Posted on 06/29/2004 5:07:44 PM PDT by xzins
| Guest Commentary A Pharmacist's View on Gay Marriage By J.R. Schoenle, Pharm.D. (AgapePress) - Having worked with AIDS patients and investigational drug studies for HIV at Johns Hopkins Hospital, I feel a lot of compassion for homosexual persons. But as a professional health care provider, I am compelled to educate people with medical facts regarding same-sex marriage.
This is not a "privacy" issue. Gay activists have brought the gay lifestyle into the public square with their demands for "marriage" or "civil union." (The public has not gone into anyone's bedroom; rather, they have brought their bedroom issues out in public.) "Gay marriage" or "civil unions" will give legal protection and government benefits to the gay lifestyle. YOU, the taxpayer, will be paying those government benefits out of YOUR pocket, so you deserve to have an opinion on the subject and you deserve to be informed about facts relating to these same-sex unions.
If marriage between man and woman has been with humanity since the beginning of time and has been the cornerstone of every culture and religion, then why is there this "new idea" of what marriage can mean? The idea of "gay marriage" or "civil union" would have been ridiculous 3,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago, even 10 years ago. What has changed?
The cultural "perception" of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle has changed. Two common myths have been instrumental in this change: (1) 10 percent of the population is homosexual, and (2) people are born with their homosexual orientation.
Although the secular media, Hollywood celebrities, and groups such as PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) still might make these claims, the medical community has rejected them. Research has shown that the incidence of a homosexual orientation is closer to 2 to 3 percent of the population. More importantly, several research projects failed to find the "gay gene." [1] As a matter of fact, had they discovered the gay gene, then gay marriage would become a civil right, since it would be scientifically proved that a person has this orientation as an "inborn" trait, something that cannot be changed. [2] The gay gene would be the most important piece of scientific evidence to convince you, the taxpayer, to pay government benefits for the gay lifestyle. Had they found the gay gene, you would have read about it in newspapers and magazines and seen it on TV; you would probably still be seeing it every single day. There would be a "test" for the gay gene, just as there are tests for other genetic traits.
So if there is no gay gene, then what causes a homosexual orientation? Most scientists agree that a combination of factors influence it. [3] Interestingly, many people have changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation with and without therapy. [4] No matter what our orientation, we do choose our lifestyle (which is tremendously influenced by what is permissible and encouraged in our culture.) With all of this research, why is there so much confusion?
Prior to 1973, "homosexual orientation" was listed as a diagnosable mental disorder in the DSM-III-R, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973, psychiatrists who were members of The American Psychiatric Association took a poll and voted on whether or not to remove "homosexual orientation" from this book of diagnoses. The vote was taken, and by a very slim margin, the vote sided on removing this diagnosis. There was no new information regarding the orientation (i.e., there hadn't been any research to warrant the justification of this action); they simply took a vote. This event initiated the cultural perception that homosexual orientation and behavior is a natural phenomenon and therefore should not be "treated" but should be accepted and even encouraged -- e.g., "out of the closet."
But should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? Health care professionals are familiar with the medical challenges of homosexual men living the gay lifestyle. For you, the taxpayer, to be willing to pay government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions, you should consider what lifestyle your tax dollars will be supporting.
Remember, homosexual activity began "coming out of the closet" in 1973. Just eight short years later, in 1981, we have the first reported cases of an "unknown" disease killing gay men. AIDS has arrived. Why do so many diseases target gay men? The body is not built for sodomy. "The anus opens into the rectum which is not as well suited for penile penetration as the female vagina is. Both the anus and rectum have rich blood supplies, and their walls, thinner than the walls of the vagina, are easily damaged. When penetration occurs, it's easier to tear blood vessels, which in turn increases the risk of acquiring or receiving an infection as penile skin and/or semen comes in contact with the partner's blood or semen." [5]
Another risk is caused by bacteria and other organisms present in feces; Entamoeba and Giardia can cause chronic diarrhea. Many will suffer from "gay bowel syndrome." Anal intercourse is "high risk behavior" because so many diseases can be spread from this misuse of the body, including HIV, Hepatitis A, B, and C, and a wide range of other sexually transmitted diseases. What About Condoms and 'Safe Sex'?
For males who use a condom 100 percent correctly, studies have shown that latex condoms have a:
For 20 years, condoms have been distributed extensively; now the study results on latex condom effectiveness and the CDC statistics on sexually transmitted diseases reflect how relatively ineffective they are. The NIH, CDC, and medical professionals still promote the use of latex condoms as "safer sex," especially for HIV prevention. Unfortunately, most people simply don't know the real risks that are involved when they rely on a condom.
Disease spread in gay/bisexual men is especially problematic because this lifestyle almost always includes multiple sexual partners. More partners means more disease. (Remember, condoms offer little or no protection against the spread of many diseases.) In addition, homosexual men living the gay lifestyle have a higher rate of depression, pornography use, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. [11,12] We all need to be compassionate toward those men trapped in this unhealthy lifestyle. But legitimizing homosexual marriage or civil unions will undoubtedly encourage experimentation in this lifestyle. From a medical and ethical perspective, this will have tragic consequences for individuals as well as society. What About AIDS?
In the past 17 years, medications to combat HIV have been developed, which has decreased the numbers of persons with HIV progressing to an AIDS disease. A person diagnosed with HIV will be put on a complicated drug regimen (three or four drugs). The patient will be on these drugs, which have very unpleasant side effects, for life. However, one catastrophic problem combating HIV is that a person who is HIV-positive and receiving medication is still able to infect other people. The number of people in the U.S. that are HIV-positive has continued to grow. There are approximately 42,000 Americans infected with HIV each year (74 percent men, 26 percent women). The CDC estimates that 25 percent of persons who are HIV-positive are unaware they are infected, and 50 percent of all new diagnoses occur in persons younger than 25 years. Persons who have other sexually transmitted diseases (with sores) have a two-to-three times greater risk for becoming infected with HIV. It is now estimated that there are between 900,000 and 1,000,000 persons in the U.S. who are HIV-positive (included in that estimate are 400,000 to 450,000 gay/bisexual men). The medical community anticipates that there will soon be a large increase in AIDS; in the first three months of this year, there have already been 8,910 new cases diagnosed.
In addition to the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation of HIV/AIDS is the high cost of treatment. The wholesale cost for the combination drug therapies treating HIV is about $14,000 annually per patient. (Medication costs can be much higher depending on the drugs included in the regimen.) A study completed in 2002 estimated that costs treating patients who had progressed to an AIDS disease were around $34,000 annually per patient. [14] Variations in this approximation include medications, hospitalization, diagnostic costs and clinic costs. The health care costs of AIDS diseases and drugs for treating HIV have impacted your health insurance premiums tremendously. The direct costs of HIV/AIDS are similar to other very serious illnesses; however, the indirect costs are higher since HIV affects predominantly working-age persons. [15]
In recent years, the media has influenced public opinion about the gay lifestyle with emotion, but not with facts. When was the last time you read about the negative consequences of the gay lifestyle, including current epidemiological information about HIV or AIDS in the U.S.? Homosexual women do have different issues from homosexual men. This letter limits the discussion to men because the obvious public health threat from the lifestyle of gay men provides legitimate reasons for taxpayers to form an educated opinion against gay marriage and civil unions.
Some states allow gay couples to adopt children even though there are many studies which confirm that children do not "thrive" as well in households parented by a single gender. Government programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters were developed because we know that children need gender identification. Today some people claim that the children of gay couples do just as well as the children being raised by a father/mother. Sociologists Stacey and Biblarz reviewed the research studies currently available on same-sex couples raising children. Their review article in the American Sociological Review 2001 found that children of lesbian couples were "more likely to engage in homosexual behavior and less likely to conform to traditional gender norms." An additional significant finding was that daughters of lesbian couples were "more sexually adventurous and less chaste." The review also determined that lesbian "co-parenting relationships" have a higher incidence of breaking up than heterosexual ones. (We know that family structure has profound effects on children. For years people proclaimed that children weren't hurt by divorce, and now a multitude of studies, books, and testimonials prove that hypothesis was false.)
What can we learn from countries where gay marriage is legal? On May 3, 2004, a study was released from Sweden, which compared married gay couples to married heterosexual couples. Results showed that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce and lesbian couples were 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples
On May 27, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced plans for Australia to ban gay marriage and to prohibit gay couples from adopting children from foreign countries. Based on the scientific data available from the past 30 years, this logical and practical decision is confirmed by human nature, natural law and common sense.
This is not a "privacy" issue. Without prompt action, YOU, the American taxpayer, will be paying for government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions out of YOUR pocket. Exercise your voice on this issue facing our country right now. Gay activists have used emotion and intimidation to distract us from the facts, and they are depending on taxpayer ignorance or apathy toward this situation to accomplish their goal. We will all live with the consequences of what happens with this issue.
Speak now ... or forever hold your peace! Support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Contact your state senators who will be debating and voting on this issue during the week of July 12. You can sign a petition and send an e-mail to your senators via the website NoGayMarriage.com.
References [1] McGuire, T. (1995) Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions. Journal of Homosexuality. 28,1/2:115-145 [2] Green, R. (1988) The immutability of (homo) sexual orientation: Behavioral science implications for a constitutional analysis. Journal of Psychiatry and Law. 16,4:537-575 [3] Bradley, S., Zucker, K. (1997) Gender identity disorder: A review of the past 10 Years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 34,7:872-880 [4] Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4:283-305 [5] Meeker, Meg M.D. Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids. Washington, DC. Lifeline Press, 2002. p. 152 [6] Ibid pp.106-110 [7] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, July 20, 2001 [8] Citing "Failed Efforts" to Inform Public of Condom "Ineffectiveness," Physician Groups, Politicians Ask CDC Head to Resign. July 25, 2001. Daily HIV/AIDS Report, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Kaisernetwork.org). Internet on-line. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=5980 [9] Federal Panel on Condoms Offers Crucial Warnings to Sexually Active Americans, Says The Medical Institute for Sexual Health. NIH Condom Report Press Release. Media Advisories, Austin, Texas: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 19, 2001 [10] A. Wald, A.G.M. Langenberg, K. Link, et. al., Effect of Condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 from Men to Women. Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001):3100-3106 [11] Mulry, G., Kalichman, S.,Kelly,J. (1994) Substance use and unsafe sex among gay men: Global versus situational use of substances. Journal of Sex Educators and Therapy. 20,3:175-184 [12] Fergusson, D., Horwood, L., Beautrais, A. (1999) Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry. 56, 10:876-888 [13] Goldberg, Bernard. BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Washington, DC. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002 Chapter 6: (AIDS) Epidemic of Fear. [14] XIV International AIDS Conference;UAB's Unique Research Contributions. Internet on-line http://www.health.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=53217 [15] Glied, Sherry. "Economics, from the Encyclopedia of Aids." Internet on-line. http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/economics.html
Scripture texts supporting marriage or warning against homosexual behavior:
|
Bump!
I actually googled it and got no responses...
I've always wondered if this "unknown disease" wasn't really known much earlier.
In 1968 a nurse friend of mine told me about a young male patient she had who was dying of a rare form of pneumonia. She (the nurse) told me that homosexuals seemed to get diseases that "normal" people hardly ever get.
Wasn't AIDS known before 1981 and wasn't it known as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) before it was called "AIDS?"
Whether or not you believe in a planned creation and a Creator, there are sound survival reasons that humans are inherently repelled by the odor of human feces.
Homosexual behavior (sodomy) defies every form of scientific, natural, and moral sense. Call it what is: perversion.
I don't understand. Has someone outlawed "permanent unions of homosexuals"? Who is stopping them?
And I would contend that the best way to limit promiscuous sexual behavior amongst homosexuals is to encourage them to leave that lifestyle. Promiscuity is part and parcel of the lifestyle.
bump for later read.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - xzins says it's good, it's good. Facts, truth, evidence, and the like.
Medical evidence says that same sex sodomy isn't healthy for people and other living things.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
This is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about homosexual marriage and monogamy:
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
bump bump bump
ALL: call your senator and urge support of the FMA
Your question was: "If one of the problems with gays is promiscuity--as the author says--wouldn't marriage and monomgamy be preferable?"
My answer: No. Don't trample my rose garden just to have a place to breed bed-bugs.
BTW - to all other readers - I'm not being snide - it's a waste of time to try to reason with these people or their syncophants. "Argle Bargle Wastes Time" is more than my screen name; it's a necessary modus operandi for survival of our society when confronted with false sophistry like this. The people arguing the case for "homosexual marriage" are willing to drag everyone else down into the mud so that they can skim on the top of it. They are consumed with self-interest and don't care about the harm they are causing and its inevitable end if we don't stop it - i.e., like spoiled children, they don't care if they cause the destruction of traditional marriage as long as they get what they want. They have resorted to devious slogans such as "How does my [gay or lesbian so-called] marriage affect yours?" to fool and sway the weak-minded and the weak-willed. (The words in [ ] don't appear in the printed slogan, but you get the idea clearly enough when you see them together - often you "get it" even if there is only one of them present.)
My short answer to that slogan is: I don't have enough space in this comment block to inform you of all of the terrible things that legalizing "homosexual marriage" will cause, nor do I care to waste my time and effort on fools and deviants who have a history of reacting to sound arguments like swine react to pearls cast before them. Short, impersonal slogans in response that clearly decry such absurdities and abominations are all that you need to say or write back to them. However, because they are likely impervious to your opinions and will spit your sound reasoning back in your face, the other things we all must do include seeking out and voting for candidates for public office who will not grant them special rights and privileges that the rest of the population does not enjoy. It may also be necessary to impeach judges who make end runs around the law, i.e., those who clearly exceed their authority on this and other subjects by legislating from the bench. There is no basis for "homosexual marriage" in either the common law or statute law. No judge has a right to misinterpret deliberately the many centuries of law and commentary on the subject to in effect alter the law. That is the duty of the legislature. In a few places civil unions have been duly authorized by elected legislatures and either not vetoed by elected governors, or, perhaps their veto was override. No matter - this is how new law must be made, not by judicial fiat - not by one judge usurping the legislatrure, et al. Judicial fiat law leads towards that "slippery slope" lawyers are so fond of warning us about. Homosexuals are nefarious to beg courts to abandon our reliance on a three-part government with its well-thought out checks and balances. Instead, they may lobby for new laws and follow those laws, e.g., form a civil union, or as some have done, they may legally adopt each other. But they may not drag my wife's wedding gown and my tux down into the mud. They would do it if they could, and they would never apologize for doing it or pay the cleaning bill, so they must be stopped by all legal means before they succeed in their nefarious quest.
Thanks for the great post! I'll get more attention to that article.
Exactly.
As I have said previously...
Homosexuals, being trangressive and promiscuous in their sexual tastes, do not genuinely desire contractual, lifetime, mutally-devoted monogamous MARRIAGE. If a pair of Homosexuals truly desire to legally-commit themselves to a "Private Union" of lifetime, contractual monogamy, I bet I could find and appropriately modify the necessary "Business Partnership Forms" for less than $100 bucks by visiting any OfficeMax in the country.
What Homosexuals truly desire are the Legal Powers, Privileges, and Compulsory Social Acceptances which necessarily accrue from GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE LICENSES.
This debate has NOTHING to do with Homosexual interest in the genuine commitments and responsibilities of Marriage (the sodomites haven't any such interest), and EVERYTHING to do with Homosexual desire to acheive control over the Levers of Power which the State has asserted over the Institution of Marriage.
I know many homosexuals in long unions. Studies show that lesbians have longer term committed relations on average than heterosexuals. No amount of scripture reading can change a homosexual.
What studies? Post a link to it. A summary of: Same-Sex Unions and Divorce Risk: Data from Sweden, states:
Swedish study of gay unions finds that most homosexuals aren't interested in getting married — and that those who do wed have a much higher rate of divorce than heterosexuals.Post your link.
Researchers found that of the unions registered in Sweden — where gay marriage is legal — only one-half of 1 percent involved homosexuals. What's more, married gays and lesbians were about three times more likely to divorce than the average heterosexual couple.
No amount of scripture reading can change a homosexual.
How would you know? How have thousands of homosexuals left the lifestyle? Folks who used to believe homosexuals couldn't change have now changed their mind. Dr. Robert Spitzer completely changed his mind and after interviewing 200 ex-homosexuals he now states homosexuals can change.
Oh, and please do show us a citation to a research report to support your statement, "Studies show that lesbians have longer term committed relations on average than heterosexuals."
I'll grant that Lesbianism (which in many if not most instances, is the result of repeated abuses by dishonorable Males -- Childhood Molestation, Rape and "Date Rape", and Relationship Betrayal being three MAJOR contributing factors to Female disillusionment with the Male Sex, and resultant attempts to satisfy the Female need for companionship and socialization via Lesbianistic couplings with the Same Sex) has some clinical record of long-term, monogamous attachments.
This is not entirely surprising -- Females being more inherently-social than Men, and Lesbianism being largely the result of Male Betrayals, it is simply understandable (though not morally excusable) that some Females who have suffered repeated, egregious Betrayals by the Male Sex should seek long-term, monogamous attachments via Lesbianistic couplings with the Same Sex to satisfy the Female need for companionship and socialization.
The IDEAL is sexual and psychological Complementary Total Companionship between the Two Sexes... and that is what the "Bomb-Shelter Mentality" of Lesbianism denies to Women.
However, the same dynamic simply is not true of Male Homosexuals.
Males are, by nature, more Sexually-Aggressive and Less-Social, more Logocentric and less Empathic, than are the Females of the Species. (Indeed, the opportunity to understand and explore the differences between the Sexes is a Delight which the Lesbian denies to herself).
Being (as a Male) more Sexually-Aggressive, and less inherently needful of Companionship and Socialization -- the Male Homosexual, his sexual urges not moderated by the Human Female need for devotion and commitment, becomes a Frankenstein Monster. Being (as a Male) the more Sexually-Aggressive member of the Species, surrounding himself and only satisfied by other Sexually-Aggressive members of the Species, his natural ardor attends to Sexual Promiscuity and Sexual Transgressivity.
I might be wrong 1 time in 100, but largely -- I know I'm right, 99 times out of 100. Sheesh, I live just outside Key West, the Sodom of the Caribbean -- I don't need peer-reviewed University Sociology studies to confirm that which I have seen, first-hand.
TELL ME I'M WRONG, FIFI. Just try and tell me that the majority of Male Homosexuals (or even Ten Percent!) are even remotely interested in "Private Unions" which entail a Contractual, Lifetime, Legally-Enforceable Commitment of Monogamy. If that's what they want, I can drive down to the Key West OfficeMax and appropriately modify the necessary "Business Partnership Forms" for less than $100 Bucks.
NO. That isn't what this is about. That is NOT what the Homosexuals want. Homosexuals do not want contractual, lifetime, mutally-devoted monogamous MARRIAGE. What Homosexuals truly desire are the Legal Powers, Privileges, and Compulsory Social Acceptances which necessarily accrue from GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE LICENSES.
By way of example:
I am (God willing) soon to be Married myself.
And what do I ask in return? Only that which she has already asked of me: "I want a Husband I can trust to make all the decisions for our family, asking only that you take my input into consideration." (and she knows I do -- and I always will, baby. I always will.)
THAT'S WHAT I WANT. And I can do all that by Church and Private Contract, without any need for the thrice-damned "Government Marriage License" -- I'll play by Caesar's Rules, of course, but to me the whole matter of the "Government Marriage License" is just another example of Caesar usurping that which does not properly belong to him.
Now... you gonna tell me that THAT is what the Homosexuals want? A Contractual, Lifetime, Legally-Enforceable Binding Private Union -- without any Government License or Privilege whatsoever?
The hell you say.
What the Homosexuals want is the Government License and Privilege... they really couldn't give a damn about a Contractual, Lifetime, Legally-Enforceable Binding Private Union.
Homosexuals do not really want MARRIAGES.
What they really want, is STATE-ENFORCED MARRIAGE LICENSES.
That's what this is about.
Best, OP
Exceptionally solid post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.