The Left Using Homophobic Remarks?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Using imaginary social constructs to assign reward and/or punishment rather than individual merit. It is always UNjust.
[/quote]

Why is it always unjust? In many circumstances it seems the only practical way.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First, your groupings are retard because they are in no sense mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

They don’t need to be.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Second, they are nothing but stereotypes.
[/quote]

They are indeed. And the problem with this is?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Third, you are advocating overriding individual rights for collective stereotyped interests.
[/quote]

When and how have I advocated overriding any individual rights?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. It is never the best way because it is nothing more than bigotry and discrimination. I’ll use one of your examples.
[/quote]

Bigotry? How? I believe you are stretching the word. And yes it is discrimination…since when is that inherently bad?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Give me the qualifications for belonging to the social group “nerds”. Then list out their special problems and how we can legally pursue group recourse.
[/quote]

Enumerating the attributes of a nerd would be difficult. That does not mean that such a social grouping doesn’t exist. Nor does it indicate that a human would have difficulty identifying a person as a nerd.

For example if I asked you to give me the qualifications for a handwritten character belonging to the Latin alphabet I would bet that you couldn’t do it well. Yet given a letter I am sure you could pick out the individual characters. Even when slanted and warped. And handwriting is an extremely simple area.

However, nerds tend to have anxiety problems. As such many of the problems they face in life can be fixed by focusing on the anxiety problems.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And, no they are not entirely a social construct. The issue is separate because it is connected to INDIVIDUAL property rights. Corporate connections aren’t imaginary ones.[/quote]

They aren’t entirely a social construct only because we have codified them in law. If we did the same with nerds for example then it would be ok to judge? Why?

[quote]Bambi wrote:

  1. name these social problems, and define how they are more serious than, say, family breakdowns and the rise of single parent families
    [/quote]

Well the spreading of aids and the much higher rate of suicide and depression to start.

And they probably aren’t worse than family breakdowns or the rise of single parent families. But then these aren’t good either.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
2) How is anal sex dangerous? It’s lionised in the SAMA forum, there’s even a meme based on it in these forums
[/quote]

Because man-man anal sex is the prime way that AIDS is spreading.

Zeb is drawing flawed conclusions about an entire population based on stats that only apply to a tiny percentage of that population. Call it stereotyping, confirmatory bias, or outright homophobia. The point is that his broad conclusions are flat out wrong. He is cherry picking stats based on 2% of the male gay population, and using those stats to discriminate against the remaining 98%, as well as discriminating against close to 100% of the lesbian population.

In this thread, he’s at least admitted that he has an underlying moral revulsion toward gays. This bias colors his interpretation of the CDC data, and leads him to draw unwarranted conclusions about an entire population based on extreme outliers that don’t represent that population. There is a whole line of research in cognitive and social psychology on this tendency to exercise flawed reasoning based on preexisting convictions (google Pygmalion effect for a good start).

I guess this explains why he so easily dismisses my own experience as a gay man in a committed monogamous relationship, as well as the experience of every couple in our circle of friends.

Not picking on Zeb in particular, just pointing out the flawed reasoning that is unfortunately a very human tendency when people have entrenched ideas/convictions, especially about moral and religious issues.

Zeb is drawing flawed conclusions about an entire population based on stats that only apply to a tiny percentage of that population. Call it stereotyping, confirmatory bias, or outright homophobia. The point is that his broad conclusions are flat out wrong. He is cherry picking stats based on 2% of the male gay population, and using those stats to discriminate against the remaining 98%, as well as discriminating against close to 100% of the lesbian population.

In this thread, he’s at least admitted that he has an underlying moral revulsion toward gays. This bias colors his interpretation of the CDC data, and leads him to draw unwarranted conclusions about an entire population based on extreme outliers that don’t represent that population. There is a whole line of research in cognitive and social psychology on this tendency to exercise flawed reasoning based on preexisting convictions (google Pygmalion effect for a good start).

I guess this explains why he so easily dismisses my own experience as a gay man in a committed monogamous relationship, as well as the experience of every couple in our circle of friends.

Not picking on Zeb in particular, just pointing out the flawed reasoning that is unfortunately a very human tendency when people have entrenched ideas/convictions, especially about moral and religious issues.

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Using imaginary social constructs to assign reward and/or punishment rather than individual merit. It is always UNjust.
[/quote]

Why is it always unjust? In many circumstances it seems the only practical way.

[/quote]
Because you ignore individual rights.

They don’t need to be.

[/quote]
Then you canâ??t claim nerds have different problems than gays.

They are indeed. And the problem with this is?

[/quote]
They are ignorant and wrong as often as right.

When and how have I advocated overriding any individual rights?

[/quote]
When you are basing justice and law on social groups rather than individuals, that is , by definition, what you are doing.

Bigotry? How? I believe you are stretching the word. And yes it is discrimination…since when is that inherently bad?

[/quote]
It isnâ??t always bad, But it is bad when that discrimination is based on non-factual stereotypes like social groups.

Enumerating the attributes of a nerd would be difficult. That does not mean that such a social grouping doesn’t exist. Nor does it indicate that a human would have difficulty identifying a person as a nerd.

[/quote]

  1. People who have nerd characteristics exist. No such nerd group exists. They are not an entity. They have no inherent bond, no inherent view, no inherent morals, est. the groups doesnâ??t exist.
  2. to make these broad sweeping judgments to â??address social problemsâ?? being able to pick one out doesnâ??t cut it. You have to have written codified law that makes these distinctions.

Wrong. First, it is a terrible example baring no real relation to the situation. Second, the latin alphabet is really really easy to exactly define as it is just a list of characters. Computers can even do this (entirely without human judgment).

Okay, incorporate that into a legal action at some level of government. (even though I completely disagree that anxiety and being a nerd are in any way related). And please remember, you still have yet to even define this group.

[quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And, no they are not entirely a social construct. The issue is separate because it is connected to INDIVIDUAL property rights. Corporate connections aren’t imaginary ones.[/quote]

They aren’t entirely a social construct only because we have codified them in law. If we did the same with nerds for example then it would be ok to judge? Why?[/quote]

No, you are completely missing the point. Corporations exist as extensions of a real individuals property rights. The group has an exact definition and is not based on any sometimes wrong stereotype that kinda sometimes give an outline of some things with a lose affiliation but no real connection. “Nerds” are an imaginary entity hence the group doesnâ??t have any rights. They are 2 different things. Besides, for this to be applicable Iâ??d have to be in favor of corporate rights, which I am not.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb is drawing flawed conclusions about an entire population based on stats that only apply to a tiny percentage of that population. [/quote]

I understand that you’re a homosexual and you want to protect your own kind, but the facts are indeed ugly my friend.

One more time; IN the US there are only 1.7 million men who have sex with men. However, that makes up over half of all HIV positive cases.

LOL, anytime someone points out a fact that doesn’t show the homosexual lifestyle like something out of a Hollywood movie you scream homophobia. That is truly pathetic, go hang your head, you have no argruement so you name call. That’s the only way that people like you silence those of us who have the facts - you name call. Unfortunately for you, that won’t work with me.

Never once said that, or even implied it. You’ve just added lying to name calling.

That’s funny, you attack me yet you have no sound statistics to back up an actual argument of your own. You’re looking pretty transparent buddy. And you better check your definition of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. I type in CDC and read the ugly statistics on people who do what you do. That is hardly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go run go get a real arguement or sit this oen out.

I’ve never once questioned your personal experience. However, there are studies done by reputable people who have clearly pointed out that even in the majority of “committed homosexual relationships” there is cheating going on. In fact, I think the average “Committed gay man” has as many as 6-8 sexual relationships outside of his regular partner. Nice.

You’re not picking on me at all, in fact I think you’re doing yourself a disservice with every post. You name call, and use outright lies. Why? Because you lack evidence to back up your outlandish claims. You (cough) offer up yourself and your partner and a few friends in the face of CDC statistics.

(Yawn) Nothing new from you forlife. Run along now.

You’re still ignoring the point:

Do you not understand that you are using the behavior of a tiny minority (2%) of gay men who spread HIV to discriminate against the large majority (98%) of gay men who do not, not to mention the entire population of lesbians? And that’s using YOUR conservative numbers, rather than Eli’s, which places it closer to 99.5%. You categorically demonize the “gays” as if the .5% - 2% that are irresponsibly spreading HIV actually represent us.

Wake up, Zeb. It’s obvious that your preexisting aversion to gays is biasing your interpretation of the facts. You are generalizing to an entire population based on numbers that apply only to a small percentage of that population. It’s called confirmatory bias, or the pygmalion effect. Look it up.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Do you not understand that you are using the behavior of a tiny minority (2%) of gay men who spread HIV to discriminate against the large majority (98%) of gay men who do not…

[/quote]

^This is exactly what “social justice” amounts to.

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re still ignoring the point:[/quote]

No you are. As usual you’d rather resort to name calling and outright lying.

I’m really sorry if homsoexual men make up over half of all new HIV cases in the US. If it helps you sleep at night to think of it a different way then by all means have at it. As for me I’ll take the facts thank you.

And once again you are lying. I have no preexisting aversion to gays. All I’ve done is state facts from the CDC and for this you attack me. As I’ve said the first victim of political correctness is the truth. It seems that you must have an aversion to the truth. Maybe you should use some of that pent up hostility that you carry around for the truth and turn it toward your fellow homosexual men who seem to be waste deep in HIV, STD’s anal cancer, depression, anxiety and suicide. More facts for you to try to twist to suit your needs. Good luck with that, because I will be more than happy to quote my sources on each of them! Would you like to go that route again? I have a full week off and nothing would please me more than to present the facts of that very unhealthy gay lifestyle.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re still ignoring the point:[/quote]

No you are. As usual you’d rather resort to name calling and outright lying.

I’m really sorry if homsoexual men make up over half of all new HIV cases in the US. If it helps you sleep at night to think of it a different way then by all means have at it. As for me I’ll take the facts thank you.

And once again you are lying. I have no preexisting aversion to gays. All I’ve done is state facts from the CDC and for this you attack me. As I’ve said the first victim of political correctness is the truth. It seems that you must have an aversion to the truth. Maybe you should use some of that pent up hostility that you carry around for the truth and turn it toward your fellow homosexual men who seem to be waste deep in HIV, STD’s anal cancer, depression, anxiety and suicide. More facts for you to try to twist to suit your needs. Good luck with that, because I will be more than happy to quote my sources on each of them! Would you like to go that route again? I have a full week off and nothing would please me more than to present the facts of that very unhealthy gay lifestyle.

[/quote]

Actually, please do. Let’s see these statistics in all their glory to make sure what you’re saying isn’t hatred and thinly veiled disgust at homosexuality wrapped up in lies, damn lies and statistics.
:slight_smile:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Interestingly, the republican party seems to be reconsidering its stance toward gays. I guess they’re realizing that homophobia doesn’t win votes like it used to. With the religious right flocking to the tea party, I don’t doubt they will continue to demonize gays as part of their political agenda.

Zeb talks about moral relativism, but fails to see it in his own ideology. He thinks gay men are morally reprobate because of hiv statistics, but he has no moral qualms with heterosexuality in Africa, where hiv is far more deadly, and the vast majority of victims are black women. He blanketly condemns homosexuality based on stats of men having sex with men, while completely ignoring women who have sex with women. Not to mention ignoring male couples like myself who are completely monogamous and are living happy, healthy lives.

Yeah, that’s moral relativism at its finest.[/quote]

This is one of the big issues I have with the republican party. I don’t think the fed should really have anything to do with marriage.

But, it doesn’t sound like you guys even know what moral relativism is.

Last, The government doesn’t need to be making personal decisions for people based on “what is damaging”. If there are 2 consenting adults, they should be able to take all the risks they want to.[/quote]

ACK.

Is “ACK.” a sound or an acronym?

Technically, it’s not even an acronym, but simply an abbreviation of acknowledge(ment) (come on, you already knew this!).

I really like how it comes across phonetically: lands with a smack.

Long story short: ACK(DoubleDuce), NACK(ZEB).

Back in my studying hey day, a professor teaching network systems had the habit to express his views using ACK and NACK. He delivered it in a very clipping voice. We had nicknamed him “the router”. Somehow it stuck.

Zeb, I’m not contending your assertion that the majority of HIV cases in the US are gay males. That may still be true as far as I know, although it clearly is not true in the rest of the world.

What I’m contending is your ridiculous assertion that this statistic has anything to do with the vast majority of gay men, let alone lesbians.

As we’ve pointed out several times now, even using your conservative numbers, this statistic applies to only 2% of gay males. You’re taking an extreme outlier and are drawing false conclusions about the general population of gays based on that minuscule 2%.

Yes, 2% of gay males are spreading a lot of HIV. I find that reprehensible just like you do. But that has nothing to do with the remaining 98% of gay males. You can’t categorically conclude that homosexuality is an “unhealthy lifestyle” based on 2% of the population. I am every bit as healthy as you are, and I am gay.

Which is why I think you must have some other reason for attacking gays. Your “statistics” are a sham because you continue to take them out of context, despite others calling you on it. I honestly think it comes down to your core belief that homosexuality is a disgusting perversion that will never lead to true happiness.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, I’m not contending your assertion that the majority of HIV cases in the US are gay males. world.[/quote]

Glad you’re finally owning up to the truth. Did it hurt that much?

I defy you to show where I said such a thing. I never once said that the vast majority of gay men had HIV. You are wondering down that slippery slope of twisting the truth to suit your needs.

Not at all. What I’ve done repeatedly is to show a pattern of reckless behavior that ended poorly for homosexual men. In one case they are over half of all reported cases of HIV in the US. In other studies it has been shown that they lead the way in STD’s, depression, suicide and many other unwanted physical and emotional disease. There’s nothing new here.

[quote]Your “statistics” are a sham
[/quote]

I think you’re going to wish you hadn’t picked this fight, once again forlife. I will paper the T Nation walls with statistics and keep you busy for the next 6 months. You’ve already read some, just “some” of the statistics that I’ve posted in previous debates with you.

After I have posted the many pages you have done the following:

1-Call me homophobic

2-Attack the source (as if the CDC or any of the material I post has an agenda)

3-Try as hard as you can to put a positive gay twist on the facts.

4-Outright lie to the point where many on the thread are calling you “forliar”.

You really want to go down that road again? You only have to say the word.

You’re not following, Zeb.

I never said you believe the vast majority of gay men have HIV. I said you believe the vast majority of gay men are responsible for HIV in the US, when in fact it is a tiny minority (2%).

Stop demonizing all of us for the irresponsible actions of that 2%.

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re not following, Zeb.

I never said you believe the vast majority of gay men have HIV. I said you believe the vast majority of gay men are responsible for HIV in the US, when in fact it is a tiny minority (2%).

Stop demonizing all of us for the irresponsible actions of that 2%. [/quote]

forlife, I was very clear about what I said and have repeated it many times. That is, over half of all HIV cases in the US are from homosexual men. That is a fact which anyone can see if they go to the CDC site. If homosexual men actually practiced safe sex and CARED about themselves and others we would cut the rate of HIV by OVER HALF! No one can dispute this. Nor is it a moral judgement.

I have also made many other claims wrt the illnesses that plague the gay lifestyle. And I’ve backed them up with statistics found on other credible sites like the CDC. Also I have never once said in all my our many debates that every homosexual male has HIV. How ridiculous. I know you don’t like the facts, I get it. You want to paint a pretty brush stroke across the entire homosexual community. I’m sorry to say that you are wrong. And from the bottom of my heart I wish the facts said something different. If you think for one second that I want to see someone suffer and die of AIDS then you really don’t know me. This is about compassion. Looking the other way and pretending that young ay men live a healthy lifestyle is not being compassionate, it’s enabling them to make mistakes that could cost them their lives.

No Zeb, that’s not what you said. You came in here waving a moral flag about how inherently wrong homosexuality is, and when people called you on it you blatantly misquoted the CDC statistic in an attempt to prove your point:

You know very well that the CDC statistic is not about 70% of gay men. It is about 64% of new HIV cases in the US happening to gay men, which is 2% of the gay population, a tiny minority.

100% of the cases of prostate cancer happen to men. It is an outright lie to claim that therefore, 100% of men get prostate cancer. In fact, only 17% of men are diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime.

Stop twisting CDC statistics to fit your moral agenda.

[quote]forlife wrote:
No Zeb, that’s not what you said. You came in here waving a moral flag about how inherently wrong homosexuality is.[/quote]

First of all, we all have a moral compass, I’m guessing there are things even you find beyond your moral realm. It’s not wrong to think that something is morally wrong. I think lots of things are morally wrong and so do you. However, what I’ve written about is cold hard facts. Facts that you don’t seem to like, and I can fully understand why.

Wow, that’s morally reprehensible behavior isn’t it? Or do you think it was all by accident? Strange how Quakers, for example, are not part of that statistic.

I wish that most gay men had a “moral agenda”. In fact, if they just used condoms and informed their partners that they were HIV positive then they’d be on the right track wouldn’t they. But they just don’t seem to care about their fellow man. You think that people like me is what’s wrong? That’s actually funny forlife. The real problem festers within the gay community. They are killing each other and you are on this board defending it! Nice.

But, at this time I think we should just get back to the basics. Let’s haul out some more facts so that you can have a go at refuting them. Sound good?

Don’t say I didn’t warn you buddy

This is on anal sex.
Two muscle rings called sphincters surround the anal opening. Each functions independently.
If you insert a finger about one half-inch into your anus and press your fingertip against the side, you can clearly feel the two sphincter muscles. There is less than a quarter-inch between them. The external sphincter is controlled by the central nervous system - just like the muscles of the hand, for example. You can readily tense and relax this sphincter whenever you want.
The internal sphincter is quite different. This muscle is controlled by the involuntary or autonomic part of the nervous system, which governs such functions as heartbeat and stress response.
The internal sphincter reflects and responds to fear and anxiety during anal sex. It will cause the anus to tense up automatically even if the passive partner is trying to relax. Thus, precautions about safety and comfort are essential here.
Even if a person does feel comfortable during anal sex, he or she may still need to learn voluntary control over his or her internal sphincter in order to relax it at will. Doing so requires regularly inserting a finger, perhaps in the shower each day, and feeling the internal sphincter. The muscle changes spontaneously and in response to behavior. In this instance, simply paying attention is more important than trying to relax. Anyone can gradually learn to control the internal sphincter at will.

The rectum does not produce lubrication like the vagina but only a small amount of mucus. Therefore, rectal penetration always requires a lubricant. Chemical additives should be avoided

Since intercourse can be vaginal or rectal, many people assume the same rules apply for the penetration of the vagina and rectum. Although both are lined with soft tissue and are capable of expanding, they are radically dissimilar.
The rectum is not straight. After the short anal canal which connects the anal opening to the rectum, the rectum tilts toward the front of the body. A few inches in, it curves back - sometimes as much as 90 degrees. Then, after a few more inches, it swoops toward the front of the body once again.

All the other risks center on sexually transmitted diseases. Each of the common STDs - gonorrhea, syphillis, herpes - can affect the anus. Intestinal parasites, bacteria or tiny bugs are usually passed along when fecal matter finds its way into someone’s mouth or vagina, most likely through rimming.
AIDS has complicated the matter. The HIV virus can pass from the semen or blood of an infected person to the bloodstream of a partner through a tiny break in the rectal tissue during anal intercourse.

I will begin here with lesbians because you accused me of leaving them out of the “unhealthy equation” earlier.

Homosexuality Health Risks:

“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 twenty for 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.

Now tell me again, what’s good about all of this?

I’ll be waiting for your response forlife. I have a lot more to post to wake you from your stupor.

For life,

You lost a lot of credibility when you state that 64% of new HIV cases come from men. You are bitching between someone else’s reference of 70% when it’s 64%? Dude, you need to rethink your strategy.