Is THIS Discrimination?

A telling moment (maybe one of only two that occurred) during the last debate for the Democrat candidates for President in New York yesterday, was an exchange between Dan Rather and John Kerry. Three times Rather asked, “What is wrong with gay marriage?” Three times Kerry ducked the question, and rambled on about civil unions.

Rather didn’t have a clue about the basic question to ask. Kerry had not applied his “enormous” intellect to the development of two opposite and long-winded answers to offer the one suited to the audience at hand. Still, the attempted question-and-answer was a skirmish in what the lamestream media assures us is a new “cultural war” in the United States.

Not only has the press assured us that a new war has begun, Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts (and winner of the Marlon Brando look-alike contest) has already discovered who started this war. In his classic hybrid between a shout and a growl, last week he blamed President Bush for firing the first shot by announcing support for the proposed Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

Apparently, the good Senator has not read any of his home state newspapers of late. He hadn’t noticed that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had issued two rulings requiring that Commonwealth to issue marriage licenses to pairs of homosexuals, rewriting the state’s constitution to reach that result. The good Senator therefore did not comment on how President Bush and his eminence grise, Karl Rove, had engineered this action by four (of the seven) judges on that court to put the issue front and center, before the President took any position on that proposed amendment.

Nor did the assembled press that heard the Senator’s charge bother to ask him about how the President managed to get those four judicial democrats to rule that way, and with near- perfect timing for the 2004 presidential election. Add to that the follow-up action by the greenhorn Mayor of San Francisco, another Democrat apparently under the thumb of the Bush machine, to change the law of California on his own hook and issue thousands of “marriage” licenses to a parade of homosexuals from around the known universe.

The first thing of interest in the Lexington and Concord of this war is the absence of one word and the universal use of another. In a cultural war, it is words, not soldiers, who are killed and wounded in action. About 99.4 percent of this press coverage uses the word “gay” to describe these “marriages,” rather than homosexual. Homosexual is the accurate word, but gay has such a pleasant, Cole-Porterish implication, that it is substituted. So the word homosexual has been captured and is being held in a prisoner of war camp for the duration.

The word that is universally used is “discrimination.” This is the technique of the Big Lie. Say something long enough and loud enough, and people will begin to believe it, even if they would realize that it is false with only a few moments of reflection. The meaning of discrimination, which is absolutely essential to the life of the nation, as it is to the life of all citizens, is the subject of this column.

The popular press meaning (a false one) of the word “discrimination,” is: something unfair done to some identified group, which the government ought to correct. Both parts of this are assumptions in the mind of the person using the word – that the actions are unfair, and that the government is obligated to act. The actual meaning of “discrimination” from the Oxford English Dictionary is: perceiving, noting or making a distinction or difference between things; a distinction (made with the mind or in action).

Far from being a philosophical wrong, discrimination is essential to public and private life. Allow me to prove that point first, and then we can apply that concept to the issue of homosexual marriage.

You are a citizen about to vote for one of two candidates for President. (To those of you who might be thinking of voting for Ralph Nader, get real.) You have a choice between a candidate who takes positions on both sides of all issues and whose actions do not match his words, and a candidate who may not agree with you on all issues, but who has a record of consistency in what he does and says. You vote for one of those two.

You are a citizen about to vote for a Member of Congress. You have a choice between a long-time incumbent who has settled into the “get along, go along” philosophy espoused by the late, great House Speaker Sam Rayburn, and a young Turk who is bright, dedicated, but wet behind the ears. You vote for one of those two.

Switch to the personal side of life. You are a student just out of college and you have the choice between two jobs, one that has a moderate salary and chances of advancement, the other a lower-paid hourly job without such opportunities. You accept one of those.

You are parents of a teenaged daughter. She shows up with a boyfriend who has hair down past his shoulders, is a college dropout, has no job and no apparent inclination to get one. Do you discourage her from possibly marrying that person?

You are the parents of a teenaged son. He shows up with a girlfriend who has a half dozen visible body piercings and possibly others not visible. She cheerfully notes that her movie credits include a low-budget release, “Doris Does Duluth.” Do you discourage that relationship?

You get the point. Making choices based on available information is essential to public and private life. As individuals, we make such public choices every two years (or more). And we make such choices in our private lives dozens of times every day. Now let’s apply that thinking to the subject of homosexual marriage.

Archeology has established that the creation of families among humans is much older than the creation of governments. One of the first and primal purposes of governments and law, when established, was to define and protect the family. In most nations, the definition of families, which includes the definition of marriage, is based on the most widely-shared religious traditions of the population.

There is not a universal definition of marriage in all societies. Some permit polygamy. A few permit polyandry (one women with multiple husbands). None to my knowledge have ever included group marriage (multiple men and multiple women). However, in the United States, first in its colonies and later in its states, the definition of marriage for almost four centuries has been one man with one woman.

The only exception to this was among the early Mormons, who accepted polygamy. However, after Congress passed the Mann Act which criminalized polygamy and was upheld in the Supreme Court, the Mormon Church changed its definition of marriage to the classical one. While I am not familiar with the family law of all of the nearly 200 Indian tribes in the United States, the ones I do know also favor the classic definition of marriage being a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.

The objection to the classic definition of marriage is that it bars “committed homosexual couples” from the legal benefits of marriage, such as inheritance, health benefits, etc. This claim is false. As usual, the lamestream media has fumbled the ball by not doing its homework. There is a legal provision much older than the United States and recognized in the laws of every state and the federal government. It is called “joint and several ownership.” It can be applied to either real property like houses, or personal property like stocks, bonds, bank accounts and automobiles.

Anyone who has ever opened a “joint account” in a bank, or bought a house while married and signed the closing documents, understands this point. Properly set up, two people may have any relationship they wish, or none at all, and if they choose “joint and several ownership,” the survivor of them will automatically receive the property. Other questions, like health benefits for a “partner,” visitation in hospitals, or power of attorney to act for the other person if he/she becomes disabled, are all capable of being solved, and ARE being solved, by state laws, private actions of corporations or employers, or of the individuals themselves.

Is the process as easy for couples who are not married, as for those that are? No, it isn’t. But it can all be done without grabbing the word “marriage” by the throat and choking it until it is twisted into something that it has never meant, anywhere in the world, at any time in history. The whole effort to push through “homosexual marriage” really has little to do with legal rights. All such rights are available without redefining marriage. No, the purpose is to capture the word “marriage,” and therefore “normalize” homosexuality by force.

Here’s where Dan Rather missed the point in his repeated questions about this to John Kerry. The first question is not “What is wrong with [homosexual] marriage?” The first question is, how and where in the American system of government is it proper for officials to decide that the definition of marriage should be changed?

Some claim that this is an issue of “states rights,” and that each state has the power to reach its own conclusion and is not required to agree with all others. There are, actually, differences today among the states on this point; they differ on the ages at which people can marry, and on how close is the relationship that will disqualify them as spouses. States have been living with these minor differences for centuries.

The problem on homosexual marriage is that it is a critical difference and cannot be restricted to just one state. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, each state must recognize the official acts of all other states. Given the tendency of lawyers to bring test cases on issues like this, it is a lock-solid guarantee that “married” homosexuals from Massachusetts or from San Francisco will show up in the courts of all states, demanding that those states recognize their marriages in other jurisdictions. So the states rights argument falls of its own weight on this issue.

The question of how this cultural war can end with a victory for common sense among most Americans will be addressed in next week’s column. You can see where that is headed from its title, which will be “Hijackers in Black Robes.”

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.

Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

=====================================================================================================================================================

Throughout history, the major civilizations major religions condemned homosexuality.¹ Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal throughout America.

Gays claim that the "prevailing attitude toward homosexuals in the U.S. and many other countries is revulsion and hostility....for acts and desires not harmful to anyone."³The American Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association assured the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 that "no significant data show that engaging in...oral and anal sex, results in mental or physical dysfunction."⁴

What Homosexuals Do

The major surveys on homosexual behavior are summarized below. Two things stand out 1) homosexuals behave similarly world-over, and 2) as Harvard Medical Professor, Dr. William Haseltine,³³ noted in 1993, the "changes in sexual behavior that have been reported to have occurred in some groups have proved, for the most part, to be transient. For example, bath houses and sex clubs in many cities have either reopened or were never closed."

Homosexual Activities (in %)

		US¹⁶ US¹³US    US¹⁸ Denmark²⁰ US¹⁹  London²⁷  Sydney/London²⁶                                                            Canada²⁵                                                      
		1940s1977 83/84  1983  1984   1983    1985       1991                       
		ever ever  ever in yr in yr  in mo   in mo   last 6mo                                                                                  
oral/penile       83   99  100/99  99    86             67                 
anal/penile       68   91   93/98  95    92     95     100                 
oral/anal         59   83   92/92  63           69      89       55/65       
urine sex         10   23    29/                                              
fisting/toys      22   41/47 34                                       
fecal sex-eating        4     8                                                       
enemas        	       11    11                                               
torture sex       22   37    37                                              
public/orgy sex   61   76    88                                               
sex with minors   37   23    24/

ORAL SEX Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B). Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners^17,27), and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1105 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.

RECTAL SEX Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,³ gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.

Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient's own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present),⁷ rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.

Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with "fisting," where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when "toys" are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum--bottles, carrots, even gerbils⁸). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such "sport" is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey's time that he didn't think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to diapers for life.

FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,⁵ 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,²⁶ it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever,⁹ herpes, and cancer.²⁷ About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in feces]. The San Francisco Department of Public Health saw 75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80 per cent are homosexual men....An average of 10 per cent of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported...because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5 per cent of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed."¹⁰ In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco.¹⁰ The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays.¹¹ A 1982 study "suggested that some transmission from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred."¹²

URINE SEX About 10% of Kinsey's gays reported having engaged in "golden showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted,¹³ 23% admitted to urine-sex. In the largest random survey of gays,⁶ 29% reported urine-sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays,¹⁴ only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced "fisting," 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.

OTHER GAY SEX PRACTICES

SADOMASOCHISM as the Table indicates, a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun. Sex with minors 25% of white gays¹⁷ admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study,³⁰ 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engage in homosexuality³¹). Depending on the study, the percent of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14%¹⁶ to 41%¹³ to 66%,⁶ 9%¹⁶, 60%¹³ and 67%⁵ reported sex in gay baths; 64%¹⁶ and 90%¹⁸ said that they used illegal drugs.

Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin¹⁵ reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick¹⁴ reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain³² the average was 42/yr. in 1989.

Medical Consequences of Homosexual Sex

Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70%25 to 78%x,¹³ of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25%¹⁸ to 39%¹⁹ to 59%.²⁰ As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.²¹ The Seattle sexual diary study³? reported that gays had, on a yearly average:

fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
exchanged saliva with 96;
experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
ingested fecal material from 19.

No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A during the 6-month study.

Effects on the Lifespan

Smokers and drug addicts don't live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical life-span of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking nd as dangerous as drugs.

Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers.²³ The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity; the medium age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

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

Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident--a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.

The Gay Legacy

Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a plague that gives every indication of destroying most of them. Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers,²¹ but also from TB and new strains of other diseases.²⁴ Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.²⁴ Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.²⁴ Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics...If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them."²⁸ At least 8, and perhaps as many as 30 ²⁹ patients had been infected with HIV by health care workers as of 1992.

The Biological Swapmeet

The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story --imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis. Often these encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high, and/or in an orgy setting. Further, many of them occur in extremely unsanitary places (bathrooms, dirty peep shows), or, because homosexuals travel so frequently, in other parts of the world.

Every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit another country.²⁰Fresh American germs get taken to Europe, Africa and Asia. And fresh pathogens from these continents come here. Foreign homosexuals regularly visit the U.S. and participate in this biological swapmeet.

The Pattern of Infection

Unfortunately the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world.²⁷ Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior.²³ The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals.¹⁰

Genuine Compassion

Society is legitimately concerned with health risks-- they impact our taxes and everyone's chances of illness and injury. Because we care about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers to stay non-smokers.

Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle.

References

1. Karlen A. SEXUALITY And HOMOSEXUALITY. NY Norton, 1971.

2. Pines B. BACK TO BASICS. NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211.

3. Weinberg G. SOCIETY AND THE HEALTHY HOMOSEXUAL. NY St. Martin's, 1972, preface.

4. Amici curiae brief, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986.

5. Corey L. & Holmes, K.K. Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1980302435- 38.

6. Cameron P et al Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. "Nebraska Medical Journal," 198570292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order "Psychological Reports," 1989, 64, 1167-79.

7. Manligit, G.W. et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloan- tigens. "Journal of the American Medical Association," 1984251 237-38.

8. Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope," THE READER (Chicago, 3/28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the U.S. and Canada].

9. Dritz, S. & Braff. Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. "New England Journal of Medicine," 19772961359-60.

10. Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1980302463-4.

11. CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men --United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR 199241155-64.

12. Christenson B. et al. An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm, "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1982115599-607.

13. Jay, K. & Young, A. THE GAY REPORT. NY Summit, 1979.

14. McKusick, L. et al AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco, "American Journal of Public Health," 1985 75493- 96.

15. USA Today 11/21/84.

16. Gebhard, P. & Johnson, A. THE KINSEY DATA. NY Saunders, 1979.

17. Bell, A. & Weinberg, M. HOMOSEXUALITIES. NY Simon & Schuster, 1978.

18. Jaffee, H. et al. National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma. "Annals Of Internal Medicine," 198399145-51.

19. Quinn, T. C. et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1983309576-82.

20. Biggar, R. J. Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men. "Journal Of The American Medical Association," 19842511441-46; "Wall Street Journal," 7/18/91, B1.

21. CDC HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE, February 1993.

22. Chu, S. et al. AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. "American Journal Of Public Health," 199282220-24.

23. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993.

24. Dooley, W.W. et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HIV-invected patients. "Journal of the American Medical Association," 19922672632-35.

25. Schechter, M.T. et al. Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS. "Lancet," 198411293.

26. Elford, J. et al. Kaposi's sarcoma and insertive rimming. "Lancet," 1992339938.

27. Beral, V. et al. Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS. "Lancet," 1992339632-35.

28. Testimony before House Health & Environment Subcommittee, 2/24/92.

29. Ciesielski, C. et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. "Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992116 798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post, 8/7/92.

30. Rubin, S. "Sex Education Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students." 24th International Congress on Psychology, Sydney, Australia, August 1988.

31. Cameron, P. & Cameron, K. Prevalence of homosexuality. "Psychology Reports," 1993, in press; Melbye, M. & Biggar, R.J. Interactions between persons at risk for AIDS and the general population in Denmark. "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1992135593-602.

32. Rodriguez-Pichardo, A. et al. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain, "Geniourin Medicina," 1990 66;423-427.

33. AIDS Prognosis, Washington Times, 2/13/93, C1.

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.

Congressman Billybob MEGA PING!!