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
    J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ

b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon

D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, “The Older Lesbian”
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.

Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales

M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).

Psychological Testing Affirms the Mental Health of Homosexuals

This represents the evidence that homosexuality is not pathological, and comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957, which produced the large body of studies from the 60’s -70’s. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80’s progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90’s. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:

L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86

b) Other tests (Eysenck’s Personality Inventory, Cattel’s 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)

R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31

How’s that for studies and stats and tests? Far more than you guys have and from a variety of sources.

You’ll most likely ignore it all because it doesn’t fit your beliefs about gay people.

I’m beginning to think you really like being dominated by a lesbian. That’s why you keep saying stupid ignorant crap.

Get on your knees, wormboy.

Well babe,

To give Zeb credit, I think he has posted plenty of credible evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is mentally and physically unhealthy. But to give him a break here is some more data that proves this point.

Facts:

  1. Anal sex is the main cause of HIV infection:

“Contrary to the proposal about a process of “heterosexualization” of HIV/AIDS epidemic in Chiapas State and particularly in the Soconusco’s region, the present study suggest that homosexual and bisexual behavior continue to be the main routes of HIV transmission among men”
Gac Med Mex. 2005 Sep-Oct;141(5):401-6.

  1. Gay men have more sexual partners:

In speaking of gay men, “Most men in the sample had more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months (62%) and more than a third had unprotected anal sex with a casual partner in the same time period.”
AIDS Behav. 2005 Dec 3;:1-11

  1. There is a relationship (meaning one causes the other) between kids who are victims of violence that later grow up to be gay:

"The highest absolute number of new HIV infections and AIDS cases still occur among men who have sex with men (MSM). Numerous theoretical approaches have been used to understand HIV risk behaviors among MSM; however, no theoretical model examines sexual risk behaviors in the context of gay identity and interpersonal violence. Using a model testing predictive correlational design, the theoretical relationships between childhood sexual abuse, adverse early life experiences, gay identity, substance use, battering, aversive emotions, HIV alienation, cue-to-action triggers, and HIV risk behaviors were empirically tested using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.

The relationships between these constructs are complex, yet childhood sexual abuse and gay identity were found to be theoretically associated with HIV risk behaviors. Also of importance, battering victimization was identified as a key mediating variable between childhood sexual abuse, gay identity, and adverse early life experiences and HIV risk behaviors among urban MSM." J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2004 Mar-Apr;15(2):14-26.

“In recent years, researchers have found that a larger number of gay or bisexual men have been sexually abused as children than other men.” J Homosex. 2004;48(2):103-24.

  1. Both gay men and women (that’s you Babe) have higher rates of mental illness:

“Cross-sectional study in England and Wales using ‘snowball’ sampling. RESULTS: Participants: 656 gay men, 505 heterosexual men, 430 lesbians and 588 heterosexual women. Gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to score above threshold on the Clinical Interview Schedule, indicating greater levels of psychological distress (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.43), as were lesbians compared with heterosexual women (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.52). Gay men and lesbians were more likely than heterosexuals to have consulted a mental health professional in the past, deliberately harmed themselves and used recreational drugs.” Br J Psychiatry. 2003 Dec;183:552-8.

  1. Gay men have more high-risk sexual behavior that heterosexuals:

“HIV-negative men, men who have sex with men and women (MSM/W), and men who have sex with men (MSM) engaged in more high-risk sexual behaviors than heterosexuals and HIV-positive men, but men who were HIV-positive carried a heavier burden of psychosocial risk factors.” AIDS Educ Prev. 2003 Feb;15(1 Suppl A):66-79.

  1. Gay women (you again Babe) engage in more risky sexual behaviors, have more STD’s, and more HIV that heterosexuals:

"From the national survey on violence against women in France carried out in 2000 by phone, two groups have been compared: 78 women who have had at least one woman sexual partner and 6332 women who have had only male partners during lifetime. RESULTS: Women who have had sexual relationships with women more often have high level social positions and live in large cities.

They have a more diverse sexual life that they begin younger and more partners, mainly men. They use contraception less often. They have more sexually transmitted infections and are more often tested for HIV. They visit gynaecologists as often as other women. They are more often victims of violence, especially physical violence as adults." Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Oct;33(10):776-82.

And again, name calling just shows the weakness of your position as does posting bogus references. Nice try.
[/quote]

So you’re pissed that we get more and better action than you do?

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
thats it lets ban fat people from getting married[/quote]

No, you see Chris getting or being fat has nothing to do with another person. You can eat alone or with someone if you choose. Either way it’s unrelated to marriage.

Are you following along? :slight_smile:

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

Those are problems with being gay not gay mariage…

Extremely good point. Pretty difficult to see how allowing civil unions would increase those issues. If anything, it creates a higher theoretical standard of monogamy and committment for them to hold themselves too. If they fall short of it, no different than now.

Not that I would put words in Zeb’s mouth, but I think he is demonstrating that he gay lifestyle/behavior in itself is damaging. And, creating civil unions tells the uninformed viewer that it’s OK to behave in that manner.

So, even if there are some gays that are commited to each other, there are plenty more non-commited people who see the behavior and try it out because it is socially acceptable. It just magnifies the problem.

thats it lets ban fat people from getting married[/quote]

Hey, Chris. No need to get offended. This thread isn’t about you.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.[/quote]

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

[quote]WMD wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Well babe,

To give Zeb credit, I think he has posted plenty of credible evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is mentally and physically unhealthy. But to give him a break here is some more data that proves this point.

Facts:

  1. Anal sex is the main cause of HIV infection:

“Contrary to the proposal about a process of “heterosexualization” of HIV/AIDS epidemic in Chiapas State and particularly in the Soconusco’s region, the present study suggest that homosexual and bisexual behavior continue to be the main routes of HIV transmission among men”
Gac Med Mex. 2005 Sep-Oct;141(5):401-6.

  1. Gay men have more sexual partners:

In speaking of gay men, “Most men in the sample had more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months (62%) and more than a third had unprotected anal sex with a casual partner in the same time period.”
AIDS Behav. 2005 Dec 3;:1-11

  1. There is a relationship (meaning one causes the other) between kids who are victims of violence that later grow up to be gay:

"The highest absolute number of new HIV infections and AIDS cases still occur among men who have sex with men (MSM). Numerous theoretical approaches have been used to understand HIV risk behaviors among MSM; however, no theoretical model examines sexual risk behaviors in the context of gay identity and interpersonal violence. Using a model testing predictive correlational design, the theoretical relationships between childhood sexual abuse, adverse early life experiences, gay identity, substance use, battering, aversive emotions, HIV alienation, cue-to-action triggers, and HIV risk behaviors were empirically tested using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.

The relationships between these constructs are complex, yet childhood sexual abuse and gay identity were found to be theoretically associated with HIV risk behaviors. Also of importance, battering victimization was identified as a key mediating variable between childhood sexual abuse, gay identity, and adverse early life experiences and HIV risk behaviors among urban MSM." J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2004 Mar-Apr;15(2):14-26.

“In recent years, researchers have found that a larger number of gay or bisexual men have been sexually abused as children than other men.” J Homosex. 2004;48(2):103-24.

  1. Both gay men and women (that’s you Babe) have higher rates of mental illness:

“Cross-sectional study in England and Wales using ‘snowball’ sampling. RESULTS: Participants: 656 gay men, 505 heterosexual men, 430 lesbians and 588 heterosexual women. Gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to score above threshold on the Clinical Interview Schedule, indicating greater levels of psychological distress (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.43), as were lesbians compared with heterosexual women (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.52). Gay men and lesbians were more likely than heterosexuals to have consulted a mental health professional in the past, deliberately harmed themselves and used recreational drugs.” Br J Psychiatry. 2003 Dec;183:552-8.

  1. Gay men have more high-risk sexual behavior that heterosexuals:

“HIV-negative men, men who have sex with men and women (MSM/W), and men who have sex with men (MSM) engaged in more high-risk sexual behaviors than heterosexuals and HIV-positive men, but men who were HIV-positive carried a heavier burden of psychosocial risk factors.” AIDS Educ Prev. 2003 Feb;15(1 Suppl A):66-79.

  1. Gay women (you again Babe) engage in more risky sexual behaviors, have more STD’s, and more HIV that heterosexuals:

"From the national survey on violence against women in France carried out in 2000 by phone, two groups have been compared: 78 women who have had at least one woman sexual partner and 6332 women who have had only male partners during lifetime. RESULTS: Women who have had sexual relationships with women more often have high level social positions and live in large cities.

They have a more diverse sexual life that they begin younger and more partners, mainly men. They use contraception less often. They have more sexually transmitted infections and are more often tested for HIV. They visit gynaecologists as often as other women. They are more often victims of violence, especially physical violence as adults." Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Oct;33(10):776-82.

And again, name calling just shows the weakness of your position as does posting bogus references. Nice try.

So you’re pissed that we get more and better action than you do?[/quote]

If by more and better action you mean more sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, sure that really makes me mad! Riiiiiight!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
thats it lets ban fat people from getting married

No, you see Chris getting or being fat has nothing to do with another person. You can eat alone or with someone if you choose. Either way it’s unrelated to marriage.

Are you following along? :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Actually:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0846/is_6_22/ai_96277521

Along with:

also:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_2_33/ai_59643430

Professor:

If nothing else (and it has been nothing else) you have brought a smile to my face with your lunacy :slight_smile:

One of your studies showed this:

“People who married during the study gained an average of 6-8 pounds”

I’m not sure but next to the gay epidemic (higher suicide rate, more STD’s, higher rate of AIDS, higher depresion and anxiety etc.) I wouldn’t call that too bad.

You also forgot to mention that married people live longer, are happier, healthier, wealthier and have better sex than singles too! YIKES that last one just couldn’t be huh? LOL:

http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/waitgalligher.html

And this:

http://ink.news.com.au/mercury/mathguys/articles/1997/971116a1.htm

And this:

http://www.nih.gov/nihrecord/01_04_2005/story01.htm

And this:

http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/dossiers/vergrijzing/publicaties/artikelen/2002-0980-wm.htm

And women make sure you marry a young virile stud:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n12_v23/ai_8552527

Looks like (heterosexual) marriage is a very positive thing for those who are committed to the relationship!

It’s not unusual that when we take Gods path (for those who hate God, or deny his existence, call it the natural order of things) that we are happier and healthier.

You are still single right Prof?

Anyway thanks for the laugh!

TOOB STEAK BOOGIE to this whole thread (especially all of the hypocrisy and ignorance that is coming out of Zeb; sorry man, but I try to tell it like I see it)!

Yes, I am guilty of a little trolling on this topic as well.

Has it even gotten a TSB yet?

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
(especially all of the hypocrisy and ignorance that is coming out of Zeb; [/quote]

I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion of what I have posted. However, in light of the fact that you have spoken out in favor of gay marriage I think your opinion regarding my “ignorance” and “hypocrisy” should fall into question.

At least be so fair as to point out specific posts, or part of posts which you find “ignorant” or “hypocritical.”

Otherwise, you will seem like just another pro gay hate filled social liberal. One who despises anyone not marching in lock step with what you consider politically correct.

You don’t want that do you? :slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
(especially all of the hypocrisy and ignorance that is coming out of Zeb;

I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion of what I have posted. However, in light of the fact that you have spoken out in favor of gay marriage I think your opinion regarding my “ignorance” and “hypocrisy” should fall into question.

At least be so fair as to point out specific posts, or part of posts which you find “ignorant” or “hypocritical.”

Otherwise, you will seem like just another pro gay hate filled social liberal. One who despises anyone not marching in lock step with what you consider politically correct.

You don’t want that do you? :slight_smile:

[/quote]

I was refering more to how you said you don’t want people calling you names/slinging insults and then you turning and doing right back to other people.

I have plenty of friends who feel differntly about gay marriage than I do. We agree to dissagree and move on with our lives.