Born a Homo? Part II.

[wade]

No solid scientific evidence exists today that people are born homosexual.

Wrong - there is pleanty of evidence. There just is no "proof".

But tell me Cp, if there were proof would it change your mind? I think not.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Kids really get lost in all of it. They aren't as adaptable as people might think, they learn to internalize everything.

Yes but this is true of many problems the parents might have, ranging from swinging, to alchoholism, drug abuse, financial problems, health problems, etc., etc..

Parent sexual orientation is usually not a problem unless a parent comes out of the closet later in the childs life.

Wade.

 

[OCA]

No solid scientific evidence exists today that people are born homosexual.

Wrong - there is pleanty of evidence. There just is no "proof".

But tell me Cp, if there were proof would it change your mind? I think not.

Wade.

Lol Wade where is this evidence? Pssssst it doesn't exist.

 

[MissileMan]

First of all, living a homosexual lifestyle shortens a man's life expectancy by 30 years.

Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

The fact is, the act of sodomy causes medical damage no matter what the circumstances.

So does "normal" vaginal intercourse with a virgin unless you are hung like a chipmunk!

Our bodies weren't designed to permit two people of the same gender to enjoy sexual activity.

If they really weren't enjoying it, we probably wouldn't be talking about it.

Furthermore, it is known that some homosexuals seek to adopt because they want access to virgins, to protect themselves from deadly diseases. We have no way of making sure that a given potential adoptive couple doesn't fall into that category.

You haven't shown any link between homosexuality and pedophilia. And how do you know that "straight" couples are never in it for the same reason?

You cannot define marriage as anything other than the union of people of opposite genders, because marriage is a covenant relationship designed by God for the procreation and protection of children, and you can't redefine what it is because God already defined it, and we don't have a right to change it.

What if you don't believe in god?

Also, many homosexuals deliberately donate blood in order to infect the blood supply.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is being spread by heterosexual truck drivers.

Many gay activists are seeking to force other people to accept them on equal terms with everyone else, or in fact, to give them privileges not given to anyone else. They seek to force us to accept them for employment (even when the employment involves handling food for the general public), or as tenants in a rental property. Both of these demands would be the basis for unconstitutional laws because we are guaranteed the right to freedom of association.

You absolutely have the right to avoid eating in a restaurant that has a gay employee, and you absolutely have the right to pack up and move somewhere else if you don't like your neighbors.

It is not the same thing as discrimination against people of color or of the female gender, because these are biological characteristics over which a person has no control.

It is indeed discrimination!

Homosexual tendencies could be said to be characteristics over which a person has no control also (but you must overlook the fact that homosexual tendencies are caused by nonbiological causes, such as abuse), but homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice.

You can say that with 100% absolute certainty? Where is your evidence to support it?

We also have every right to oppose this simply because they have chosen to place themselves in a high risk group, and those of us who are prudent are not ethically required to share the cost of their deadly lifestyle. In fact, it is unethical for them even to ask.

Are you going to deny insurance to workers in high-risk professions like coal mining?

We have every right and duty to judge people's lifestyle choices.

I thought the bible said "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

Please note that I am NOT advocating that we forbid homosexuals from forming contractual relationships with each other, or willing their estate to each other.

It sure as hell sounds like it to me!

However, if one of them has a spouse or former spouse where the homosexual lifestyle caused the breakup of the marriage, then that person has the right to overrule the will in a court of law.

Based on what principle? If the divorce is final, the dying spouse can do whatever he wants with his estate.


FYI, I am not gay, but "holier than thou" bible thumpers who see the world through religious blinders really piss me off!

 

[wade]

Khafley--

To posit that homosexual relationships are based on 'lust not love' because you cannot love someone whom you are transfering a deadly disease to assumes something completely nuts: that all homosexuals have deadly diseases. This argument is a non-issue simply because STDs are an issue in both hetero and homosexual relationships. There are physical reasons why homosexuals are more like to transmit diseases to one another, but the disease transfer if merely a function of a) not having your partner tested beforehand and b) of not using proper protection. This is the same trope involved in responsible heterosexual relationships. They both have the same potential for 'deadliness', and both have the same preventative measures.

Second-- 'It is not an act of love to raise a child in a family where a deadly lifestyle is taught as normal.' This is again a assuming that the parents have STDs. Its also irresponsible to claim that homosexual parents 'teach' their children that unprotected promiscuity is normal. A responsible, informed parent would never do such a thing.

Yes Khafley's arguments are all based upon a false premise - that all gays carry STD's. Futhermore, her argument about E.Coli is also false, since it would be the person's own E.Coli that they were exposed to and this is not dangerous.

And besides, more hetro-sexual's engage in anal sex than homosexuals by several fold. Khafley is just sexually naieve.

The highest rates of HIV transmission in the USA today are between hetrosexual teens, not homosexuals.

Wade.

 

[dmp]

Khafley--

To posit that homosexual relationships are based on 'lust not love' because you cannot love someone whom you are transfering a deadly disease to assumes something completely nuts: that all homosexuals have deadly diseases. This argument is a non-issue simply because STDs are an issue in both hetero and homosexual relationships. There are physical reasons why homosexuals are more like to transmit diseases to one another, but the disease transfer if merely a function of a) not having your partner tested beforehand and b) of not using proper protection. This is the same trope involved in responsible heterosexual relationships. They both have the same potential for 'deadliness', and both have the same preventative measures.

Second-- 'It is not an act of love to raise a child in a family where a deadly lifestyle is taught as normal.' This is again a assuming that the parents have STDs. Its also irresponsible to claim that homosexual parents 'teach' their children that unprotected promiscuity is normal. A responsible, informed parent would never do such a thing.

I'd suggest re-reading...it's not just about STDs - but OTHER health issues...

 

[wade]

Subsidizing heterosexuals??????????? Explain please. And yes they do want "special rights" since they are born with every inalienable right that you and I have. They just have to accept that if they choose this lifestyle they will have to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to utilize that right, its as simple as that.

When a gay man works for a company but his health insurance benefits do not extend to his partner, but his co-worker's benefits do extend to his wife, then the gay man is subsidizing his co-worker.

Wade.

 

[wade]

I'd suggest re-reading...it's not just about STDs - but OTHER health issues...

Such as? It's not E.Coli infection as Khafley stated, we all have a basic immunity to our own E.Coli.

Khafley is just spreading malicious lies to support her position and beliefs.

 

[wade]

Lol Wade where is this evidence? Pssssst it doesn't exist.

I posted it in the first generation of this thread. There is both genetic study evidence and empirical study of animals evidence.

Wade.

 

[Said1]

http://www.seghea.com/emails/homo.html

You're smarter than that Khafley, do you really support all the arguments in this article. Parts of it are down right funny. I mean who would tell anyone to lie about their medical or sexual history before giving blood?? Unless your in the porn industry, that's obsurd.

 

[Trinity]

Do you have any facts to back up that statement?



So does "normal" vaginal intercourse with a virgin unless you are hung like a chipmunk!



If they really weren't enjoying it, we probably wouldn't be talking about it.



You haven't shown any link between homosexuality and pedophilia. And how do you know that "straight" couples are never in it for the same reason?



What if you don't believe in god?



The AIDS epidemic in Africa is being spread by heterosexual truck drivers.



You absolutely have the right to avoid eating in a restaurant that has a gay employee, and you absolutely have the right to pack up and move somewhere else if you don't like your neighbors.



It is indeed discrimination!



You can say that with 100% absolute certainty? Where is your evidence to support it?



Are you going to deny insurance to workers in high-risk professions like coal mining?



I thought the bible said "Judge not, lest ye be judged".



It sure as hell sounds like it to me!



Based on what principle? If the divorce is final, the dying spouse can do whatever he wants with his estate.


FYI, I am not gay, but "holier than thou" bible thumpers who see the world through religious blinders really piss me off!

well for your info. I am not a "holier than thou" bible thumper. I am a heterosexual women trying to raise my boys to have morals, ethics, and some common f@$%#ing sense in this F$%^ up world we live in. Which would include not sticking their penis's were they don't belong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[no1tovote4]

I could not disagree more, and here I am talking from personal experience. One of my neighbors, a married couple with children, are swingers, and let me tell you their kids are seriously damaged from their lifestyle. The older daughter, is little more than a whore, and their teenage son is also damaged goods. He is a friendly kid and from saying hello to each other while outside the house, one day the kid asked me for a ride to the store. We talked in the car, and I took an interest in this kid. He was a good-hearted kid who was going down the wrong path. He asked me if he could do some paid yard work to which I agreed. As time went on he started talking to me about problems in his life. He knew what his parents were doing and it hurt him very much inside, and he started not to care about much anymore, and that was reflected in his behavior. At least this story has a good ending; he started to think of me as an uncle and really started to listen to what I had to say, and my thoughts on life and how to deal with it. Long story short he turned out to be a decent young adult. The bad part is most of these situations don't have a happy ending like this one !!

There are ways to be part of that lifestyle without that. It sounds like irresponsible parenting, but that can happen without sexual differences. If they worked to assure that their children did not see and were not part of the lifestyle itself (as many parents do) they can be part of much different lifestyles without creating victims of their children.

To give an example. I grew up in a very strict Pentacostal church. Among many things they looked down on both my sister and I because we were children of divorce. During my time there I saw several movies, at very young ages, dealing with the rapture. In their raving about their religion they never realized the damage they were causing to many young children. In one movie they had a child return home to find his parents gone, they had been raptured but bad boy as he was he was left behind. And that is only one example. One time I came home, my Mother was not there the water was running and all the lights were on, the TV was blaring. Unbeknownst to me, they had shut down the electricity and water in the area and my mother had left when it stopped working to find out what was happening. I was nearly panicked. I was six years old. I thought God had left me behind.

Now, believing they were helping me to be more of a Christian they forced children to watch such an emotionally crippling show. They thought the fear of God was a good thing, but all it did was make me fear the Church. It took years of adult life to get over some of the anger of what that Church forced on me and my sister and to be able to accept Christians as the mostly forgiving and good people that they are.

There are many different things Parents can do thinking they are helping their children that will damage them. To assume that this is the only damaging thing or that it can't also be handled in a healthy way would be incorrect. There are millions of people with different sexual tastes and a wonderful diversity that they take in their pleasure. So long as they are responsible adults there is no reason that they should not be able to partake in what they wish.

 

[Trinity]

Such as? It's not E.Coli infection as Khafley stated, we all have a basic immunity to our own E.Coli.

Khafley is just spreading malicious lies to support her position and beliefs.

All right Wade go back and read my post, it says.....................................


Here is an interesting piece I came across. .........................


Do you bother to read anything? or just spout off? You want links give me a minute I'll get you some links to back up some of what is in that staement if not all. depending on how much time I have.

 

[Trinity]

Playing politics with the blood supply




An advisory committee to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration actually considered whether to change federal regulations to allow homosexual and bisexual men to donate blood to blood banks, even though homosexual and bisexual men make up the majority of Americans infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS. Italics definitely mine.
Sanity prevailed on the committee, but only by a single vote. There's no medical reason to make such a radical and medically risky change, since there's no shortage of blood acute enough to justify the increased risk of spreading AIDS.
But election-year politics is at stake, and the FDA, an agency presided over by Welfare Secretary Donna Shalala, still must make a final decision.
Gay-pride activists argue that to continue the current practice of shunning blood suspected of HIV-contamination "discriminates" against homosexual and bisexual men. The American Red Cross, which collects more blood than any other organization, thinks such a change would be looney, though Red Cross spokesmen naturally wouldn't say it quite that way.
Since the feelings of some homosexuals are hurt, it's better, or at least more politic in the current climate, to risk spreading AIDS to innocent men, women and children — and to uninfected homosexual men — than to risk hurting the feelings of an important Democratic constituency.
Homosexual men are not the only prospective donors who are prohibited from giving (or selling) blood. Druggies who pop an intravenous fix, and even those who used to do that but no longer do, are shunned, too. So are hemophiliacs who have used clotting concentrates made from blood. So is anyone who has lived in or visited anyone in Nigeria, Cameroon and six other sub-Saharan African nations. But nobody has so far suggested relaxing the ban on their blood. We may have a serious civil-rights violation here. Hate crime, anyone?
The blood banks promise to take certain precautions, of course. Such homosexual donors would have to say they have not had sexual relations with other men for at least a year, and since everyone knows that nobody ever lies about sex, that presumably should satisfy the FDA and the blood banks.
"We think this is fair, since there are new tests that detect infectious diseases earlier," says a spokesman for the blood banks. One test in routine use at blood banks today can detect the presence of HIV 16 days after infection. Another test already in use at some blood banks can detect HIV's genetic material 8 to 12 days after infection. "Our highest priority is to enhance the safety and availability of blood," she says. "We believe this change would not compromise that." Well, not unless you're luckless enough to get the blood of an infected homosexual who donated blood within that 8-, 12- or 16-day window before the tests could detect it. If that happens, well, shut up and remember that life is unfair.
Many doctors, who have responsibilities to specific patients, don't trust the blood supply now. You could ask a candidate for surgery who has been urged to stockpile his or her own blood in advance of the cut.
"Some of the questions they ask are fairly blunt," one such surgical candidate says. "What kind of sexual activity I've had in the past few months, even whether I had sold or bought sex. I felt sorry for the nurse asking me the questions, having to treat me as if I might have been a part-time hooker."
Mark Leno, a county supervisor in San Francisco, complains that the current policy of caution is bad because it focuses on homosexual men, who are most likely to be infected with HIV, and doesn't take into account heterosexuals, who are not likely to be infected with HIV.
"There continues to be a lot of misunderstanding and concern on the public's part," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. "The safety of the public blood supply is extremely important." Just not as important as the self-esteem of his constituents.
Mr. Leno is wrong. There's very little misunderstanding on the public's part. The public, despite the earnest exertions and exhortations of the homosexual lobby and its eager sopranos and contraltos in the media chorus, understand that AIDS is almost altogether a disease of homosexuals and druggies, and most of the so-called heterosexual-AIDS sufferers are women who, for miserable reasons of their own, live with infected druggies and are on the receiving end of love where most of us sit down. Two decades of frantic propaganda to persuade everyone otherwise has not worked, and won't work, because the hard facts speak in such loud, clear voice.


Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39c1aa1c361b.htm

 

[Trinity]

While tolerance of homosexuality is increasingly taught in America's schools, very little is said about the extreme health risks associated with it. Life expectancy of homosexuals has been found to be approximately 41 years, according to a 1994 study of obituaries in gay publications.

A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology reported that the life span of a 20-year-old homosexual or bisexual man in a Canadian metropolitan area is 8 to 20 years less than the average male. The study's authors wrote: "If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

In 1998, another study, this one in the journal Psychological Reports, used four contemporary databases to conclude that homosexual activity may diminish life expectancy by 20 to 30 years. By comparison, the National Cancer Institute says that cigarette use lops 7 to 10 years from the average smoker's life.

Even before the devastating AIDS epidemic broke on the homosexual scene in the early 1980s, gays' life spans were severely truncated by comparison with the national average. In 1977, the largest survey of homosexuals up to that time reported only 0.2 percent of lesbians and 0.8 percent of gay males were age 65 or older. Also, as long ago as the 1930s and '40s, sex researcher and sex-liberation pioneer Alfred Kinsey reported that less than 1 percent of the homosexuals he studied were over age 65.

The reasons for the vastly reduced life expectancy are the large number of life-threatening and debilitating diseases prevalent in the homosexual community and the high rates of transmission through dangerous sexual practices common among gays.

Today, for example, homosexuals account for roughly half of all syphilis cases in America. They are 5,000 times more likely than heterosexuals to contract AIDS and are 8 times more susceptible to deadly, liver-destroying hepatitis viruses. Ninety percent of gay men have chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes, cytomegalovirus, or hepatitis B. Also, around half of homosexuals have been found to be afflicted by a group of otherwise rare bowel diseases, collectively known as gay bowel syndrome, that include amebiasis and ... Read Full Article


http://www.worldandihomeschool.com/public_articles/2002/july/wis22372.asp

 

[dmp]

Such as? It's not E.Coli infection as Khafley stated, we all have a basic immunity to our own E.Coli.

Khafley is just spreading malicious lies to support her position and beliefs.

Are you honestly stupid/naive enough to think a homosexual lifestyle is just as healthy as a hetero??

 

[Trinity]

here's another interesting link

http://www.eaglescoutrally.org/articles/yinger011901.htm

and another

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=43&art_id=1683

 

[Trinity]

Oh and one more thing............ from personal experiance, I had an uncle and 2 cousins, notice the term had, who were homosexuals there all dead now. They died from AIDS. Uncle was around the age of 38. one cousin was 22 and the other was in his late 20"s. They uncle I know was raised in a very strict catholic home with an alcholic father. The cousins I'm not sure about. I also have a step sister who claims she is bi-sexual. So what, she can just turn her gene's off and on when ever the mood strikes her. I think Not. She also was raised in a dysfunctional family her mother is a nut case and her father abandon her as a baby. Oh and she also gets depressed around this time of the year because of the trauma she claims she went thru, when we ran away together as teens, 20 years ago. Oh please get over it all ready.


and your going to try to tell me it's genetic, I don't think so more like they need there heads examined.

 

[Said1]

As luck would have it, I happen to know for a FACT that the married, bible thumping, born again "come to the church youth group Tracy and learn how to live a proper Christian life" man across the street is gay/bi. But I don't judge his hypocracy, he's the only one who has to justify his actions to a higher power, just like everyone else, gay or not. I only wonder how he managed to live well past 60.

 

[dmp]

As luck would have it, I happen to know for a FACT that the married, bible thumping, born again "come to the church youth group Tracy and learn how to live a proper Christian life" man across the street is gay/bi. But I don't judge his hypocracy, he's the only one who has to justify his actions to a higher power, just like everyone else, gay or not. I only wonder how he managed to live well past 60.

We all have sin in our lives - unrepentant sinners, even among believers, need to keep away from leadership positions in the church; if that's how i read your post.