Posted on 06/29/2004 5:07:44 PM PDT by xzins
^
Just because a union is called permanent doesn't mean it will be.
People will be unfaithful regardless of how permanent a union is professed to be.
Look at the heterosexual women and men who serially commit adultery and pathologically lie about it.
And those who screw around, until caught, while professing to be 100% faithful.
That won't work either, gay marraige is a bad idea and caving into their temper tantrums won't change anything either.
"but denying this right does seem to encourage the very behavior you claim to worry about."
Men do not have the right to marry men.
That is not a right, and never has been.
Marraige is termed and defined, as it has been for thousands of years, as being a union between a man and a WOMAN.
Well said, and congratulations on your upcoming nuptials.
Interesting. What we know about HIV/AIDS is this: The disease was first recognized in June of 1981 (that was when the CDC Weekly Morbidity and Mortality Report described a rare form of pneumonia that had appeared in several gay men in Los Angeles). Then it was suggested that the disease be called Gay Related Immune Deficiency, but soon cases appeared in other populations such as needle drug users, so the modern term AIDS was adopted.
Later that decade, when the virus was identified, it was possible to see exactly when it appeared. As it happened, a study had been done in the late 1970s and early 1980s to track the spread of hepatitis in the gay community, so a large number of gay men volunteered to give blood samples at regular intervals. Researchers still had these blood samples. It turns out the virus appeared about 1977 and gradually spread through the community so that by 1981, a majority of the samples showed the virus. By the time "GRID" was discovered, it was already too late for tens of thousands of homosexuals. I gather there were isolated cases before the late 1970s; a few men had died of really strange diseases, and whenever something like that happens, tissues samples are saved. Thus a case from 1959 was retrospectively identified as AIDS (but I think that case was controversial, and I don't know if that was ever proved).
I reckon so, but I don't have easy access to a good medical library. The one footnote with a link didn't completely answer my question. I did some Googling, and found out that according to certain studies, condoms reduce the chances of getting HIV by about 10 to 20 fold, used consistently and correctly. That is, if the per-encounter chance of getting infected was 0.001, with a condom it would be 0.0001. But this study pertained to HIV positive men having vaginal intercourse with HIV negative women. Anal sex is more dangerous.
The study however did give a clear explanation as to why condoms are being promoted for HIV protection even though they work so poorly: without condoms, studies indicate an infected person (I think they meant an infected heterosexual man) will infect on average 5 other people, but with condoms, only 0.5 persons on average. This is a critical number -- if the average infected person only infected 0.5 other people, the epidemic would stop spreading and then burn out. This is the real logic behind "safer sex".
...for your issue file.
The entire argument about sexual behavior is so simple it can be reduced to the following: Should there be any social rules about what sexual activity a human being engages in?
If the answer is no then everyone should just shut up...hetero is okay, cousins are okay, polygamy is okay, bi is okay; gay is okay, 13-year olds are okay, and one or one-hundred-at-a-time are okay, et. al.
However, if a society decides that certain rules about who does whom when and where is functional and perhaps even necessary, all that is left is to decide is WHAT are the rules of sexual behavior and WHO shall make them...simple.
Those who follow the 'rules' are then NORMAL and all the rest are PERVERTS or DEVIANTS... so very, very simple...you decide.
Van & Katherine Jenerette
www.jenerette.com
P.S. Isn’t it strange that our schools ‘protect’ our children from the likes of ‘JOE CAMEL’ because of social and health dangers in the smokers world, yet many are pushing homosexuality as a NORMAL healthy alternative lifestyle? Please look up the mortality rates of SMOKERS versus GAY MEN…
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
You are correct....it seems to be a debatable issue. In our constitutional form of government, we have legislators elected by the people who are to debate such serious issues and make sound decisions for the general welfare of the people.
Therefore, using the data in an article such as this to place restrictions on whom does what to whom makes perfect sense.
If they can ban smoking in bars because 2nd hand smoke MIGHT pose a threat, then how much more restrictions on known deadly viruses and bacteria.
Good point. I've read that someplace before.
Can you find a link and post it?
And best of wishes to you and your intended for your future lifetime together.
Thank you for the explanation and chronology. If AIDS was in evidence before 1981, doesn't that discredit that story that AIDS was introduced to this country by some homosexual flight attendant at about that time?
Something passed along from my grandfather, who was a county prosecutor in Indianapolis back in the 20's and 30's, to my father was that homosexual domestic violence also sometimes got incredibly violent because it was two men. If you arrived at a scene and saw blood on the ceiling, it was a pair of homosexuals. The murders were more gruesome, too, often involving mutilation of the defeated partner.
There’s an anti-violence project study for 2002 here.
http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2002NCAVPdvrpt.pdf
A family research report for 2001 here.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
Gay on gay violence.
http://www.web.apc.org/~jharnick/violence.html
The 500% figure is from an American Family Association of Michigan 2001 report
http://www.afamichigan.org/releases/20010315a.htm
To be ‘fair and balanced’ this figure is disputed.
http://www.afaexposed.com/a_letellier.html
I believe the figure to be correct though and it is probably even higher since the homosexual community consistently trots out Kinsey’s figure of a 10% homosexual population in America as fact.
Considering an anonymous poll of 89000 people conducted by StatsCan gives a figure of 1% for homosexuals in Canada and that Canada itself is hardly unfriendly to homosexuals, we can safely deduce the figure is probably quite close to what we would find in America and nowhere near the 10% that Kinsey alleged.
Just 1% of Canadians say they're homosexual
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040616/GAY16/TPNational/Canada
The numbers game: What percentage of the population is gay?
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
I’ve not gone into refuting Kinsey’s methods and findings too much here since that has already been done by people far better on these matters than myself.
Regards,
Flashy
Furthermore, survey data formerly posted at the APA's site online showed that as of 2000 or 2001, a very large plurality of practicing members still believed psychological and psychiatric factors play a large role in homosexuality and its development -- notwithstanding that the profession had been pickling in essentialist propaganda emanating from gay-dominated committees on homosexual issues for nearly 30 years.
Do you all (ed,little,script) have the links at 77?
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.