Posted on 09/08/2010 9:43:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
Over the summer, I was convicted of anti-gay hate speech. The most incredible thing about it was that I never set foot in Canada. The conviction happened while I was in Colorado. But the offense took place almost 15 years ago.
In the 1990s, a friend of mine announced that he was divorcing his wife because he had decided (after a couple of unhappy marriages) to pursue the gay lifestyle. My decision to support him was born out of ignorance. Not only was I harboring the illusion that there actually was such a thing as a gay gene. I was also ignorant of the fact that gays could be successfully cured through therapeutic efforts.
My decision to label my own verbal support of his lifestyle choice as “hate speech” makes sense only after one becomes educated about that lifestyle. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 82% of all known sexually-transmitted HIV cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for over 60% of all syphilis cases.
Some will say that homophobia is the indirect cause of such numbers. They claim that fear of stigmatization keeps gays from seeking information before they become ill and from seeking medical help afterwards. But, clearly, that is not the case. In cultures where homosexuality is more accepted the numbers are worse. That is why I steadfastly maintain that supporting my friend’s decision to turn to the homosexual lifestyle was indeed an example of hate speech.
Most gays become angry when someone tells the truth about the health consequences of their lifestyle choice. The reason they get angry over the facts is because their conscience convicts them. When I came to realize that I helped make it easier for my friend to pursue his unhealthy lifestyle my conscience was convicted. I have regretted my verbal support of his decision ever since.
No sane person could ever posit that the act of rectal sodomy is safe, normal, or healthy. The rectum is a one-way street. It is a sewer meant for the expulsion of poison. Treating the rectum as a sex organ is damaging to the health – especially for the recipient of such abuse. That is why it is an act of hate, regardless of whether some choose to call it “love.”
But the gay lifestyle has never been about love. The average number of lifetime sex partners is four for a heterosexual, fifty for a homosexual. Monogamy is the norm (82%) among heterosexuals, and an aberration (2%) among homosexuals. This promiscuity is routed in the pairing of similar traits, which is an inevitable result in homosexual relationships.
It should go without saying that women have greater emotional needs than men, while men have greater physical needs than women. They need each other to balance one another out. And that is why when two men are together the physical aspects of the relationship spiral out of control to the point of compulsion. That is why estimates show that anywhere from 21-43% of homosexual males have had several hundred sex partners.
One study of white male homosexuals, published in the 1970s, showed that 43% of white males had sex with over 500 partners. Over one-quarter (28%) had sex with over 1000 partners. When these drives are unchecked they often go in dangerous directions. Although homosexual men are only about three percent of the population, they commit about one-third of all acts of child molestation.
Even pseudo-conservative Andrew Sullivan knows that homosexuality is about unbridled sexual pursuit rather than love. He openly claims that homosexuals need more than one sex partner and that heterosexual relationships are too restrictive. But he refuses to see succumbing to sexual temptation as a weakness. Instead, he calls it a sign of “honesty” and “flexibility.”
Andrew Sullivan thinks we should all become more like gays. In his calls for the majority to conform to the minority he reveals the fundamental narcissism that is at the core of the gay lifestyle. From Andrew Sullivan’s perspective, homosexuality is all about self-gratification.
But love, by definition, seeks the ultimate good of the loved one by forsaking all others. That is why we must steer our loved ones away from the homosexual lifestyle and suffer the slings and arrows of the true perpetrators of hate speech.
Source: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone by Frank Turek
Morality. It’s amazing how seldom it is mentioned by those who support the homosexual agenda.
Shigellosis and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome. The Journal of Infectious Diseases states: 'Among MSM [men who have sex with men], shigellosis is predominantly a sexually transmitted disease, with direct oral-anal contact conferring the highest risk and HIV infection likely contributing to increased host susceptibility."
If there is any shred of morality, they have no hope of convincing people that they are “normal”.
Interesting comment! Thanks.
I personally think it’s because they fell unfulfilled in their relationships together. Looking for something that they won’t get.
I’m not defending homosexuality. I agree it is an abomination and a mental illness, not terribly unlike an emotional addiction.
I’m just saying there are more effective arguments to made against it than simply rattling off disease statistics. Pro-gay people will just say, “they’re getting these diseases because of their irresponsibility, not because of their homosexuality. Just give them taxpayer-funded condoms and education on safe sex, and everything will be fine.”
The diseases that they get are a direct result of being homosexual. Shigellosis and proctitis are both illnesses associated with gay bowel syndrome. See post 82.
I’ve often wished to see honest research/commentary on the nature vs. nurture arguments of the origins of homosexuality by a geneticist.
The rudimentary genetics I studied in several biology classes in college would classify homosexuality, if it is a “genetically” transmitted trait, as a recessive trait.
Recessive for the reasons that: (a) such a small minority of the total population expresses the trait (I’ve seen estimates from as low as 5-6% to as high as 10-13% of the population is homosexual); (b) if it was the dominant trait, propagation of the human species would be endangered.
As most of us learned in biology, to express a recessive trait, such as Blue Eyes (b) vs. Brown eyes (B), you have to have two recessive genes, one from each parent. Other wise the dominant trait will be expressed. For instance, for blue eyes (b) to be expressed instead of brown eyes (B), you have to have gotten one of four possible combinations from your brown eyed parents. Bb (father) and Bb (mother) produce a (bb) child with blue eyes ONLY when the child inherits both recessive genes (bb). The other possible genetic combinations from these parents (BB, Bb, or bB) all produce a brown eyed child.
Since most homosexuals do not reproduce, it seems to me that statistically, if homosexuality is indeed an inherited (recessive) trait, you would expect a decrease over time in the number of homosexuals, since the number of recessive gene carriers decrease as non-reproducing homosexuals die off.
Contrast this expectation to the increase we see in the number of homosexuals as it becomes more socially acceptable. This follows the same pattern of the dramatic increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births as that former social taboo has also become socially acceptable.
So, I personally find it hard to accept the “nature” argument of homosexuality, and find a much more convincing argument on the nurture side.
Are there any geneticists out there that would care to comment?
This is the book. It can be read online.
My Genes Made Me Do It! - A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation. PDF
From your book:
“However this book will argue that any genetic influences
on homosexuality are weak and indirect and about 10% of total efects. (Everybody has at least that level of genetic content to their behaviour; without genes no human behaviour of any kind is possible at all). It will also say that of the environmental influences on homosexuality, chance—an individual’s reaction to random life events—is the strongest.”
I rest my case.
Thanks for the reference.
It also covers the new hypothesis, hormones. Ruled that out too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1147428/posts?page=10#10
Thank you.
It took me about 5 minutes of sitting here trying to remember the name of the Rene Guyon Society. Gonna have to write that down somewhere...
I'm finding more and more each day that people just don't "get it". That's what we're here for my FRiend: to "splain" how things are.
Thanks for the ping!
(Hope all is well with you and yours.)
I know I’ve read about the Rene Guyon Society before but can’t remember anything about them. I’ll google it. Seems to me they were for pedophilia in general, not just homosexual pedophilia. Could be wrong though.
What disgusting fiends.
So those concerned with abortion are secretly for it, those who are “obsessed” with pushing “gay” rights are really against them, those obsessed with pushing Marxism are really against it, those preaching Christianity are really atheists, etc.
Great logic you have there. Actually a standard homosexual agenda talking point...
I read some years ago a book by Lorraine Day (who worked as an orthopedic (?) surgeon in a hospital in SF for years) that anal sex is also damaging because (warning - grossness ahead) semen gets into the bloodstream through tears (large or small) in the intestinal lining, since the lining is not meant for such activity and tears easily. Once in the bloodstream, the immune system “thinks” the semen is a foreign invader and reacts. When this happens repeatedly, it gradually weakens the immune system, making it easier for anal sodomy practitioners (whether homosexual or man/woman) to get all manner of diseases.
And since most homosexuals practice this, it is yet another reason why their health problems are so terrible.
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.