Study Indicates HOMOSEXUAL ACTS Shorten Lifespan

007

Charter Member
May 8, 2004
47,724
19,409
2,290
Podunk, WI
Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan

A new study by the Family Research Institute adds strong new evidence that homosexual acts lead to morbid sicknesses and early death.

Careful sifting of evidence from four separate databases support the conclusion that homosexual activities may shorten the person’s lifespan by as much as 30 years.

Obituaries in the homosexual press along with data from two large, random sexuality surveys and a comparison of tests on IV drug users and homosexuals were used. In each case, median age of death was less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality.

One of the studies was done in Colorado and indicated that homosexuals and IV drug users are 10 times as likely to die before age 65 than the rest of the state population.

This recent study confirms evidence published by FRI in 1993. There, 6,714 obituaries from 16 U. S. homosexual journals over a 12 year span were compared to a large sampling of regular newspaper obituaries.

Median age of death for the homosexuals was less than 45, with only 2 percent surviving past 65, while the median age for the regular population was over 70 with more than 60 percent living past 65.

Causes of early death included murder, accidents and drug abuse, but primarily sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more likely to commit suicide, 18 times more apt to die in traffic accidents.

Before the "sexual revolution," only a few STDs were even identified.

Now, AIDS is only one of more that three dozen STDs commonly seen in medical centers in the larger cities.

People addicted to both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity now travel the world to find new thrills. They return with not only AIDS, but virulent forms of hepatitis and TB, intestinal parasites, and other diseases transmitted by the exchange of blood and other body fluids.

God’s requirement of monogamous heterosexuality contains great protection against spread of disease. Sex was designed as an expression of love between a man and woman committed to each other for life.

Using sex to chase an ever growing appetite for greater thrills creates frustrations often expressed in violence. Such a struggle for satisfaction leads to abuse of the body, breaking down its normal defenses against disease.

Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.

Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk.

God’s way is always best. We, who are Christians, must bear witness to this truth every way possible.


http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html
 
Freedom comes from obediences to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. It seems contrary to some people but its so true. this is a clear example. Its rather sad that so many people have to die when its so preventable. It just goes to show you how selfishness can kill people.

On the brighter side, since we have a population dragging down the average life expectancy. I know in my subculture i have a life expectancy of about 85 years. Thats almost double the life expectancy of a homosexual....i hope i actually live that long.

Screen your partner and use proper protection.

Problem solved.

Oh, and drive safer.

You just dont get it. There are natural consequences for our actions. Since there is a religious aspect to this. God doesnt tell us to do or not to do things cause he is a slave driver. He tells us to do or not do things because there are natural consequences for our actions, which He knows and He is trying to warn us and show us the way to really be happy. Im not talking about a fun time or intense pleasure or anything like that. But lasting fulfilling happiness can only come from living principles of truth.

You think you can be careful and still do what you want. But your actions still have their natural consequences. And if you continue making poor choices you will end up regretting it down the road.
 
Avatar4321 said:
You just dont get it. There are natural consequences for our actions. Since there is a religious aspect to this. God doesnt tell us to do or not to do things cause he is a slave driver. He tells us to do or not do things because there are natural consequences for our actions, which He knows and He is trying to warn us and show us the way to really be happy. Im not talking about a fun time or intense pleasure or anything like that. But lasting fulfilling happiness can only come from living principles of truth.

You think you can be careful and still do what you want. But your actions still have their natural consequences. And if you continue making poor choices you will end up regretting it down the road.

I think I got ya. But the 'natural consequences' as described above can be avoided simply by using protection and having your partner tested before intercourse. After all, this is the health thread. I can't really argue against "god says its a sin" because I don't believe he exists...but that's for another time and place, and not really part of your post.
 
nakedemperor said:
I think I got ya. But the 'natural consequences' as described above can be avoided simply by using protection and having your partner tested before intercourse. After all, this is the health thread. I can't really argue against "god says its a sin" because I don't believe he exists...but that's for another time and place, and not really part of your post.

What you say is true. But then there's THIS issue with queers...

MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity
Jan 16, 2004
By Michael Foust
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.

The researchers interviewed 2,114 people from throughout the city and its suburbs, asking them detailed questions about their sexual behavior and beliefs.

While the research dealt with the behavior of all people -- heterosexuals included -- its findings on homosexual men are sure to raise eyebrows.

"Informants from several institutional spheres noted the common expectation among white gay men of having multiple sex partners," researchers wrote. "Ads for gay bars and clubs convey the message that being gay is about having sexual encounters, not relationships.... The majority of personal ads in city papers under the headline 'men seeking men' identify casual sex rather than long-term relationships as their goal."

The sexual partners of homosexual men are likely to be someone they previously did not know, researchers found. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said their circle of friends did not know their most recent sex partner.

The most likely meeting place was a bar or dance club, where 50 percent of homosexual men said they met their most recent partner.

Researchers said that homosexual men tended to be primarily "transactional" -- a term used for seeking short-term sexual encounters -- while homosexual women tended to be more relational by seeking "enduring sexual relationships."

Researchers concluded that a number of factors encourage homosexual male promiscuity, including the presence of popular meeting places and the "absence of cultural forces that encourage monogamy."

The research team was led by Edward O. Laumann, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and the co-author of several other books on sexuality.

Traditionalists say that the lack of monogamy among homosexual men underscores the notion that homosexuality is not natural. They also say that such unhealthy behavior should play a larger role in the national debate over same-sex "marriage," because its legalization would radically undermine the traditional belief in monogamy.

The New York Times ran a story in August showing that homosexuals in Canada, where same-sex "marriage" is legal in two provinces, are not rushing to tie the knot. The story followed two men in their 40s, David Andrew and David Warren, who have lived together for seven years.

Although the men promise to protect one another, the story said "they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in."

UNIONS NOT SO BAD? -- USA Today published a poll Jan. 14 showing Americans opposed to same-sex "marriage" but warmer to Vermont-type civil unions.

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found 53 percent of Americans opposed to legalizing same-sex "marriage," 24 percent supportive and 23 percent with no opinion.

In recent weeks most polls have had opposition above 60 percent. The wording of the question may have influenced the outcome. For this poll Gallup asked, "Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally get married, or do you not have an opinion either way?"

In December, though, Gallup asked, "Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" To that question, 65 percent said they were against legalization. The addition of the word "traditional" may have had an influence.

In the latest poll, 41 percent of Americans said they were opposed to the legalization of civil unions while 34 percent supported them and 25 percent had no opinion.

But the poll continued to show a backlash against recent court rulings favorable to homosexuality. By a 49-46 percent margin, Americans said homosexual relationships should be illegal. Not since 1988 have so many people opposed legalizing same-sex relations. It is also the first time since 1996 that the percentage of "illegal" respondents was higher than "legal" respondents.

The poll of 1,003 adults was conducted Jan. 9-11.

MASS. VOTE DELAY - Robert E. Travaglini, president of the Massachusetts state senate, says he will delay a scheduled vote on a constitutional amendment if the state's high court has not ruled by then on the question of civil unions, according to the Associated Press.

A vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage" is scheduled for Feb. 11, but the Senate is waiting on a ruling from the court to see if civil unions would appease the justices.

Senators hope that the legalization of Vermont-type civil unions will avoid a battle over same-sex "marriage."

Meanwhile, some 90 law professors, including the law school deans from Yale and Stanford, filed a brief with the court Jan. 12 arguing that the state constitution requires the legalization of same-sex "marriage." Their brief came in response to the request by the state senate.

LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA? -- Mark Leno, an openly homosexual member of the California state assembly, announced Jan. 12 he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" in California.

"This bill will ensure that our state treats our loving, committed relationships with the respect they deserve," Leno, a Democrat, said in a statement.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said during his campaign that he is opposed to same-sex "marriage."

HEARING IN INDIANA -- The Indiana Court of Appeals heard arguments Jan. 12 in a case over the legalization of same-sex "marriage."

Three homosexual couples are suing for marriage licenses in the Hoosier State. They are being represented by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, the Indiana branch of the ACLU.

The homosexual couples lost the case in a lower court.

Similar cases are pending in Arizona and New Jersey.

COLEMAN ON BOARD? -- U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., says he expects to support a constitutional marriage amendment, although he opposes the one in its current language, according to the Associated Press.

He said the Federal Marriage Amendment in Congress will have unintended consequences by barring same-sex couples from receiving various benefits --- such as insurance -- that are legal in some states.

"I know that there will be other amendments offered and I expect to support the one that is narrowly tailored to protect marriage because that is what the real issue is," he said.
--30--


http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458
 
nakedemperor said:
I think I got ya. But the 'natural consequences' as described above can be avoided simply by using protection and having your partner tested before intercourse. After all, this is the health thread. I can't really argue against "god says its a sin" because I don't believe he exists...but that's for another time and place, and not really part of your post.

You assume too much. You are assuming that the natural health consequences of the homosexual, and more specific the promiscuous sex life in general, are only STD's and pregnancy. I would be willing to argue that there may be more health factors than just STDs that you worry about.

As for God you are right we can debate that in another thread. I only mentioned Him because the original post did. Trying to explain the spiritual and temporal blessings of chastity to you is like trying to to explain what salt tastes like to someone who has never tasted it. You wont understand it without experiencing it and i have a feeling you would be too closeminded to ever consider it. So I doubt there is much more to this conversation.
 
What I don't understand is why I should worry about their health. They get to choose what they do just as I do, so why should this matter to me at all?

Just as some idiot riding his motorcycle with no helmet is none of my concern, what these people do with their lives is of no concern to me either.

Just as some idiot hires prostitutes and doesn't use protection, once again not my concern.

Too often we worry about how somebody else's lifestyle effects them. So long as they go into their choices with open eyes there is no reason for me to worry at all about how they choose to spend their life.

If that was the sole worry of the US we need to make Extreme Sporting events illegal, no more bullriding it shortens a lifespan, no more driving it kills far more people than AIDS or Cancer in a year combined. Alcohol is right out. Make cigarettes illegal, etc. There is way too many things that can kill you to constantly worry about whom some guy you don't know sleeps with.
 
It is just common sense to figure out that if all the sex you have involves dipping your wick into the dirt road and then walking around with shit on your wick all day or night(sometimes a shower is not readily available lol) you're going to catch some nasty critters. Queers have always had a short lifespan, goes with the territory when you make such a dangerous and wreckless lifestyle choice, sort of like choosing to shoot heroin.
 
i am a lesbian trapped in a mans body (which works out ok for me actually) looks like this won't affect me much :scratch:
 
no1tovote4 said:
What I don't understand is why I should worry about their health. They get to choose what they do just as I do, so why should this matter to me at all?

Two reasons. Compassion, and the fact that we have to pay billions for their health care and Aids research
 
AIDs is no longer a Homosexual disease. Why bitch to the Gays about AIDs any more?

Also do we spend billions on Homosexual health care alone or are you referring to health care in its entirety.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Two reasons. Compassion, and the fact that we have to pay billions for their health care and Aids research

Compassion would encompass paying billions for "their" health care and AIDS reasearch, would it not?

Also, I agree with dead dude; AIDS isnt a gay virus, its a worldwide health epidemic, and requires proper protection awareness and responsible sex lives.
 
nakedemperor said:
Compassion would encompass paying billions for "their" health care and AIDS reasearch, would it not?

Also, I agree with dead dude; AIDS isnt a gay virus, its a worldwide health epidemic, and requires proper protection awareness and responsible sex lives.

NE, I have little compassion for those who fail to take reasonable cautionary measures. Part of the lifestyle of many homosexuals is unprotected sex and/or sex with multiple partners.

Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease. Those who choose to take the risk should then suffer the consequences instead of demanding that the rest of us bail them out of a predicament resulting from their own reckless conduct.
 
nakedemperor said:
Compassion would encompass paying billions for "their" health care and AIDS reasearch, would it not?

No this is the major difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals think its compassionate to treat the symptoms. Conservatives think its compassionate to treat the causes so that the symptoms never rear its ugly head.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease.

Consensaul Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease.

a fine point but important if you are raped
 
deaddude said:
AIDs is no longer a Homosexual disease. Why bitch to the Gays about AIDs any more?

.



Um, because they brought it here in the first place. Then, they showed their concern for the general well-being by fighting, tooth and nail, all sensible efforts by the medical community to arrest the plague through quarantine. This would have portrayed homosexuality in a bad light, you see. Can't have that. Fuck the general welfare.

And now, they seek further codification - further legitimacy - for a demonstrably dangerous and destructive lifestyle through marriage or civil unions. Nice going, guys. Thanks a lot.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Two reasons. Compassion, and the fact that we have to pay billions for their health care and Aids research


And we pay far more billions for the healthcare of underinsured drivers. Why have we not made a Constitutional Amendment in several states regarding the marriage of such drivers? Should we allow underinsured drivers to marry, since they are so unhealthy and they cost us money? If we were truly compassionate about the health of others why allow people to drive at all?

Compassion is fine, but laws built on it? Not until there is a clear victim should a law be created or problems be invented. Just because they have a shorter lifespan than Heteros doesn't mean that it is something we should begin changing the Constitution of even one state over. Too much of our lives is spent making compassionate laws that have no reason to exist exept for our own feelings of what is right for others to participate in. Regardless of whether you think it may be wrong to do this, they certainly have a right to it.
 
musicman said:
Um, because they brought it here in the first place.

They did not as a whole bring the disease here, it was one person who happened to be gay. The virus is no longer strictly homosexual, even if you think that homosexuality is wrong would you deny health care to heterosexual victims, if you make that distinction then whats to stop homosexuals from saying that they are hetero?
 

Forum List

Back
Top