Posted on 06/06/2005 10:50:27 PM PDT by scripter
"Why has onyx (since 1999-11-30) suddenly been banned?"
Haha. Good one!
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Gotta ping this one out.
It's true! Homosexuals do die younger solely because of their "deathstyle". But no one has to stay "gay". There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
It is so sad that people are being tricked into this lifestyle.
I wonder if GOD has tears.
I've read that lesbians have higher rates of other STDs as well as alcohol and drug abuse, and they are not a great deal more monogamous than male homosexuals.
He has specifically said that it is NOT a civil right. One of the few things I agree with him on so I remember when he siad it...
If that was all they did, it would be valid.
What does the "freedom too far" book say?
Interesting comment. Does that apply to all sinners or just certain sinners?
Well...that's the sanitized version anyway.
I have actually.
The twins studies are "bogus".
From basically the first well known study Bailey/Pillard 1992 they found a concordance rate of 53% for identical twins with homosexual pathology...given it's innate sampling flaws.
Then there was the much larger Bailey/Martin twin registry study that found a 38% concordance rate for male homosexual pathology and 0% for female.
Then there was the Hershberger,SL (1997): A twin registry that found 0% concordance rate for male homosexual pathology and 48% female.
Then there was...many other twins studies with similar results and guess what, they all contradict each other.
So let's review, concordance rate for male homosexual pathology 0-53% and 0-48% for female homosexual pathology.
If science is valid we know that it's replicable. That means you get the same result every time...2+2 is always 4 unless you are member of the soft-sciences. And apparently your husband, if he endorses the twin studies, is either uninformed or a lackey of the APA towing the "homosexuality is normal" propaganda line.
These "gays" should support the optional choice for Bush SSI plan.
Die 20 years earlier huh - only 20 - geez that is to bad.
To summarily dismiss "most" studies are "bogus" is simply ridiculous and certainly immature, perhaps you're here as a troll rather than to defend your apparent indefensible position. If your husband is really a MD, he should know the few studies I cited, if he doesn't he's a quack or a figment of your imagination.
When would you suggest?
Liberals don't really care about the health consequences of behavior. The thing that matters most to them is being fashionable.
Smoking was once considered to be cool and hip. Watch an old movie and you'll see sophisticated ladies and leading men casually puffing away. But in later years smoking fell out of fashion among the upper class. As fewer and fewer upscale people smoked, smoking was left as mostly a working class vice. Once that happened, the left turned against smoking and eventually began crusading against it. The Republicans were accused of being the tobacco party, even though it was FDR who started subsidizing tobacco and liberals like Al Gore Sr. who kept the tobacco subsidy running for years (back in the era when it was still fashionable to smoke).
Unlike smoking, homosexuality is today a highly fashionable vice. All the "beautiful people" in Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Nantucket are "tolerant" of the gay lifestyle. They all take pride in having gay friends, gay relatives, or whatever. Gay is the latest craze. Madonna tried to revive her sagging career not by smoking, but by kissing Britney Spears. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is all the rage, as Red Sox fans found out this past weekend. Gay is highly fashionable among the elite segment. The fact that middle and working class folks, particularly Christians, find homosexuality revolting makes it all the more in vogue among the media and academic elite.
It doesn't make a bit of difference to elite liberals that homosexual acts are potentially deadlier than smoking. Smoking is gauche and gay is chic. So gay gets peddled to kids in our public schools even as we lecture those same kids against smoking.
I would suggest that they stop doing each other in the butt what would you suggest
Surely you're not referring to the second-hand smoke myth? That's nothing but socialist propaganda. Firsthand smoke is what smokers should be concerned with.
Private businesses of all types have the right (whether it is honored or not) to determine their own policies with respect to tobacco use.
If any individual doesn't want to work for or patronize an establishment because of its smoking policies, he or she has every right to take their business or their labor elsewhere.
It's this same mamby-pamby collectivist mentality which fuels gun control, the drug war, anti-smoking zealots, etc.
I have never smoked tobacco and think it's worthless, but I firmly support the rights of smokers to light up without big brother telling them where they can and cannot do it.
Arbitrary Law is never the proper role of Minimal Government, and anti-smoking fascists are using blatant propaganda to foment their Authoritarianism on individuals and private business.
Whether the tobacco industry itself is sleazy and corrupt is a separate issue. It appears to be corrupt to a significant degree, given the extra poisonous crap that they add to cigarettes. Maybe there's something legally actionable there.
For instance, here in Florida, Jeb Bush used a settlement with Big Tobacco to fully fund universal health care for chilfren in the state.
Does anyone know where I can get some tobacco seeds?
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.