Skip to comments.Homosexuality: A public health disaster
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:
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.
The left is completely invested in promoting the homosexual agenda, they are totally unconcerned about the risks.
Homosexual agenda ping.
Rum. sodomy and the lash.
Old British naval saying.
Yes, by all means. Let's give people who engage in filthy disease spreading practices special rights and equate them with married heterosexuals.
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?
Cuz lots of gay dudes eat each out others' BUTTS!
Gross, huh? Sorry. But that's the TRUTH.
If you're in management you're a white cholera worker, and if you're in labor you're a blue cholera worker.
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.
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?
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.
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?!
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".
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.
I've read about this before, evil evil men :(
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...
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.
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.
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.