Study Indicates HOMOSEXUAL ACTS Shorten Lifespan

[Merlin1047]

So, by any honest attempt to establish definition, "homophobia" can only mean, "irrational fear of human beings" - in other words - nothing. It is an underhanded attempt to acheive legitimization for a perverted lifestyle through the disingenuous manipulation of language. And - as Mariner was helpful enough to point out - it's not the first.

Those who promote the homosexual lifestyle would no doubt see your devotion to definition as amounting to carping. But the fact is that leftists in general, and homosexuals in particular love to engage in Orwellian "newspeak". They believe that by reinventing the language, they can make their behavior more acceptable to the mainstream. They believe that they can hide behind euphemisms and politically correct leftist rhetoric.

It rather reminds me of a rape trial where the defense attorney tries to get his guilty client off the hook by demonizing the victim and suggesting that somehow she deserved it. Homosexuals are demonizing those who oppose their deviant and perverted behavior in an effort to silence the opposition. They figure that if they cannot gain acceptance, then they will settle for characterizing criticism of homosexuals as a "phobia" - thereby shifting the focus away from their conduct and painting those who do not share their views as irrational and unbalanced.

What the homosexual support group fails to understand is the principle of backlash. If homosexuals limited themselves to presenting rational arguments, devoid of half-truths, distortions, and personal attacks they might gain some substantial support. But when they engage in strident, obnoxious, screeching, inflammatory rhetoric they cause others to cease listening. When they have "gay pride" days where they prance around with the butt cut out of their jeans, when they conduct themselves in a manner totally unacceptable in public, then they cause more and more people to say "Hell no. This is not the kind of society I want."

And to get back on topic, let's cut to the chase about this whole homosexual marriage issue. The bottom line is money - period. Homosexuals want access to employer sponsored health care programs so that they have another avenue to pay for AIDS treatment. They want access to government benefits currently limited to heterosexual married couples. They want the benefit of reduced taxes from a joint tax return for a married couple. THAT'S what this is all about. They can spout about rights and equality all they want, but the bottom line is money.

And one more note on the so-called "civil union" garbage. Somebody explain to me the difference between a civil marriage and a civil union. Aside from a whole bunch of screeching and some smartass pablum, I've failed to get a rational answer on this point. I suspect that the reason for that is that there is no rational answer. The two are, from a legalistic view, one and the same.

 

[Mariner]

the particular moral absolutes promulgated by Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think J-C culture has any more legitimacy than Hindu culture or Aleut culture. People are equal. I refuse to accept that you are better than me because of your religion--or worse.

OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?

OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? Since you believe it's a choice, then you presumably made a conscious decision at some point to prefer women to men? How did you go about making that choice? Did you weigh pros and cons? If it's a choice, then why do you feel such disgust when imagining gay sexuality? If it were really a choice, you'd simply feel, "Oh, I happen to prefer chocolate to vanilla." Your level of disgust strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice at all.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

believe in the particular moral absolutes promulgated by Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think J-C culture has any more legitimacy than Hindu culture or Aleut culture. People are equal. Different cultures have different values, and I don't believe I have the right to place mine above theirs. I consider cultures that are willing to place themselves above others to be arrogant, and I think this arrogance leads to all sorts of problems when cultures collide. In the "red" heartland where there is near-unanimity of cultural beliefs, maybe you can get away with it. On the coasts and along the rivers, where there is contact with the outside world, I think you need to develop more tolerant beliefs in order to get by--unless of course you're happy offending others all day long. I don't think it's any surprise that the "purple" map of the recent election shows clearly that the further you are from contact with the outside world, the more you were likely to prefer Bush's born-again worldview.

OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?

OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? If you believe it's a choice, to you feel you could equally easily choose not to be straight yourself?

Mariner.

Go talk to your muslim friends about tolerance. Go tell them about it as they kill their own daughter for being raped.

 

[Mariner]

There you go again, overgeneralizing. Fundamentalist, theocratic Muslim regimes do indeed violate basic human rights. I've said before that I think multi-culturalism can be taken too far, and that there is a bottom-line need for seeking universal values. The world is working on that. I would think the example of Muslim fundamentalism would make Christian fundamentalists more wary about seeking to enforce on others their own most strident beliefs, but it doesn't seem to, for some reason.

My particular Muslim friends are highly critical of Muslim intolerance for human rights when it occurs.

Mariner.

 

[Merlin1047]

In the "red" heartland where there is near-unanimity of cultural beliefs, maybe you can get away with it. On the coasts and along the rivers, where there is contact with the outside world,

LOL - you have the nerve to call people with core values arrogant and then you make a statement like that. Examine your own attitude - you view the populace of conservative states as a collection of inbred, drooling, knuckle-dragging, sister-dating retards. You think that someone who lives in a "red" state has no contact with the outside world. Well, I've been from one side of this globe to the other and I'm about as "red state" as you can get.

OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?

Not that it's any of your business, but as it happens, I have a half-brother who is homosexual. That doesn't mean that I don't love him. That also doesn't mean that I don't think he's a pervert - and I have told him so. But somehow we still manage to get along. Weird, ain't it.

Now excuse me, but I've got to go to a family reunion to look for a date for the office party.

 

[OCA]

the particular moral absolutes promulgated by Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think J-C culture has any more legitimacy than Hindu culture or Aleut culture. People are equal. I refuse to accept that you are better than me because of your religion--or worse.

OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?

OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? Since you believe it's a choice, then you presumably made a conscious decision at some point to prefer women to men? How did you go about making that choice? Did you weigh pros and cons? If it's a choice, then why do you feel such disgust when imagining gay sexuality? If it were really a choice, you'd simply feel, "Oh, I happen to prefer chocolate to vanilla." Your level of disgust strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice at all.

Mariner.

Answer to question 1: would seek immediate help whether it be medical or psychological, in the case of a boy it would be a quick trip to a Reno whorehouse. If behavior persisted it would kill me but the relationship would be terminated until situation rectified by choice perversionist.

#2: Lol you people just don't get it, we are ALL born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex....reread your biology. Its like trying to argue that the sun rises in the west **sigh**

There was a fool on here by the name of Mattskramer who used all the same foolish arguments equalizing sexuality with food etc. etc. those arguments were plundered and raped. Why is it hard for you to understand? You have a natural attraction to the opposite sex, you CHOOSE TO BE WITH THE SAME SEX..sort of like if i'm with a woman and decide instead of the pussy i'm gonna tag her in the ass....that is choice. Homos all want the pussy subconsciously but choose to eat pipes or in the case of women munch muff.

 

[OCA]

Hey Mariner nice edit of your post...I think Merlin caught the quote I wanted, the one about middle America being out of touch...or was that less educated you meant to say? Your condescencion and feeling of superiority to those who reject socialist secular beliefs is vividly ugly.

 

[nakedemperor]

Why do liberals have such a problem accepting that there are and have been moral absolutes?

No problem with that, but the bible isn't a perfect barometer of moral absolutes, and the bible is the impetus for many peoples' inabilities to accept homosexuality. Then again, the bible also condones slavery (as long as you treat your slaves well, and release them after 7 years, or something). Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not put it in a person's butt...? You're right, being able to fall romantically in love with someone of the same sex is OBVIOUSLY a hardline moral absolute.

 

[deaddude]

So we shouldnt judge criminals? Or should we only follow the bible when it suits your liberal self? It also says homosexuality is a sin.

Is my using one part of the bible to make my point any worse then you using one part of the Bible to judge homosexuals?

Which testament is the homosexuality as sin thing in anyway? Also does the bible have an opinion on lesbians?

 

[manu1959]

OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? Since you believe it's a choice, then you presumably made a conscious decision at some point to prefer women to men? How did you go about making that choice? Did you weigh pros and cons? If it's a choice, then why do you feel such disgust when imagining gay sexuality? If it were really a choice, you'd simply feel, "Oh, I happen to prefer chocolate to vanilla." Your level of disgust strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice at all.

Mariner.

ok if it is not a choice then what is it?

learned behavoiur? genetic?

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

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

You tell us nothing we don't know already.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

LOL - you have the nerve to call people with core values arrogant and then you make a statement like that. Examine your own attitude - you view the populace of conservative states as a collection of inbred, drooling, knuckle-dragging, sister-dating retards. You think that someone who lives in a "red" state has no contact with the outside world. Well, I've been from one side of this globe to the other and I'm about as "red state" as you can get.



Not that it's any of your business, but as it happens, I have a half-brother who is homosexual. That doesn't mean that I don't love him. That also doesn't mean that I don't think he's a pervert - and I have told him so. But somehow we still manage to get along. Weird, ain't it.

Now excuse me, but I've got to go to a family reunion to look for a date for the office party.

I hate it when people excuse homosexuality just cause they have gay relatives. I do and they're all total pervs. And don't anyone ever bring up Cheney's d-a-u-g-h-t-e-r. Just as perved as all the others.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

There sure is alot of talk about "God" today!

 

[007]

Those who promote the homosexual lifestyle would no doubt see your devotion to definition as amounting to carping. But the fact is that leftists in general, and homosexuals in particular love to engage in Orwellian "newspeak". They believe that by reinventing the language, they can make their behavior more acceptable to the mainstream. They believe that they can hide behind euphemisms and politically correct leftist rhetoric.

It rather reminds me of a rape trial where the defense attorney tries to get his guilty client off the hook by demonizing the victim and suggesting that somehow she deserved it. Homosexuals are demonizing those who oppose their deviant and perverted behavior in an effort to silence the opposition. They figure that if they cannot gain acceptance, then they will settle for characterizing criticism of homosexuals as a "phobia" - thereby shifting the focus away from their conduct and painting those who do not share their views as irrational and unbalanced.

What the homosexual support group fails to understand is the principle of backlash. If homosexuals limited themselves to presenting rational arguments, devoid of half-truths, distortions, and personal attacks they might gain some substantial support. But when they engage in strident, obnoxious, screeching, inflammatory rhetoric they cause others to cease listening. When they have "gay pride" days where they prance around with the butt cut out of their jeans, when they conduct themselves in a manner totally unacceptable in public, then they cause more and more people to say "Hell no. This is not the kind of society I want."

And there you have it. For Christ sake, READ IT, DIVULGE IT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

 

[Mariner]

editing it, even if Right Wing responded within seconds of the original version. Right, I decided I didn't want to imply that people were so out of touch in the heartland--after all, I was once engaged to a heartland woman, and her family was not out of touch at all. And my best friend, though he now lives in the East, is as heartland as an be.

On the other hand, the map itself is rather remarkable--you can follow blue paths up the rivers and along the coasts. If it doesn't mean that greater exposure to diversity and ideas makes people less receptive to Bush's message, then what does it mean? Cambridge is 2/3 non-white, as is Boston. 90 languages are spoken in the school where I teach. That makes it a pretty different environment from central Oklahoma, doesn't it? (And please notice I didn't say "better," I said different.)

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

a visit to Reno, you crack me up. Well, I give you credit for consistency.

Pale Rider. OK, I see you point. You're saying that the word homophobic itself seems to have built in prejudice, kind of like Bush's use of "death tax" for the inheritance tax. To me, and to many other people, it's just a descriptor, though--maybe you're putting ideas into our heads that aren't there? I said several times that the "mild" definition proposed on the religious tolerance website was how I intended to use the word, and others here agreed that it's frequently used that way.

Manu, if it's not a choice then maybe it's not a choice: the person simply realizes that he/she is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, in the same way those of who are straight experience our first inklings of attraction to the opposite sex. I don't know for sure--I'm not gay--but that's how my gay friends describe it.

I have repeatedly seen the need to love one's family members overcome dislike-of-homosexuality (are you happy with that phrase, PaleRider?) I actually posted the question because there was a gay relative of my wife's at Thanksgiving--my wife's conservative parents accepted him just fine--and because last evening I talked with a couple who were strict Catholics, both of whose sons have come out as gay--the couple chose to revise their beliefs rather than reject their sons. I believe there is a one-way street here, as gay people feel more comfortable out of the closet, leading to greater acceptance of gay people in general--just as Dick Cheney can't openly criticize homosexuality any more, as it would mean condemning a daughter he loves.

OCA, if it was truly a choice that could go either way, then the rational person would want to try it both ways before deciding which was better, no? You didn't answer my question--how DID you decide?

Merlin, as for the difference between civil union and civil marriage: the problem is that the word marriage is used in current law. So to offer marriage to some couples but not to others is to discriminate. So either gov't can get out of the business of marriage, and offer everyone a civil union, or it ought to offer all couples marriage. That was the essence of the Mass. Supreme Court's ruling, which was quite eloquent and which I recommend reading.

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

Mariner:

You can't seriously believe that red states being "inland" constitutes their being cut off from the outside world - not in this day and age - not with today's technology.

If you can find it, take a look at the demographic map that breaks down which candidate carried which COUNTY. That map tells the real story. You won't have trouble recognizing it; it is far from "purple". It's a big RED doohinky with tiny little blue specks on it, where you find the major cities. It is proof positive that our founding fathers were indeed wise when they established the electoral system. City voters look at things differently from their country cousins. Why penalize the rural voter - the more self-reliant, "get Big Daddy Government out of my way" voter, simply because he is outnumbered in the tiny little clusters known as cities?

I'll credit you with having edited your post, but - face it - words that could be construed as contemptuous of those who don't share your views actually left your lips ( or, more accurately, your fingertips). Maybe you ought to get out of the city every now and then.

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin, as for the difference between civil union and civil marriage: the problem is that the word marriage is used in current law. So to offer marriage to some couples but not to others is to discriminate. So either gov't can get out of the business of marriage, and offer everyone a civil union, or it ought to offer all couples marriage. That was the essence of the Mass. Supreme Court's ruling, which was quite eloquent and which I recommend reading.

Mariner.

That is no difference - that is merely equivocation. And your conclusion is faulty. You jump to the conclusion that homosexuals have a RIGHT to be married by the state merely because they WANT to be married. Simply because one claims a certain "right" does not mean that such a "right" actually exists, or if it exists in some form, that such a "right" is protected by the Constitution. Yes, prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is discriminatory. But such discrimination is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. We, as a society, have a right to determine the criteria for marriage (unions). That has been true for centuries. Courts have no basis for meddling in this area. If homosexuals are to be given the privelige of married status, then that must be decided by referendum. The decision on who has a right to be married in our society belongs to the people, not to the courts. Homosexuals seek to subvert the will of the people by doing a sleazy end-run around the law with the assistance of liberal activist judges.

The ruling of the Mass Supreme Court is just about as noteworthy as a ruling from the 9th circuit out in la-la-land. Both are populated by liberals with agendas. They do not interpret the law, they seek instead to change it to suit their own views. Unfortunately this kind of judicial activism is becoming more common and points out the fact that we are badly in need of getting control of our rogue court system. But that is another subject.

 

[Merlin1047]

On the other hand, the map itself is rather remarkable--you can follow blue paths up the rivers and along the coasts. If it doesn't mean that greater exposure to diversity and ideas makes people less receptive to Bush's message, then what does it mean?

Mariner, if you were familiar with the demographics of the "blue" areas along the Mississippi river, you would know that those areas contain a high percentage of black voters. Same as the blue belt from Georgia, across central Alabama and into eastern Mississippi.

Black voters traditionally vote Democrat. That was borne out by the statistic in the last election which showed nearly 90 percent of black people supporting kerry.

So your supposition that those living along Old Man River are somehow more cosmopolitan and better educated was nothing more than a shot in the dark. And you missed by a mile.

 

[Merlin1047]

I have repeatedly seen the need to love one's family members overcome dislike-of-homosexuality (are you happy with that phrase, PaleRider?) I actually posted the question because there was a gay relative of my wife's at Thanksgiving--my wife's conservative parents accepted him just fine--and because last evening I talked with a couple who were strict Catholics, both of whose sons have come out as gay--the couple chose to revise their beliefs rather than reject their sons. I believe there is a one-way street here, as gay people feel more comfortable out of the closet, leading to greater acceptance of gay people in general--just as Dick Cheney can't openly criticize homosexuality any more, as it would mean condemning a daughter he loves.

You still seem to be buying into the homosexual argument that opposition to the homosexual lifestyle amounts to hatred of homosexuals. No doubt that is true to some extent. But I believe that most people share my attitude. I do not hate or despise homosexuals as individuals. But that doesn't mean that I have to roll over and accept their lifestyle as a norm. Nor do I have to acquiesce to their demands for acceptance and legitimacy. I view homosexual conduct as a perversion. But unlike many homosexuals, who seem to be unable to separate honest disagreement from hatred, I can separate my dislike of the lifestyle from my feelings about the individual.

Too damn bad most libs seem to be unable to do the same.