The professor who led the newest health-related research, Dr. Hui Liu of Michigan State University, chalked up the discrepancy to the fact that homosexuals cannot marry, as well as the burden of stress and discrimination.Posted on 02/28/2013 7:18:43 PM PST by annalex
LANSING, MI, February 28, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study has found that gay and lesbian couples are less likely to be healthy than heterosexual couples, a finding that confirms traditional claims that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.
This study, published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, found the starkest of contrasts when it narrowed its focus to homosexual couples living together as contrasted with married heterosexual couples.
It found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61 percent more likely to report “poor or fair health” than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46 percent more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women.
Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women.
These results held after controlling the socioeconomic status of the 1,659 same-sex couples reporting.
The study confired the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle.
The only epidemiological study ever done on the subject shows gay men die an average of 20 years younger than straight men – and that homosexual men have the same life expectancy all men had in 1871. The findings, published in Canada's International Journal of Epidemiology in 1997, were confirmed by a 2005 American study conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron.
Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression,suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals. They also tend to make less money than their heterosexual counterparts, which may account for some health care discrepancies.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
The professor who led the newest health-related research, Dr. Hui Liu of Michigan State University, chalked up the discrepancy to the fact that homosexuals cannot marry, as well as the burden of stress and discrimination.
Liu told the press, “If marriage can promote health, it is reasonable for us to expect that if same-sex couples had the advantage of legalized marriage, their health may be boosted."
Liu proceeded to suggest that filing joint tax returns may also boost health of same-sex couples, should they be permitted to “marry.”
The study did not specifically address how these assertions were supported from the data.
In the end, Liu’s study reinforced, rather than challenged, previous studies that found that homosexual behavior is hazardous to one’s health.
I did not say that. The proper comparison is between unmarried straight couples vs. unmarried gay ones, if being gay is the variable being studied.
I seriously doubt this woman or her co-researchers have anything to do with the medical researchers who developed the life-saving HPV vaccine. Dr. Liu doesn't even have a degree in a medical science.
FYI, over 99% of all cervical cancer and dysplasia cases are caused by HPV. So are several other cancers. It's important to give the vaccine prior to sexual activity, and it saves so much pain and suffering later on that it is a very good investment.
So give it to them at 18, if they want it.
They would say that an unmarried heterosexual couple living together is unmarried by choice, and a gay couple -- due to the unbearable oppression of inequality under the law giving them indigestion, anguish and early death. You can't beat that with heterosexual logic.
Hey, that's no joking matter. Can you go see a doctor?
Of course. But to me, as a religious man, the issue is not that of socioeconomic expediency, but of deliberate destruction of human dignity and freedom inherent in the homosexual agenda. My objection is not economic, but anthropological.
The HPV vaccine series is recommended at age 11-12.
Let's be realistic. How many people are still virgins at 18? (Less than half.) With about 15% of kids having their first encounter before age 16, from a public health perspective, the challenge really is to get them the vaccine while they can still get full benefit from it.
I truly do not understand the mentality that a young woman deserves to be punished with cancer because she did not wait until she was married. And that is exactly how I interpret refusing to vaccinate your teens.
I realize that the leftist perverts have chosen 11 as the age they would like to see children introduced to sex, because they are perverts. It is sad to see FReepers wanting to help encourage that.
Parents and others, especially civil authorities, should set higher-not lower-standards. You set low standards you WILL get lower output, let us set the standards higher.
If they are old enough for sex, that means they are old enough to get their own place and support themselves, this is the attitude that parents should be having.
I could; but have no health insurance and very little money, and live near a small town with few docs; and after much reading figured that Zithromax is the only drug I can take that I’m not allergic to, for bac. pneumonia. So I happen to have some on hand I never took, for a bad tooth.
So I’ll be okay. I’m sort of walking around; but with astham, when I get flu it often is worse for my lungs than if I didn’t have asthma.
When I want to whine then I think about others who have so much more suffering than I ever have...
Parents and others, especially civil authorities, should set higher-not lower-standards. You set low standards you WILL get lower output, let us set the standards higher.
If they are old enough for sex, that means they are old enough to get their own place and support themselves, this is the attitude that parents should be having.
No one is talking about pushing children into having sex at the age of 11. This is a vaccine--meant to protect health. When you take your child to the doctor to get the vaccine, he/she is told that it's a vaccine against cancer--the doctor doesn't tell your kid, "There you go--now run out and have sex!" To my knowledge, undergoing small needle pricks does not cause uncontrollable lust.
Realistically speaking, parents can do everything right and their kids will still do things they shouldn't. There is nothing "liberal" about acknowledging that--it's a fact of life. Do you truly think that a young 20-something deserves to die painfully from cancer because they didn't remain a virgin past the age of 16? What about drug use--still prevalent despite a massive and expensive anti-drug campaign--do kids who try drugs anyway also deserve to die gruesome addict deaths because of it?
This gets me to wondering a bit. How many people in your world actually deserve to live?
That is similar to how I am, but in my experience it takes two courses of antibiotics, 2 packs x 6 tablets, to get rid of the bacteria in the lungs. You may not have enough zithromax on hand. See if a doctor can give you free samples. Maybe you need to get friendly with a nurse.
And this is why I am so saddened about the once great state of California. Despite having lived most of my adult life out of state, in my heart I will always be a Californian. But the state I love seems to be dead.
The recent research (showing that male homosexuality may be a result of epigenetic modifications to the DNA, and therefore not genetic) actually suggests (to me) that therapy/behavior modification may be of great benefit in these cases. Maybe a drug regimen targeting specific neural pathways (and changing the epigenome) would be beneficial. Like most mental illnesses, homosexuality obviously causes a great deal of distress to its victims. Only a cruel and heartless ghoul would want to prevent them from receiving therapy that would help them live more normal, happy lives.
Note that regardless of the science of it, no one was dragging the patients to receive gay therapy before, and some were cured of their homosexuality.
That cruel and heartless ghoul is Governor Moonbeam Brown, of the liberal Pantheon of Compassion and Progress.
The problem is the author of the study chose to express her opinion, even though her opinion was not based on the research. What would happen to a another whom might of had the opposite opinion which leaned towards more of a direct cause of behavior? He/or she would no longer find work and be slandered.
As for the statistics you cited, the truth is over 90 percent of HPV viruses resolve themselves within 2 years. The vaccine has some very bad side effects that are now coming to bear. In addition viruses are in a constant state of change. A vaccine today, most likely will not have effect on the same virus next year. Not to mention, there my be better ways, which are many times safer and provide protection for the whole body, while not disrupting its natural defenses and ecology. Lastly, if you are going to take a position as to forcefully vaccinate the young for HPV, why leave out the cause and effect consequences of homosexual behavior, and chalk it up to non-acceptance? Doesn't sound too scientific to me. Most, if not all of us average folk, do not understand viruses. We are just told what they cause. Heck, most science still does not understand them. Atleast, organizations such as, the CDC should be obligated to give a bit of education to the public about how viruses behave regardless of outcome, along with their "questionable" statistics, so we can take more control of our own health and not allow us to blindly be pursuaded into getting a vaccine that could be very dangerous, while providing us very little protection. Come to think of it, maybe that is their M.O. Below is a source that exposes the truth about viruses and a better way to protect us from them.
http://www.totalityofbeing.com/FramelessPages/Articles/FightingViruses.htm
Homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy and it is adopted by the mentally ill. They have a short life span because of the disease they encounter from how they behave.
If they get “married” they will redefine what married means to feed their mental illness.
No one can redefine what a real thing means. Empty names can be redefined: I can say "let X be 100, .. now let X be 0...". I cannot redefine a into dog being a cat. That is because X is a name while dog is reality. If everyone in the room begins to say "cat" when they mean "dog" everyone in the room will suffer a loss of these two words in their vocabulary, but a dog will not become a cat. Further, those attempting to hunt with a cat or exterminate mice with a dog will suffer failure.
Using words deceptively is evil because of, firstly, the very deception, and secondly, when it has a legal consequence. That is the damage the homosexual agenda brings to all of us: it won't do anything to my marriage or yours, but it will confuse the young as to what proper sexual behavior is, and it will increase and mainstream homosexual adoptions: great damage to our children both, and a great failure of our whole nation.
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.