Posted on 06/02/2003 9:04:07 PM PDT by Mister Magoo
you could have two gay men living together, never mentioning the wild, passionate, satisfying sex they have with each other (just as most heterosexual couples tend not to go public with that info), and one of them could run in the Republican primaries to be the Republican presidential candidate while their same sex partner stood by and supported him -- the way people involved with each other often do.
That's not making an issue of sexual orientation. It's just living your life without other people making an issue out of who you sleep with.
Sound good to you?
Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association Sodomy is an efficient method of transmitting STDs. And regardless of the reason, same-sex sodomy is far more effective in spreading STDs than opposite-sex sodomy. Multiple studies have estimated that 40 percent or more of men who practice anal sex acquire STDs. In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contaminated food and water into sexually caused diseases primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy.
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ... An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year.
Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
Citizens Against Government Waste Since the first federal resources were made available to state and local health agencies for AIDS prevention in 1985, federal funding, which now includes money for research, treatment, and housing, has skyrocketed to $13 billion for fiscal 2003. As a result of the work of highly mobilized lobbying forces, more is spent per patient on AIDS than on any other disease, though it does not even currently rank among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. In one year, 1998, heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death, killed 724,859 Americans only 6.8 percent less than the 774,767 who have contracted AIDS in the last 20 years.2 Of those 774,767 total AIDS cases, 462,766 have died. During that same period, 14 million Americans 30 times more have died of heart disease.
Since when is being "gay" honorable? The reality is that being "gay" is anything but "gay". Rather it is a sick, behavior resulting from emotional problems. It is the ultimate confusion to be attracted to same sex. Imagine the denial these folks go through!
Maybe for you, a RHINO, it isn't an issue however for Biblical based Republicans, such as myself, homosexuality is unacceptable. We don't believe in having an benign eye to clinton and his sexual escapades nor is it proper to have a blind eye on same sex attraction. In either situation this is unacceptable and their judgment is not trustable.
I'm suprised that you as a Catholic are still defending homosexuality. Most Catholics I know have NO time for homosexuality in the pulpit or in an "honary" position.
I don't know what the shared values of the gays are, but to say that the religious right has no objection is totally wrong from what I've been reading in the threads.
That was included by the elipsis (...) after the word "responsibility" in my post.
me: "If sodomites want to vote Republican based on shared values, then the religious right has no objection."you: I don't know what the shared values of the gays are, but to say that the religious right has no objection is totally wrong from what I've been reading in the threads.
We agree but I have to point out that: Sure they can. They can hope right up until the moment they lose.
Strategy doesn't have to reflect reality if hope and distorted perception is your driving force. Rove's model of the electorate seem's to revolve around a rather simplistic normal distribution where a move to the "center" and away from the right would pick up votes. Quite the opposite is likley if the electorate is bimodal (culture wars, anyone?).
I don't know if Rove's approach is driven by his personal preferences or a skewed view of distributions (pun intended) but if it isn't redirected it could lead to the latest chapter of "The Stupid Party in Love and War".
I'm not defending homosexuality; the fact that some homosexuals support President Bush and the GOP is a good thing, and I don't understand the angst over that by some on this website.
Bush doesn't ask questions about orientation when considering someone for a position in his administration. That's a pretty good policy for a government job.
Nothing.
preference for unhealthy foods
A happily married heterosexual politician might have a preference for anal sex with his happily consenting wife (and ingest her feces when licking her butthole during foreplay),
And a gay man might prefer only to have oral sex -- never anal sex -- with his lover.
You are ill-informed, mentally sick and morally retarded.
Center for Arizona Policy The APA's brief cites to Laumann et al. to support their statement that the sexual practices prohibited by the Texas law "are important aspects of sexual intimacy for many American heterosexual couples." APA Br. at 21. However, Laumann's study specifically reveals that oral sex is "a technique with which most people have at least some familiarity, but it has in no sense become a defining feature of sex between women and men (as vaginal intercourse or, perhaps, kissing is) . . . it is important to establish at the outset the ambiguity of oral sex in the repertoire of [heterosexual] techniques." Laumann et al., supra, at 101.
Laumann's research also reveals that heterosexuals engage in anal sex even less than oral sex: "anal sex has not entered into the repertoire of regular sexual practices of most women and men in the United States." Laumann, supra, at 107. This study found that only one-quarter of men and one-fifth of women have experienced anal sex over a lifetime, and is far less frequent than that in any given year of life. Id. Heterosexuals were also 79% less likely to find anal intercourse as "very appealing" compared to vaginal intercourse. Laumann et al., supra, at 152-155, Table 4.2.
Because oral and anal sex are primary means of sexual activity between individuals of the same sex (APA Br. at 22-23), and such is not the case with heterosexual couples, it should be considered that the Texas law has reasonably and narrowly drawn their prohibition of "deviate sexual intercourse" to those couples where it is most likely to take place. The Texas law may also contemplate the higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases which are related to certain sexual behaviors, and seeks to prohibit behavior associated with a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (not only HIV/ AIDS) and sexually associated infections and other illnesses. Laumann et al., supra, at 396.
It is well-documented that as the number of sexual partners rise, the likelihood of having a partner with a sexually transmitted infection also rises. Laumann et al., supra, at 403; see generally Hickson et al., supra. As has been noted, homosexuals have a much greater number of sexual partners, 23 as compared to heterosexuals, and engage in sexually riskier activity, 24 therefore, there are serious health considerations implicated in same-sex sexual activity which should be taken into account when a legislature proscribes certain sexual activities.
SODOMY : Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association
The CDC has identified men who have sex with men as among the groups that "are most vulnerable to STDs and their consequences . . . ." Id . at 39 (Introduction to "Special Focus Profiles"). One reason that men who have sex with men are at high risk of STDs is the nature of anal sex. Anal sex is not the same as sexual intercourse because of the differences between the vagina and the anus. 10 "The vagina is surrounded by thick muscular tissue which distends and changes shape to accommodate the erect penis during intercourse." Jeremy Agnew, Some Anatomical and Physiological Aspects of Anal Sexual Practices , 12 Journal of Homosexuality No. 1, 75, 91 (Fall 1985). The nature of these muscles make them "capable of protecting against abrasion during intercourse . . . ." Id . In contrast, the anus has a far more limited capacity to expand because it is firmly attached to the tail bone, and it is vulnerable to tears at its point of attachment. Because the anus is surrounded by veins and arteries, any tears may lead to substantial bleeding. See Keith L. Moore, C LINICALLY O RI ENTED A NATOMY 385 (2 nd ed. 1985). Accordingly, receptive anal sex may cause physical trauma to the anus and the rectum:
the lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of [membranous cellular tissue] with numerous goblet [mucous secreting] cells. The function of this thin layer is to promote the absorption of water and electrolytes. In spite of the limited protective capacity of secreted mucus from the goblet cells, the mucosa is incapable of much mechanical protection against abrasion. . . . . . . One of the commonest problems associated with anal sexual activity is tearing of the anal canal. The external anal sphincter is biologically intended to have material pass through it out of the body. The sudden or forceful insertion of objects in the "reverse" direction stimulates the anal reflex and produces a natural tendency of the sphincter to contract to prevent inser- tion. Unlike the vagina, the anus and rectum lack a nat- ural lubricating function, and insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation prior to the insertion of large objects can result in the tearing of perianal and anal canal tissue.
Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association
Oral sex also results in the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. According to the CDC, HIV, "[h]erpes, syphilis, gonor- rhea, genital warts (HPV), intestinal parasites (amebiasis), and hepatitis A are examples of STDs which can be transmitted during oral sex with an infected partner." CDC, Preventing the Sexual Transmission of HIV, the Virus that Causes AIDS: What You Should Know about Oral Sex , HIV/AIDS Update (December 2000). 24 A number of the diseases associated with men who have sex with men, particularly the enteric pathogens, are most likely transmitted through an oral/anal or penile/anal/ oral route. Marino & Mancini, 58 Surgical Clinics of North America at 514 ("Sexual transmission of [enteric pathogens] is a possible consequence of oro-anal, ano-genital, and genito-oral contact either separately or in sequence"). One study expressed surprise at finding that oral-anal sex "was the single most important practice associated with infection [with hepatitis B surface antigen] . . . ." Reiner, et al., Asymptomatic Rectal Mucosal Lesions and Hepatitis B Surface Antigen at Sites of Sexual Contact in Homosexual Men . . . , 96 Annals of Internal Medicine at 170. Human herpes virus 8, "a necessary etiologic agent of Kaposi sarcoma," also appears to be spread by oral sex between men who have sex with men (but seldom in opposite- sex couples). Dennis H. Osmond, Ph.D., et al., Prevalence of Kaposi Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Infection in Homosex- ual Men at Beginning of and During the HIV Epidemic , 287 Journal of the Am. Medical Ass'n No. 2, 221 (2002).
You believe oin publicly funded health care?
By whom?
I think "Daddy" is a bit more intelligent and mature than the gay-obsessed posters on FR and lets his adult daughter make his own decisions on whom she associates with.
I take it you were a vocal critic of Rudy Guiliani as well?
Isn't this a contradictive statement? Everytime you push the gaygenda, you create an GOP party issue.
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.