Posted on 07/29/2003 6:25:52 AM PDT by Kieri
I've never given it much thought. Surely the human costs are the same going either way. Lower life expectancy, a succession of partners, greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs, the unconscious feelings of living an empty, lonely life. And so on. Can you suggest some others?
I made a deliberate effort to avoid religious or moral arguments against homosexuality. Many people will reject those arguments, because they don't have the same moral code. However, I could make those arguments if I so desired.
And it's a good thing, or else the human race would be doomed.
There's something else going on here, I think. In this television show, the subject of this thread, there's no sexual activity at all. Instead style folks, decorators, and the like are working on improving some straight guy so he'll be a better catch for a woman. I fail to see the problem. Everyone knows that a lot of decorators, hairdressers, clothing designers, etc., are gay, so what's the big deal. There's nothing in the show, apparently, that is sexual in nature, and the gay men aren't trying to seduce the straight guy. I haven't seen the show, and doubt that I ever will, since I don't care for reality shows in general.
This then is a matter of values. The acceptance and spread of the gay lifestyle is, in my opinion, a bad thing. Bad for my family, bad for society. Even harmless dreck like queer eye is just that much more of the camel's nose being poked into the tent. Yuck. I don't want to see it, hear it, or have any part of it.
Now, I should say I feel the same exact way about Justin Timberlake. And rap "music". And any girl singer with cleavage and belly-button showing.
The only problem with your argument is not very well developed.
Just stating that lesbians have a lower life expectancy is not an argument; it is just your opinion which might not reflect the facts.
Similarty, claiming that lesbians have greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs for doing the same thing that straight males do every day in this country stretches credulity.
And the lonely life is just another opinion disguised as fact.
My only objection to female homosexuality is of religious nature; since we probably agree on the religious angle, there is no need to post it.
A gay guy tried to "recruit" you? How exactly did he do that?
It's never happened to you? I'm surprised! It's happened to me at least twice that I can think of right offhand - once with a (closeted) gay scoutmaster who offered to drive me home and asked me questions about "wet dreams" and so on. Later he got canned when too many parents got upset about - among other things - the sauna he built in his home and into which he invited many of his charges to come sit naked with him. And as an adult, there was this (mostly uncloseted) gay co-worker who would come rest his hands on my shoulders while I was on my computer. Years ago, a close relative of mine told of an attempted recruitment by his boss when they shared a hotel room on a business trip. I suspect that most targets of this kind of thing will never tell anyone else due to embarrassment. And again, I'm surprised it's never happened to you or to someone you know who later told you about it.
I'll bet I could if I wanted to look. There's no way that a lesbian lifestyle can be as fulfilling or as happy as a normal marriage.
So, what's your objection to female homosexuality?
It's destructive. It's limited and unproductive. It's like abortion, everyone tells the woman not to feel guilty, but it catches up with her.
Although I dissagree with lesbianism myself, the lesbians have more of a saftey net.
If you look at natural, or nature, you'll notice one buck to a herd of doe. One ram to a herd of sheep. One pack leader to a pack of bitches. In nature, one male, many wives. Never do you see more than one male. Two males will fight to the death. Males do not couple with males. If they do, the herd, flock, pack, etc., dies off.
Lesbians don't transfer sperm and fecal matter into their partners mouth, either, and create intestional or stomach infections that require a doctors care. Their sex is "cleaner" and less infectionous. Most lesbians keep their relationship for many years, similar to heterosexual couples.
The lesbians aren't "in your face" as much as the males, and there's been no reports of lesbian pedophilia like there is with male homosexuals.
The lesbians, in my opinion, are far less dangerous to a society because they're not the pedophiles, the rapists, the plague and infection carriers, they don't harass moral folks in the parks, they don't urinate in public, they don't leave rubbers on the ground when they're done. The males are filthy,nasty things, contrary to what TV trys to show.
I believe lesbians are just as immoral, but at least they don't do as much harm.
Except for the moral angle, are you OK with lesbianism then?
Not a bad idea. I pay $40 a month for the ability to watch about 3 channels--Fox News, Fox (for Seinfeld), and the History Channel. In fact, if Fox News went back to webcasting, I would cancel DirecTV altogether.
Just stating that "just stating that lesbians have a lower life expectancy is not an argument; it is just your opinion which might not reflect the facts" does not make your argument. (Forgive me, I can be an ass sometimes. :->)
Similarty, claiming that lesbians have greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs for doing the same thing that straight males do every day in this country stretches credulity.
These are my opinions, they are not facts. However, they are based on common sense. You can't go against nature and just get away with it.
My only objection to female homosexuality is of religious nature; since we probably agree on the religious angle, there is no need to post it.
That's odd to take both sides of an issue. It's great to understand both sides.
(Straw dog time again). No, let's not ban alcohol. Let's support recovery programs for alcoholics. And let's do what we can to protect children and adolescents from messages glorifying alcohol. And let's support people who say that alcoholism is a problem and are trying to do something about the problem, instead of ridiculing them.
Uh....it is. They just run in small packs, but they work as a team.
Besides, the more they try to "recrute" the straight guy, the better chance they'll get beat up. It helps them get their elitist hate crimes legislation, so they can become legally untouchable. Everyone would face a potential law suit for denying them their pleasure when they ask. You will obey them then. You'll have no choice, or they'll scream "victim" and haul you before their liberal judges.
They want that hate crimes legislation sooooo badly. Why do you think they "had to" start their own "protection" school in NY? Others get picked on, too. Do they not bleed, or is there a bigger motive here?
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.