Posted on 09/03/2003 8:09:53 PM PDT by webber
Date: Wednesday, September 2003
Topic: Diseases
by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Washington, DC – A research study published in the May 2, 2003 issue of the medical journal AIDS, sheds new light on the high rates of AIDS infections and multiple sex partners among Amsterdam's homosexual community. The study should also fuel debate on the wisdom of legalizing so-called same-sex marriage here in the United States.
Dr. Maria Xiridou with the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service was lead researcher on this project. Her goal was to discover the relationship between casual and so-called "steady" relationships between homosexual males in the spreading of AIDS. Xiridou discovered that the "steady" relationships were more likely to spread AIDS than were casual relationships. Why? According to Dr. Xiridou, "… risky behavior with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners." She notes that 86% of new HIV infections in Amsterdam occur among "steady" homosexual partnerships.
Her study, however, revealed something even more significant—and it relates directly to the current debate over same-sex marriage here in the U.S.: Casual sexual encounters among Amsterdam's homosexuals averaged between 16-28 sexual partners each year. Those who said they were in a "steady" relationship with another man were sexually involved with between 6-10 other men each year.
This gives us a clear definition of what homosexuals apparently mean when they talk about being in a "steady" relationship. It means living with one homosexual but having numerous sexual encounters on the side.
What term would we use to describe a heterosexual man who had six to 10 sexual flings outside of his primary relationship each year? It certainly would not be "steady." One would use words like "philanderer," "sex addict," "playboy," or "adulterer" to describe such behavior. The woman betrayed by such out-of-control sexual behavior would probably use less flattering words to describe a man who routinely cheated on her.
Yet, this is apparently expected behavior among homosexual males. Homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan spilled the beans on the real agenda behind the push for same-sex marriage in Virtually Normal. According to Sullivan, once same-sex marriage is legalized, the heterosexual crowd will quickly learn to have a greater "understanding for the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman."
Sullivan calls monogamy a "stifling model of heterosexual normality." In short, we are fools to expect homosexuals to be monogamous.
Their sexual appetites for anal sex are simply too out of control to be restricted to one person.
Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile was even more blunt than Sullivan. Writing in Out magazine (Dec.-Jan. 1994), Signorile said the goal of same-sex marriage is "…to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
Signorile says that the most "…subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake—and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely."
The debate over same-sex marriage is not one of "equal treatment" under the law—as homosexuals claim in public. The real subversive goal is to destroy traditional morality and marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it will take little time for homosexuals to begin demanding an end to the numbers or even ages of individuals who can be "married" to each other.
This is not a debate over homosexual rights.
<>It is a debate over the future of the family, the sanctity of marriage, and the spread of AIDS and other STDs in our culture.
It is a debate we cannot afford to lose.
What their actual goal is, is to have a Supreme Court decision which confirms them as being a protected class under the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. Lower courts have set this precedence but the Supreme Court really hasn't.
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.