Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada's 9-11
Envoy Encore ^ | June 21, 2003 | Pete Vere

Posted on 06/21/2003 8:56:10 AM PDT by Theosis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last
To: gcruse
Okay. I'll file it under 'anecdotal.'
Whatever makes you comfortable, but derision alone will fail to discredit it.

61 posted on 06/21/2003 12:29:20 PM PDT by AnnaZ (unspunwithannaz.blogspot.com... "It is UNSPUN and it is Unspun, but it is not unspun." -- unspun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
You can't discredit that which had none to begin with.
62 posted on 06/21/2003 12:30:38 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Theosis
Has it already become law that gay marriages are now recognized as legal in Canada?
63 posted on 06/21/2003 12:46:28 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
You can't discredit that which had none to begin with.



From the Encyclopedia of AIDS

Monogamy

Arthur Fox


Monogamy technically refers to the marriage of one man and one woman but is also widely used to refer to the practice of restricting sexual behavior to a single partner. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, lifelong monogamy between a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage has been regarded as normative, with sexual infidelity described as sin and serving as sufficient rationale for the legal dissolution of the union. In other cultures, including Islamic cultures, polygamy, or the taking of more than one spouse, is acceptable.

In sexual terms, monogamy is typically used to mean that two individuals are sexually active only with each other, usually in a committed relationship that may or may not be marital. The term "serial monogamy" has been coined to refer to situations in which individuals have a series of consecutive sexual pairings of various duration, such that they have multiple partners over time but never more than one partner at any single point in time. Because HIV can be transmitted sexually, many people regard monogamous relationships with HIV-negative partners as a way to avoid infection.

The idea of monogamy as a preventive for HIV infection originated in the gay male community in the earliest months of the AIDS epidemic. At that time, all that was known about the cause of AIDS was that it seemed correlated with having had large numbers of sexual partners. As the medical community learned more about how HIV can be transmitted and as tests for HIV infection became widely available, safer-sex interventions began to stress barrier methods like condoms over partner-selection methods like monogamy. Many social conservatives also encourage monogamy, although they are concerned more often with morality than with public health.

Studies have revealed that the practice of monogamy is not as common as its societal idealization would suggest within heterosexual marriages as well as in gay and lesbian partnerships. Large-scale studies executed in the United States over the past 40 years have found that at least 37 percent of men and 29 percent of women have engaged in sex outside their marital relationship. Although studies of sexual exclusivity in lesbian relationships have yet to be executed on a large scale, applicable data show that the incidence of "extramarital" sexual behavior of homosexual women is closer to that of heterosexual women than that of homosexual men. In gay male relationships, a policy of sexual exclusivity is rarer than an agreement of "emotional monogamy" in which partners have sanction, sometimes with certain limitations, to have sex outside the relationship provided the extra-relational contact does not threaten the emotional integrity of the partnership.

Nevertheless, many couples, homosexual as well as heterosexual, value restricting their sexuality to the relationship. Designating a relationship as monogamous can be an expression of both partners' commitment to each other. Indeed, monogamy can have great appeal because many people find the security and stability of such a commitment essential to feeling comfortable in an emotionally charged relationship, and because many people have grown up seeing monogamy as a personal and social expression of the integrity of a pair-bond.

As a strategy for HIV prevention, however, monogamy can be highly problematic. Because the epidemiological value of monogamy is so intertwined with its emotional and interpersonal meanings, prevention educators believe that in some cases it can actually be a barrier to prevention rather than an aid. A partner in a monogamous relationship who slips and has a sexual contact outside the relationship, which may put him or her at risk for HIV infection, may be afraid to tell the primary partner about the contact for fear of the partner's response to this dual betrayal. In such situations, the offending partner may feel forced to conceal the marital breach from the other partner and may even deny to him- or herself that the event occurred, thereby increasing the likelihood of infecting the partner. This may be the case even when partners have adopted the strategy of "negotiated risk" -- in which partners agree to predetermine the level of sexual risk they feel comfortable with -- and have established a standing agreement acknowledging the reality that unsafe extramarital sexual encounters may occur and that the viability of the couple depends upon their ability to openly discuss such encounters.

Nonetheless, most people, gay and straight alike, value monogamy as an important aspect of a romantic relationship, and many current HIV-prevention campaigns regard monogamy as an ideal form for a relationship. Most heterosexuals, across racial and socioeconomic lines, regard monogamy as an adequate prevention strategy and do not use condoms for HIV prevention within the relationship. For gay men, the situation is quite different. Small studies have shown that even gay male couples who espouse and practice monogamy still regularly use condoms for anal sex. This suggests a tacit recognition of the difficulty and rarity of the maintenance of true monogamy, even within a committed and loving relationship.


Related Entries:

Abstinence; Couples; Families; Safer Sex


Key Words:

committed relationships, marriage, monogamy, negotiated risk, partnering, spouses


Further Reading

Bullough, V. L., and B. Bullough, eds., Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, New York: Garland, 1994

Kalichman, S. C., Answering Your Questions About AIDS, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1996

Kelly, Jeffrey A., Changing HIV Risk Behavior: Practical Strategies, New York: Guilford, 1995


The Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record of the HIV Epidemic, Raymond A. Smith, Editor. Copyright © 1998, Raymond A. Smith. Carried by permission of Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

Encyclopedia of AIDS $25 US/832 pp/Illustrated

 

 
Please feel free to let me know how many "anecdotes" I'll need to come up with in order for you to drop your uncalled for, rude and, frankly, annoying attitude.

64 posted on 06/21/2003 12:46:49 PM PDT by AnnaZ (unspunwithannaz.blogspot.com... "It is UNSPUN and it is Unspun, but it is not unspun." -- unspun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
. I do not believe that extending the now "idea" of "marriage" to homosexuals will change the destructive nature of the lifestyle, and this not by my own perhaps prejudicial presumptions, but by paying attention to their own words.

"Small studies have shown that even gay male couples who espouse and practice monogamy still regularly use condoms for anal sex. This suggests a tacit recognition of the difficulty and rarity of the maintenance of true monogamy, even within a committed and loving relationship."

This is talking only about gay male couples.  The idea of marriage for homosexuals is not male only.
This also says nothing about a married relationship being worse than one not.  It surely doesn't say that
it will make things worse, which was, after all the point of the conversation.

I'll need to come up with in order for you to drop your uncalled for, rude and, frankly, annoying attitude.

Tsk tsk.

65 posted on 06/21/2003 12:58:47 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Theosis
**Canada has now crossed the Tiber back into pagan lands.**

Subtle but powerful words.

Everyone ready for the underground church?

66 posted on 06/21/2003 1:35:31 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theosis
His last sentence says volumes:

So begin lobbying your elected officials now for a constitutional ammendment to protect the common definition of marriage.

67 posted on 06/21/2003 1:39:56 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
It surely doesn't say that it will make things worse, which was, after all the point of the conversation.
Not really... the point, at least to me, was that it wouldn't necessarily make things better. Forgive me, please, if we misunderstood each other.
 
Here, in one's own words (normally I prefer to repost but...): http://www.thestranger.com/2002-06-27/ex7.html

68 posted on 06/21/2003 1:47:11 PM PDT by AnnaZ (unspunwithannaz.blogspot.com... "It is UNSPUN and it is Unspun, but it is not unspun." -- unspun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
Canada's Federal government already provides tax dollars to churches. It will not be a difficult step to "order" religions to accept homosexual marriages or loose tax dollars. Homosexual groups will be "outraged" at the diversion of tax dollars for "unaccepting" religions.
69 posted on 06/21/2003 1:50:41 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Theosis
In the olds days, this would have been called "11", "66", "99", or "69", but with current obesity from pertetual over eating, "88".

Prostate pals can call their unions something, but "marriage" it is not.

I suggest "sodomage" for men, "lesbosage" for women, and "Lord only knowns" for the transexuals confusion.
70 posted on 06/21/2003 1:51:05 PM PDT by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Not really... the point, at least to me, was that it wouldn't necessarily make things better.

  To: AnnaZ

Then you agree that marriage will make it worse? I'd really like to understand that.

30 posted on 06/21/2003 1:03 PM CDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]




71 posted on 06/21/2003 1:51:38 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Malsua
the point about insurance is an EXCELLENT point. I am personall aware on one male/female couple which was married JUST because of insurance. He was a homosexual and married her for insurance. She did not care and still lead her own life. (btw he was gay and was able to marry, just to a woman.)
72 posted on 06/21/2003 1:54:10 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The metaphor is apt. This is soul-wrenching stuff that changes the psyche of a nation. The comparison is to the gut-reaction of revulsion, nothing else. I would think this is more akin to Roe vs. Wade, however--it has split the country into two camps and it will not go away. There will be conflict over this for generations to come.
73 posted on 06/21/2003 2:51:06 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Once you get over the notion that what other adults choose to do with their lives is any of your business, the soul wrenching will go away. Trust me. :)
74 posted on 06/21/2003 3:02:59 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
This is not about how "others live their lives", it is about forcing a decadent morality onto the majority. Two completely irreconcilable value-schemes are clashing--and one is brutally imposing its will on the other. This will rend the nation politically and socially for generations. Your very attitude is very indicative of further conflicts coming. They are not going to disappear, they are going to intensify. On the one hand will be the indifferent like yourself, who are unbothered by the dictatorial means by which this came about, and on the other, will be those who bitterly resent the undemocratic way this calamity was imposed on the nation. I see dark days ahead for Canada.
75 posted on 06/21/2003 3:08:58 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
This is not about how "others live their lives", it is about forcing a decadent morality onto the majority.

Well, no.   You are presuming to judge how others wish to live their lives, and you are judging it to be immoral. However, their private acts do not impinge on you one way or the other.  No one is mandating that  you  live as a homosexual, so nothing is being forced on you, either.  You may choose to accept their lifestyle or reject it, but to use the powers of the state to control nonviolent adult behavior is immoral.
76 posted on 06/21/2003 3:16:27 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: saquin
This was not for the few to decide. It's wrong to use the judicial system to impose a minority view so alien to the majority. This is about the end of true democracy. This is about tyranny and will split the nation in two.
77 posted on 06/21/2003 3:24:02 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: saquin
You got it wrong. AIDS is spread chiefly by anal sex.
78 posted on 06/21/2003 3:29:18 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The idea that this has "nothing to do with how others live their lives" is bunk. It has everything to do with ignoring the legislative process and imposing your will on the majority. When you do this, how are you not interfering with other people's lives?

It is amusing that the very same people who talk about letting other people live their lives, are the ones who have a fit if someone smokes a cigarette in their presence. Liberals are constantly demanding tolerance for themselves while they extend very little to anybody else.
79 posted on 06/21/2003 3:54:31 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
When you do this, how are you not interfering with other people's lives?

How does this interfere with your life?
Will you be forced into a gay marriage?
80 posted on 06/21/2003 4:01:48 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson