Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexuality: A public health disaster
WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/28/06 | David Bass

Posted on 01/28/2006 12:51:09 PM PST by wagglebee

The raging debate over homosexual marriage took another interesting turn this week when Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock struck down Maryland's state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law §2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual couples who filed the lawsuit.

Judge Murdock was not satisfied with merely striking down the state statute, however. In her written opinion, the circuit court judge went several steps further by claiming that the prohibition of same-sex marriage in no way "rationally relates to a legitimate state interest." Murdock also dismissed the notion that same-sex marriage has any negative influence on traditional marriages or the nuclear family, or that "tradition and social values alone" can bolster what she deemed a "discriminatory statutory classification."

Regrettably, such rationale neglects one of the most critical elements in the emotionally charged debate over same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior in general – public health. As witnessed by Judge Murdock's decision, the issue of health is often turned aside in favor of arguments that hinge more on politics than fact. The problem with such a trend is obvious – the health ramifications of homosexual behavior should be at the forefront of the public policy debate, not on the periphery.

That is the principle reason conservatives should concentrate on both the cultural consequences of homosexual behavior and the public health ramifications. Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially when the facts are clearly presented.

For those who doubt, consider the evidence:

  1. Sexually transmitted diseases – Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

  2. Risky behaviors – Campaigns to foster so-called "safe sex" among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

  3. Promiscuity – A large percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

  4. Domestic abuse – A survey conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

  5. Life span – A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even under "the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." The same study estimated that homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years. Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large and often deadly to those who practice it?

For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and tolerance, it's time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do? Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a whole.

Those both inside and outside government ranks who truly value human beings created in the image of God will recognize the importance of being candid about the deadly health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Unlike modern interpretations of tolerance, true agape love has the ultimate physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of the individual at heart.

The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty. Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge Murdock's ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding the public welfare in the name of tolerance.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aids; gays; hiv; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; perverts; publichealth; stds; wildnutdazzly; wingnutdoozy; worldnutdaily
For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and tolerance, it's time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do? Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a whole.

The left is completely invested in promoting the homosexual agenda, they are totally unconcerned about the risks.

1 posted on 01/28/2006 12:51:11 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scripter; DirtyHarryY2K

Homosexual agenda ping.


2 posted on 01/28/2006 12:51:56 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Rum. sodomy and the lash.

Old British naval saying.

Inscrutable.


3 posted on 01/28/2006 12:57:08 PM PST by vimto (Life isn't a dry run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yes, by all means. Let's give people who engage in filthy disease spreading practices special rights and equate them with married heterosexuals.


4 posted on 01/28/2006 12:59:29 PM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Legislating personal decisions with respect to the unhealthiness of such choices is taking away liberty. We need no more nanny state mentality. The simple approach and the correct one is to keep the state out of religious matters altogether. Marriage is a holy sacrament and as such is an establishment of religion which pre-existed our government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Stop the discrimination against single people, NOW!
Why am I penalized for not having a partner?
Why should anyone reap benefits from buggering some other?


5 posted on 01/28/2006 1:06:11 PM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
In SF, the dirty secret is that there is an unusually high incident of CHOLERA, a disease that you usually only find in countries that lack proper sewage treatment systems, etc.

Know why?

Cuz lots of gay dudes eat each out others' BUTTS!

Gross, huh? Sorry. But that's the TRUTH.

6 posted on 01/28/2006 1:07:33 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

If you're in management you're a white cholera worker, and if you're in labor you're a blue cholera worker.


7 posted on 01/28/2006 1:11:44 PM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Hilarious!!!


8 posted on 01/28/2006 1:12:16 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The only conclusion I can come to is that those promoting the homosexual agenda (among others, but this is the foremost example) are actually suicide bombers. They want to destroy themselves, obviously, but they want all of human civilization to get destroyed along with them.

And the cause? Envy of the Supreme, who created natural law.


9 posted on 01/28/2006 1:12:22 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vimto

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566995/posts


10 posted on 01/28/2006 1:13:33 PM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Oh wait! I forgot to tell about the "Russian Roulette Parties":

That's a house party where gay men come to party for a fee. But there are rules; no condoms, and absolutely NO talk about HIV status. Another thing --it's guaranteed that one more more persons at the party is/are HIV+.

Cuz you feel most alive when you're kind of close to death, see?

If you derive pleasure from giving the virus, then that's "giving the gift". If you're still uninfected but like toying with the idea of skating near the edge, well, then that's "BUG CHASING".

Throw up yet?

11 posted on 01/28/2006 1:15:38 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin; Conservative4Life

Omg, that is ugh I have no words to describe my utter disgust.

Ping.. just when you think these people can't get any more mentally disturbed you learn something else.


12 posted on 01/28/2006 1:23:38 PM PST by Trillian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

And then they go out with their mock sincerity and scream about "the government" isn't doing enough to prevent AIDS! Maybe if they kept their weewees away from each other's hawhaws,they just MIGHT stand a lower risk of getting AIDS,huh?!


13 posted on 01/28/2006 1:40:56 PM PST by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Trillian
Wanna learn more? (prolly not):

The Death of Jesse Dirkhising

14 posted on 01/28/2006 1:43:47 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
Cuz lots of gay dudes eat each out others' BUTTS!

Gross, huh? Sorry. But that's the TRUTH.

Monica and Bill Clinton did the same thing. Takes some effort to look through her testimony, but you can find it.

No wonder Bubba went around with that sh*t-eating GRIN...

No cheers, unfortunately.

About this "judge": we ought to require the next time she or a loved one (is she a lesbian, btw? I didn't see anything in the article...) needs blood, it should be donated exclusively by male homosexuals, since she doesn't want to be "discriminatory".

15 posted on 01/28/2006 1:44:38 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Monica and Bill Clinton did the same thing (butt eating)

No, I remember that.

It was a little-known part of the Fiske Report (probably got the name of the report wrong, there), but there it was in black and white....It was a freeper that put me on to that, originally...You would think with the media of the whole world on the case, they would have picked that up, but no....

The only part that was left out was who was the active partner and who was the receiver.

16 posted on 01/28/2006 1:47:31 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

I've read about this before, evil evil men :(


17 posted on 01/28/2006 1:48:48 PM PST by Trillian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
Why am I penalized for not having a partner?

Imagine a world where our parents said that and never had kids! Eventually, everyone should make a small effort to reproduce, since that gift was given to us and ought to be passd on.

I do agree with you philosophically, however. It is a "couples-thing" to distrust and debase anyone outside of their own little cult. But singles do it too...

18 posted on 01/28/2006 1:49:08 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
The health concerns indicate that it is in the interest of the people, not establishment of religion, that is the driving motiviation and proper concern of the people's representatives: i.e. elected officials who create the laws that in some cases exert limits on behavior that have been deemed not in the interest of the people.

In this case, elected officials have rightly asserted that marriage between a man and woman is an institution that is clearly in the interest of the people and, thus deserves to be protected. The court system, though still deeply infected with liberal toxins, will eventually affirm the legitimacy of hetero-marriage protections, when it gets to the Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-and soon to be Alito, dominated Supreme Court.

The issue is behavior and what behavior is deemed harmful to the people. Also, the issue is this: does the Constitution permit the people to make laws against behavior that is harmful. The answer is yes. Liberals cleverly twist the issue into a human rights or a church/state issue in order to leverage power over the people via their liberal dupes in the judiciary; judges who base their decisions upon liberal ideology and not the Constitution of the United States.

19 posted on 01/28/2006 1:51:53 PM PST by McBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
Legislating personal decisions with respect to the unhealthiness of such choices is taking away liberty.

That liberty is costing me a bundle. My company decided to recognize "domestic partners" and extend health insurance benefits. Now the employees get to subsidize enormously expensive HIV cocktail treatments for the HIV/AIDS infected homosexuals that have been admitted to company healthcare programs. That's not the kind of liberty I want, but that is a driving motivation for "gay" marriage. Follow the money. The intent is exploitation.

20 posted on 01/28/2006 2:02:27 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Too bad the demoncRAT governor and the demoncRAT-run WA State Legislature doesn't believe this. They just passed the bill giving queers special rights.


21 posted on 01/28/2006 2:20:01 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

Gays get special rights; smokers get no rights.


22 posted on 01/28/2006 2:28:27 PM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

HA Ping.


23 posted on 01/28/2006 2:33:10 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bump


24 posted on 01/28/2006 2:34:00 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

Absolutely. WA is an upside down state.


25 posted on 01/28/2006 2:35:01 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

Yeh...liberals and gays have ruined the beautiful Emerald City. Throw in the fake illegitimate Gov. 'Fraudoire' and her little blinded minions and the table is set....their little utopia will come crashing down someday from being built on shifting sands.


26 posted on 01/28/2006 2:46:13 PM PST by tflabo (Take authority that's ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

Shudder! Yet, as long as they quit smoking and go on a diet they can work at Scott's Miracle-Gro. Since these companies are banning bad behavior they should go after this gay stuff, too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563554/posts


27 posted on 01/28/2006 2:46:42 PM PST by A knight without armor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

FReepmail if you want on/off the ping list.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search

The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty. Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge Murdock's ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding the public welfare in the name of tolerance.

The bad news -there is no cure and or immunization in sight. The pharmaceutical companies seem focused on longevity rather than cure and as such the carriers of the disease can in essence spread it around more

The honesty required is that society treat HIV/AIDS like it would any other killer disease rather than grant the killer safe passage under poltically correct cover...

Rather than teach the public how to 'safely' play Russian roulette the people need to be told the reality -how stupid it is to even pick up the gun... e.g. there is no such thing as safe anal sex

28 posted on 01/28/2006 2:48:40 PM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially when the facts are clearly presented.

No it won't. Supporters of same sex marriage would argue, incorrectly, that marriage would reduce the level of promiscuity among homosexuals by making them more a part of normal society. The reason to argue against gay marriage isn't because homosexual acts are unsafe, it is because marriage is about a man and woman. Anything else is not a marriage and should not be legitimized by the state.

29 posted on 01/28/2006 2:54:19 PM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
This, and your description in post #6...

And they want to call those opposed to homosexuality the ones with the "disorder?"

Yes, please pass me your bucket.

30 posted on 01/28/2006 3:02:52 PM PST by kstewskis ("There you go again..." R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
That liberty is costing me a bundle. My company decided to recognize "domestic partners" and extend health insurance benefits.

Are you allowed to "opt out" and find coverage on your own?

It might be worth looking into, and cheaper than being in with a group with high risk to disease.

31 posted on 01/28/2006 3:05:54 PM PST by kstewskis ("There you go again..." R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
Why am I penalized for not having a partner?

A fictitious partner to gain financial gain is created by a Government directive and in the long run loses revenue for the government and loses revenue for the population for it is inherent in creating a political skimming of finances.

Political motivation is the only gainful scenario by such a penalty.

32 posted on 01/28/2006 3:14:43 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The stench from the bench is making me clench. -- M. Savage

This judge is obviously as mentally ill as the people she ruled in favor of.


33 posted on 01/28/2006 3:16:55 PM PST by oneofmany (Proud to be intolerant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Casloy
The reason to argue against gay marriage isn't because homosexual acts are unsafe, it is because marriage is about a man and woman. Anything else is not a marriage and should not be legitimized by the state.

Well stated Casloy.

34 posted on 01/28/2006 3:18:28 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Perhaps time has arrived for a Constitutional definition of marriage.

I notice that the author avoided the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. I like the choice of words.

I also wonder about the choice of words when we hear about infected homosexuals described as AIDS "victims". Not meaning to be disrespectful; however, aren't homosxuals actually AIDS volunteers?

.

35 posted on 01/28/2006 3:18:55 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Those who are immune compromised due to HIV are walking petri dishes of diseases that the rest of us can and do get. Besides that, these immune compromised individuals lead lives that put them in contact with MANY other individuals who are also immune compromised and also carrying some very nasty communicable diseases.

As a health professional I am especially concerned about the spread of multi-drug resistant TB.
36 posted on 01/28/2006 3:53:28 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kstewskis
I could opt out. I'm paying $208 every two weeks, plus $1500 per person per year minimum co-pay. I rarely get sick. Last time I did get sick, the trip turned into an immediate $1500 bill.

The group coverage is just slightly better than jumping ship. I have very few choices in southeast Idaho. It would be a a "no brainer" if I was still in the San Diego area. My limited choice just happens to be the one whacked by adding "domestic partners".

37 posted on 01/28/2006 3:54:47 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It makes me sick just reading about this $#!t.


38 posted on 01/28/2006 6:44:55 PM PST by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vimto
Rum. sodomy and the lash

YEAH BABY!!! YEAH!!!

39 posted on 01/28/2006 6:49:20 PM PST by Angus MacGregor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
The group coverage is just slightly better than jumping ship. I have very few choices in southeast Idaho.

What a shame, and a cruel imposition. So many people, who've said that "gay marriage" (or "domestic partnership", as in your case) wouldn't effect them, didn't think of their pocket book when they pay their insurance premiums.

Are they going to be in a rude awakening soon, as if our health insurance premiums weren't already obnoxious enough.

Good luck to you.

40 posted on 01/28/2006 7:35:58 PM PST by kstewskis ("There you go again..." R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

So very true!! And these same people are working in our hospitals, restaurants, grocery stores, and every other field where fluid and blood are a risk to the public health. Hep B, lives on surfaces for 10 days, unless straight bleach is applied. How many hotels do you know that use that when cleaning...........the entire room! We won't go into parasites that can be found there. And anywhere else they go.

The judicial tyrants are putting the public at risk, every single day in so many ways they can't be counted. As are the Democrats/Libs


41 posted on 01/28/2006 9:37:36 PM PST by gidget7 (Get GLSEN out of our schools!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"...The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law §2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual couples who filed the lawsuit..."

"Unfairly"?

"abridged the fundamental MARRIAGE RIGHTS of...homosexual COUPLES..."?

I'm just a poor layperson here but as to my understanding of law, does not there have to be a PRECEDENT upon which a decision such as this is based? And where is that if there even IS one? I so far have not ever heard of any popular vote that agreed to "marriage rights" of/for "homosexual couples" that could even be "abriged", much less were abriged. And what represents "unfairly" as to how those nonexistent "marriage rights" for these "homosexual couples" were "abriged"?

This sort of nonsense is exactly why this WOMAN ("judge") and those similar set into stone the awful stereotypes about women and women's stereotypical "inability to reason logically". Because THIS ONE certainly can't and yet, there she is, "judging" away.

And yet, such a decision she's wrought! Can anything be any more NON sensical than what she's done here? Overthrown the decision determine by THE VOTERS by mere subjective distemper? Please, a larger group of very potent and intelligent attorneys, please sue whoever it takes to set this aright.

42 posted on 01/29/2006 1:02:49 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson