Posted on 06/29/2004 5:07:44 PM PDT by xzins
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.