The homosexual lifestyle is an extremely dangerous one. According to numerous studies, many of which have been commissioned by homosexual publications; 20% of homosexuals report of participating in sadomasochism where their partner is hurt, scratched, bruised and/or bloodied. 41% of male homosexuals and 8% of lesbians report "fisting"; where the arm is inserted up the rectum of one's partner. Over 90% of male homosexuals participate in the insertion of the penis into the rectum of their sexual partner's.
This practice carries great risk for both participants. The rectum was not created to withstand this abuse. Fecal matter can inter through the urethra, and sperm breaks through the single layer of the columnar epithelium of the rectum, causing massive immunological disruptions in the blood system, making the person at much greater risk for infection. It's no wonder that homosexuals are 245% more apt to report 2 or more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at a time, than heterosexuals.
The consequences of this behavior is magnified when one looks at the number of partners the average homosexual has in his/her lifetime. Most homosexual sex is performed with strangers. 70% admitting to having sex only once with over half of their partners. The average Homosexual has had 300 to 500 partners during a lifetime. 28% have performed sodomy on over 1000 partners. Only 2% have had monogamous relationships, and those are defined as lasting anywhere between 9 and 60 months.
Of these monogamous relationships;
In Fact "Bob Damron's Address Book" lists all of the parks and recreation areas in the country that are frequented for anonymous homosexual activity, so new homosexuals to your town can always know where others congregate.
Vicki Liviakas wrote an article for the New York Times 12/11/93, in which she stated that there was a resurgence of activity in the gay bath houses in San Francisco. They lack self discipline. The young gay male population was more reluctant to practice what they call "safe sex". A second wave of AIDS is feared by officials in San Francisco. She wrote, "numb with loss, fatalistic about their own survival, unwilling to face a measure of sexual deprivation (or deprive themselves of sex), and eager for the attention showered on the sick and the dying, are again practicing unprotected anal intercourse. Experts say this behavior is increasing the infection rates." She interviewed a 32 year old airline mechanic recently infected with HIV, he said, "I though if I was HIV positive I'd be so much gayer, people are looking for the red badge of courage and you get that when you convert from being HIV negative to being HIV positive." They love the attention they get when they get sick.
We must not allow the dominate media culture to pass homosexuality off as "just another lifestyle choice", equal to that of the heterosexual. It is not!. It is dangerous behavior which destroys the one practicing it, as well as the society that condones it.
CORRECTION TO ALERT
The OFSA alert above mistakenly cited the OKC mayor for the editorial - the editorial contains no author and according to an editor at the paper, the mayor has not written an editorial for the named paper. Please refer to the corrected newsletter printed below. The newspaper story is the same, so refer to Plan2Succeed's post to read the editorial.
Plan2Succeed took NO part in writing this alert. It was my mistake. We are separate orgs.
As such, the alert should read as follows:
(TIME SENSITIVE; FOR IMMEDIATE CIRCULATION)
March 13, 2006
(Hyperlinks in Text)
Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern has a bill, House Bill 2158, which will go to the floor for a vote very soon, perhaps within the week. According to the Library Stories blog, the Friday (March 10) editorial in the Daily Oklahoman condemns the fine State Representative for her efforts to restrict funding from public libraries unless they re-shelve obscene materials and books regarding homosexuality to a section where only adults can sign for same. She is only doing her job.
The editorial calls the bill ironic and says it removes local control. That the buck will stop at the parent is local control. It just isnt library control. The story is below as registration is required for viewing, and some may not want to do this.
Additionally, the Tulsa City-County Library posted its say on their website, also condemning Representative Kerns bill. Part of the TCCLs statement says that they encourage parental involvement. This is reflective of the ALA and typical of librarians across the country when anyone looks to protect children. If the libraries want parental involvement in selecting books for children and they want parents to stay near their children, then what is their problem with having a parent check out these explicit materials for their children?
The major city-county libraries shelve their books with a teen section, a childrens section and then a fiction section where adult reads are available. It would cost them no more to move the smutty books, bought and paid for by the Oklahoman taxpayer. In fact, it would free up space in the younger sections for libraries to add sophisticated reading such as Pride and Prejudice or Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet.
OFSA wonders what would happen to libraries if they were to only receive funding from those who want children to have access to vulgar material. Would there be many libraries in this state?
OFSA supports Representative Kern and her bill. If you support same, there is action you can take:
® Bloggers can assist by posting this Library Alert.
® Oklahomans can click here to enter their address and find their representative. You can simply ask that they support the bill.
® Anyone can write a small letter of encouragement to Representative Kern at sallykern@okhouse.gov. She is an ally and an inspiration to OFSA.
® Anyone can also write a letter to the editor at the Daily Oklahoman and respond to editorial: Yourviews@oklahoman.com
® As always, pass it on.
Regards,
Lyn Rahman
OFSA
www.operationinformation.net
http://oklahomansforschoolaccountability.blogspot.com/
What would be considered sexually explicit and who would get to define it? In fact, some might consider Shakespeare to be unsuitable for young readers. Romeo and Juliet clearly has several "mature" themes, including underage sexual experimentation (juliet is considered by most scholars to be right around age 15) suicide, drug abuse (what's in that potion Juliet drinks?) and suicide.
I would have to know a whole lot more about how this would be implemented before endorsing it.