The Obama Watch
Fiends With Benefits
In another distressing example of heterophobia, Obama’s gift to gay activists this week excludes opposite-sex sinners.
Thursday’s Washington Post contained comprehensive coverage, three stories no less, of Barack Obama’s presidential memorandum that decrees in these dark days of recession new “benefits to partners of federal workers.” But don’t worry, your scarce hard-earned tax dollars won’t go to all domestic lovers. Just homosexual ones.
The memorandum “does not cover domestic heterosexual partners,” reports the Post. And who largely drafted the memorandum? John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is “the highest-ranking openly gay person in the administration.”
Heterosexual sinners need to hire better lobbyists, or hope that Obama soon finds in his impressively massive heart a new and richer understanding of their attempts at semi-committed love.
Again I ask: Are we witnessing the quiet spread of heterophobia? Why should a Carrie Prejean not enjoy the ample protections of Obama’s hate-crime laws? Why should the girlfriends of fornicating federal workers not receive, as homosexuals now do, “long-term-care insurance benefits” for their short-term relationships?
As I don’t need to tell you, this president is deeply committed to “competitiveness” and released his memorandum with the efficiency of the federal government at the very top of his mind: “Extending available benefits will help the Federal Government compete with the private sector to recruit and retain the best and the brightest employees.” But doesn’t he see that by denying benefits to the heterosexually shacked-up he is risking the loss of their abundant talents too?
This nation cannot afford to lose a single one of the federal government’s 2 million civil servants. Remember how impossible life became after Bill Clinton shut the federal government down due to Newt Gingrich’s recalcitrance and sent, I’m sorry to use this cruel term but it was the state-of-the-art phrase at the time, “unessential workers” home? No one wants to go through that again.
What, you may be wondering, are the benefits in Wednesday’s memorandum that will make the federal government a little more brisk? One apparently is that gay federal workers can now take time off to care for “children not related by blood or adoption.”
Say a child is struggling with “LGBT” issues of one kind or another; that federal worker could now take the afternoon off and sooth the youngster by reading with him or her President Obama’s proclamation, addressed in part to “LGBT” youth, that declared June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”
Gay activists seemed a little surly after Obama went to the trouble of signing an order that elevates them and snubs heterosexuals. What gives? Unlike Republican pols, who find the pro-lifers to whom they have to hurl bones from time to time very boring and tiresome, Obama actually likes and agrees with his ideological base. He has made it clear to gay activists, via his wife, that his nominal opposition to gay marriage is political, not philosophical, and that once the coast is clear he will endorse it in every state.
Why the impatience? Well, at least Candy Holmes has things in perspective. A veteran of the Government Accountability Office, she told the Post that the words “hopeful” and “excited” describe her mood. She wants “to believe this is the beginning of equality.”
Holmes and her lesbian partner, by the way, “are both ordained clergy with the Metropolitan Community Church,” so perhaps in the near future they will have a little more time for troubled youth and some freed-up money, otherwise used on niggling insurance plans, for more affirming purchases, such as the memoirs of Milwaukee Archbishop Emeritus Rembert Weakland.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (110) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/19/fiends-with-benefits
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 6.19.09 @ 6:27AM
What happens when these couples break up? Are the federal employees required to routinely report on the status of their relationships? Will fraudulent reporting constitute grounds for immediate dismissal?
Can three-plus same sex relationships get the benefits, too? Why are we limiting this coverage at all? Nonmarried heterosexuals should also be covered to make this fair for all.
Rather than fight about marriage being between a man and woman, let's ban marriage. That will solve everything, won't it?
Why do we tend to lump the sexual-identification confused persons together. Why is a transgender he-she-it similar to a gay guy?
I think it is foolish for society to place their resources into such programs when survival of society requires the creation of children and the structure that supports and raises them. May I please designate my tax dollars to pay for education or defense, rather than Bill's boyfriend's bunion operation or Obamas' date night?
Lawler| 6.19.09 @ 6:51AM
Welcome to the "Land of the freak and the home of depraved."
stephanie| 6.19.09 @ 6:51AM
Drudgette, you make me laugh. I so totally agree with your post, but I must laugh for fear I'll cry at this president and his pandering.
El Rey| 6.19.09 @ 6:55AM
Yes, the homosexual is not the model citizen per the Left.
Robert Rosencrans| 6.19.09 @ 8:53AM
How is the government to verify this? What if someone is already married but decides to take on a lover of the same sex? It happens. Will their spouse and their lover get government benefits. This idiotic plan may end up costing more then the idiotic health care plan.
Think of the possibilities. Under federal rules, your spouse qualifies for health care and a portion of your retirement benefits. If the same person has 12 different lovers after 12 years who is going to keep track? It's like the Paul Simon lyric, "Still crazy after all these years."
I would laugh but the costs of this insanity are going to be tremendous.
Louis Jenkins| 6.19.09 @ 9:05AM
Once more Obama “rewards” his political supporters at taxpayer expense. Our government has become a class of elitists and he has added yet another. This is just another chink in the dyke (pun intended) of an overall leftist war on heterosexuality and marriage. Nature’s ways of propagating the species finds itself on the downside of political thought and policy, in tune with abortion on demand, and the concept of family and marriage is so warped that normalcy will never return to its previous defined boundaries.
Appleby| 6.19.09 @ 9:12AM
Backlash. Coming soon to a town near you.
Alice Moore| 6.19.09 @ 9:32AM
I think the White House has already done the political calculus. Semi-committed(shacked up) heterosexuals probably will vote Democrat anyway.
Pete| 6.19.09 @ 10:28AM
See a pattern here? He promised redistribution, did he not? Some foolishly thought it would go from rich to poor - but what we are seeing is from people who don't vote for him to people who do. Seems fair.
Sherry| 6.19.09 @ 11:06AM
My argument with this whole situation is that these types of benefits are wholly unfair to the heterosexual portion of our society. Civil Unions are only available to gay couples or if you are over 65 (as a heterosexual), these benefits are only available to gay couples. This is not equitable. If a straight couple chooses not to marry for whatever reason, they are not availed the same benefits. This is wrong, pure and simple. If these benefits are available to gay couples, they should be available to straight couples.
Tom Anderson| 6.19.09 @ 12:40PM
One reason why hetersexual couples do not qualify is they have the legal option to get married. Gay couples generally do not. This is nothing more than an attempt to redress an injustice. Of course, it is not perfect. But married people can also get divorced, multiple times, and there is no outrage expressed by the homophobic community here on American Spectator. So what's the problem?
dcc| 6.19.09 @ 1:41PM
If people want health insuarance let them buy it, if they want to reitre let them save. The republicans are finally getting an inkling of the idea in their most recent health care proposal: incentives should go to indivduals rather than employers. A shame it didn't happen 8 years ago when it might have made a difference.
If the government would presumptively treat citizens as individuals rather than as employees or couples half of the arguments for gay marriage would vanish and the unmarried would be chronically short changed.
Donna Dermitt| 6.19.09 @ 1:45PM
My husband and I were talking about this the other evening. While it is easy to blame everything on the gays, in reality, it is our fault.
If gays had been given domestic partnerships years ago, prior to the whole marriage issue, we wouldn't be here today. Now, there really is no turning back the clock.
The younger generation, under 30, are now accustomed to the idea of same sex marriage. If the status quo were domestic partnerships, that would be just the way it is.
Instead, I fear we pushed the gays so far back, that now they no longer see any reason to back down.
Clearly, from the tone of this article and the some of the comments, we're now pushing the gays to destroy us to further their cause -- we have given them no other option.
Hazumu Osaragi| 6.19.09 @ 2:14PM
Donna Dermitt said:
"Instead, I fear we pushed the gays so far back, that now they no longer see any reason to back down.
"Clearly, from the tone of this article and the some of the comments, we're now pushing the gays to destroy us to further their cause -- we have given them no other option."
Exactly.
I'm a transgender female. I have no option of pretending to be straight. Thus, ANYTHING I do is "shoving your disgusting lifestyle down our throats." I know how it feels to be right and still lose. I know how it feels to be forced to defend my humanity on damn near a daily basis. And I resisted making this change until I was 48, because I didn't want to subject myself to this crap.
Gays and Lesbians can pretend to be straight. In fact, society demands it. One affectionate reference to one's same-sex partner sends some people screaming that mantra, "shoving your disgusting lifestyle down our throats."
Ask for the right to not get fired just because the boss found out you're lesbian/gay/transgendered, "shoving your disgusting lifestyle down our throats."
I finally get it! "Shoving your disgusting lifestyle down our throats" is the only way we transgenders/gays/lesbians will get any rights, any legislated tools to combat bias-motivated assaults and murder, be able to gain access o the 1300+ federal rights, privileges, and responsibilities a stupid little word ("Marriage") grants.
Yes, it's clear. The ONLY way is to shove it down your throats.
My Mouth is Closed| 6.19.09 @ 2:39PM
Then you shouldn't be surprised if the rest of us shove back.
blackelkspeaks| 6.19.09 @ 3:08PM
Hazumu Osaragi wrote: "I finally get it! "Shoving your disgusting lifestyle down our throats" is the only way we transgenders/gays/lesbians will get any rights, any legislated tools to combat bias-motivated assaults and murder, be able to gain access o the 1300+ federal rights, privileges, and responsibilities a stupid little word ("Marriage") grants. "
It is very hard, and very painful, to even have to consider the crap that is thrown up at us on a regular basis now. It is hard to believe we are even having this discussion. We live in a new era of outright paganism. This country is out of is effin mind. The entire foundation of our society has been shaken to its very roots after the election last November. The fact that we are even at this point, with over half the people of the USA voting for an absolute asshole for president, with their eyes wide open, and seeing our current political catastrophe unfold on a daily basis, proves that we now live in a degenerate Sodom and Gomorrah. We are witnessing the fall of the Roman Empire, version2.0.
Jeff| 6.19.09 @ 3:18PM
Are you kidding me? This was the stupidest thing I have ever read. The reason Obama is extending benefits to homosexual domestic partners and notheterosexual domestic partners is because heterosexuals domestic partners can get MARRIED and receive the same benefits. Instead of acknowledging that obvious fact you decided to write an article about how Obama is engaging in heterophobia? (Whatever that means) Way go to AmSpec.
Louis Jenkins| 6.19.09 @ 3:36PM
In the mid to late 1800s there were many Mormons in my family. I demand equality under the law to practice polygamy as it is part of my cultural heritage! But it is outlawed!! Cannot Obama see the beauty of a man loving and marrying many wives? I demand the same employment benefits for that type of relationship(s) as homosexuals or monogamous couples. It is not an aberrant behavior. Will Obama lend his support to polygamous homosexual relationships? Sooner than heterosexual polygamy I would bet.
Uno Hu| 6.19.09 @ 5:10PM
There's so much confusion over this when it's really rather simple. It's just like your real estate agent has told you in the past. Location! Location!! Location!!! It's all in what location on your partner you stick it whether benefits will be available to that partner.
marcel| 6.19.09 @ 7:16PM
George, you're right. Same gender couples should be allowed to marry...so the heteros won't feel left out.
marcel| 6.19.09 @ 7:18PM
George, you're right. Same gender couples should be allowed to marry...so the heteros won't feel left out.
ben| 6.19.09 @ 7:43PM
This is a bunch of crap. These gays want their relationships affirmed as the same as hetero but they are not the same. Gay relationships provide NO benefit whatsoever to society, culture or nature and thus should not be treated as equal to hetero relationships. Gay rights is a sham. what rights are you being denied?
Hazumu Osaragi - Assault and murder are just as illegal whether the victim is gay or straight.
This is an example of extending special rights to one group while exempting another. It is by definition discrimination.
Jeff | 6.19.09 @ 7:48PM
Ben, you are a moron. 1. What benefits do childless heterosexual couples provide society besides loving companionship? Would you argue they do not deserve equal rights? 2. "Gay rights are a sham". That statement speaks for itself. 3. You argue extending rights to gay couples and not unmarried hetero ones is "discrimination". How is extending the right of marriage to hetero's and not to gays any different? You are a moron.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 7:48PM
Please tell me why homosexual intercourse deserves special like heterosexual marriage?
Heterosexual marriage naturally is reproductive for society. The heterosexual married community is far less likely to contract the high rate of disease as do the homosexual community, especially AIDS and Anal Cancer. The whole reason a nation survives and is stable is due to a good healthy family with good rules and order.
You take that traditoina marriage away, reward perversion and every single nation falls. Rome, Greece... every nation that turns to pagan sex acts falls.
As for the people lost in perversion spewing forth hatred against normal people here, who mangle their own lives, I feel sorry for you. But you have no right to demand we pay for your healtcare. Stop whining and complaining, grow up, realize you have problems, go see a psychologist, get some serious help.
Most, who seek to be a different sex is suffering from serious emotional meltdown.
You are either misled by images and lies in our perverse society today, bruised and battered from a dysfunctional relationship in your family, or in denial of your real problems.
Ultimately you do have a choice to quit the madness of an empty life of lust. You can change, tens of thousands of people have come out of the homosexual and lesbian community to live normal lives. This is never talked about enough. It is a choice, just like doing drugs or smoking.
Changing your sex is only making you an angry, bitter person, blaming everyone else instead of looking in the mirror. The reason normal people can care less abour your abnormal lifestyles is obvious to anyone who is not blind. The reason normal people get turned off by perversion is simple - it is perverted, not normal, anormal and a sign of confusion. If it were normal, then half of our society would be "gay" but surely not happy.
Why should I have to pay for AIDs treatments of others who make bad choices to have immoral sex? The rate of disease in the homosexual community sky rockets in comparison to heterosexuals. Most heterosexuals, especially women are infected by Bi-Sexual men crossing over from their supposedly "gay" friends. Women, check twice on your Metro-sexual men these days in the cities. They just might be bi.
So much for being "gay." You are the angrist, bitter, unhappy, most messed up people in the world today. Instead of taking responsibility for your own bad choices in life, you blame Mommie, Daddy, dirty Uncle Joe, your past, or everyone else but yourself. Once you grow up, you become an adult, you should be able to cope with problems that may have sent you astray as a child.
No one is born gay, there is no gay gene. And I, nor anyone else should have to pay for your gayness choices.
Its not our problem. Its yours. Whatever messed up life your in, you have no right to force others to pay for it. Your lifestyle choices of anal intercourse and multiple partners put an undue burden of billions of cost into the healthcare system every single year. This is no different than smoking, toking, or doing crack.
AIDS funding gets more cash than heart disease, breast disease, cancer and more people die from those diseases!!! Yet we are force to pay for your irresponsible choices in life?
The only throat you are shoving this down is your own miserable lives. Homosexuals die at an early age. Precisely because they live wreckless lives with multiple sex partners. And besides the main practice of anal intercourse, homosexuals act out their perversion in some of the sickest ways possible you can with bodily functions and orally.
So you want benefits to pay for your sickness?
No thanks.
Jeff| 6.19.09 @ 7:54PM
"Why do we tend to lump the sexual-identification confused persons together. Why is a transgender he-she-it similar to a gay guy?"
Drudgette. I am speechless. WOW. Sexually confused? Do you really believe that people choose to be gay? Do you think they want to be subjected to the gauntlet of discrimination laid down by the American Spectator crowd? Is that a joke?
Did you really just refer to transgendered persons as it's?
The lack of intellectual reasoning present on this site never ceases to amaze me.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 7:57PM
Hey Jeff,
Do any teabagging? Ever orally engage in backended sickness before with another man?
Do you know anything about the rates of AIDs in the homosexual community? What about anal rectum cancer? What about suicide? What about drug and alcohol abuse?
It is highest among homosexuals.
They need help, not more approval of a sick, lost lifestyle. They need the truth, not us paying for their healthcare.
Do we encourage people to smoke? No? Why not Jeff?
So why do we encourage anal intercourse Jeff? The rate of AIDs transferred by men is proven to be thousands of times higher through the fluids they exchange. There is a reason Jeff that homosexuals suffer so much damage in their lives and it has nothing to do with bias or prejudice.
It has everything to do with the choices they make. You cannot defend their lifestyle choice and we should not be forced to pay for it.
Jeff| 6.19.09 @ 8:00PM
I would like to refine my previous statement. The lack of intellectual thought and abundance of bigotry never ceases to amaze me.
The blatant partisanship, bitterness and bigotry thinly veiled by the articles is so stunningly displayed in every wonderfully ignorant comment. Good Day
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:00PM
Jeff,
Prove to me scientifically that "gay" is a genetic normality of human genome.
It is you who are a fool. You listen to liberal news as if it tells the truth. There is no "gay" gene. In fact there is no one "gene" for any of our heritage passed down from mother of father. There are multiple genes and regulatory genes, non-code regions and a series of cascading events involved in embryonic development and child growth.
Labeling others as morons is nothing but a childish attack. Try actually focusing on the facts.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:02PM
Jeff,
You simply cannot answer a legitimate question can you.
Show me scientific studies that have been duplicated for a "gay" gene.
People are not born gay, but you sure might have been born in an ignorant family who failed to teach you critical thinking skills.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:09PM
Scientific Study about HIV potency in male semen...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=male-semen-makes-hiv-more-potent
This is done by an unbiased scientific study in Germany origionally reported in Cell magazine. It shows that male semen increases HIV rates of infection by 50 fold or in some cases up to 100,000 fold!
Quote...
"The team of German scientists had initially set out to determine if semen contained factors that inhibit the HIV infection. "We were not expecting to find an enhancer, and we were even more surprised about the strength," says report co-author Frank Kirchhoff, a virologist at the University of Ulm Clinic in Germany. "Most enhancers have maybe a two- or three-fold effect, but here the effect was amazing—more than 50-fold and, under certain conditions, more than 100,000-fold.""
So, where Jeff attacks people and lofts softball assertions without facts, accusing people of bigotry and ignorance. It is actually him that is ignorant. He cannot provide any proof for his assertions, only ad hominem attacks.
Figures, all liberals have are uninformed opinions wrapped up in emotions of hatred for what they wrongly perceve is right.
Instead, what they are doing is proliferating myths in society with the truth. They're clueless, usually ignorant of the actual scientific information and only live by their feelings.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:16PM
My last comment, correction should read...
Instead, what they are doing is proliferating myths in society "against" the truth.
For example, Jeff says people are "born" gay. No, they're not. They're born male and female. There is no "gay gene." Only a myth reported by the Boston Globe about 10yrs ago that was not true. The story was based upon a flawed study never duplicated by any other study. The originator of the false science was a homosexual himself. So he fudged the data so to speak in his favor.
ButtOut| 6.19.09 @ 8:18PM
Homosexuals aren't the only ones having anal intercourse. Conversely, not all gay men are having anal intercourse.
Furthermore, neither semen nor anal intercourse are a part of lesbian relationships.
Just because you find buttsecks icky, or because your preacher told you that buttsecks is icky doesn't mean that society should refuse to recognize same-sex romantic relationships.
Erica| 6.19.09 @ 8:26PM
Will these benefits be available to federal employees who live in states that have legalized gay marriage? It seems that if you live in one of those states, you should have to marry for benefits or they should be available for co-habitating heterosexual couples as well.
Jeff | 6.19.09 @ 8:28PM
HAHAHA anal retentive. What are you talking about? You post this bizarre study about male semen being an "enhancer" to HIV as if that is somehow disproves my contention that people are born gay. Nice try
I will post later with links to a multitude of studies pointing to physiological differences between homo and heterosexuals. In the meantime I will be laughing at your stupidity.
Jeff | 6.19.09 @ 8:41PM
Well I can't login to my academic search at home so I'll just post this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=studies+on+physiological+differences+between+gays+and+straight&aq=f&oq;=&aqi;=> Its just news stories about the emerging scientific consensus that there are biological differences between homo and heterosexuals. Im sure you will just dismiss it as liberal mainstream media bullshit. Thats fine but I would ask why you feel so strongly about this? Especially after reading this bizarre contention "The story was based upon a flawed study never duplicated by any other study. The originator of the false science was a homosexual himself. So he fudged the data so to speak in his favor". I think that your opposition stems more from your uncomfortableness (a nice way of putting it) with homosexuality than anything else.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:45PM
Jeff,
The study was in Cell Magazine, a leading scientific journal in the specialization of cellular science. The stupidity is on your side. Those not familiar with Cell are familiar with Scientific American. Only an uninformed, closeted twit would call Scientific American "bizarre."
Go ahead, post your links. Are you familiar with the latest findings of the APA? They've changed their minds on "teh gay gene."
Physiological evidence after someone has been living a lifestyle is meaningless. Its like taking information from a heroine addict after 10 years. All you are proving is that he shoots up heroine.
The false study, biased study was done in the same way.
But genetics is a different story and underminse the myth of "teh gay gene." The truth is as I stated, there is no one single gene. Do you know why Jeff? Do you have any clue? Do you know anything about genetics, DNA, non-code regions or regulatory functions in the cell?
I doubt it.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:49PM
Jeff said,
"Especially after reading this bizarre contention "The story was based upon a flawed study never duplicated by any other study. The originator of the false science was a homosexual himself. So he fudged the data so to speak in his favor"."
The word "bizarre" is special to you huh Jeff? Wonder why. The study was originally done by a homosexual. Subsequent studies found his findings to be inconclusive, unreaptable Jeff. They found it to be unduplicatable in other studies around the nation. That is how science works. It has to be repeated by other studies, often blind studies so that Bias cannot enter the picture.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 8:55PM
Jeff,
From the APA, American Psychological Associations lates update on Homosexulas, Trans, Trannies, etc.
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
This is a huge change from their 1998 conclusions Jeff. They've had to retract their original statements because they were not scientific. As I said, there is no evidence of a homosexual gene.
Would you like me to provide more quotes? Or do you insist on labeling people bigots? Simply because they disagree with perversion?
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 9:10PM
BO,
you said,
"Homosexuals aren't the only ones having anal intercourse."
No kidding? That's not what I said is it? CDC studies show however that homosexuals have the highest rate of AIDS caused death, higher than the heterosexual community. Which is very odd since homosexuals are only 1-2% of our population. That should be a huge alarm for any clear thinking person.
"Conversely, not all gay men are having anal intercourse."
Really? How would you know? Can you cite a percentage? What kind of sex do they have? None? Oral?
"Furthermore, neither semen nor anal intercourse are a part of lesbian relationships."
No kidding, that's why lesbians contract the least amount of HIV infections in comparison to the homosexuals. You need to read more. And besides I was talking to heterosexual women who think they may be with a straight man in any big city these days.
"Just because you find buttsecks icky, or because your preacher told you that buttsecks is icky doesn't mean that society should refuse to recognize same-sex romantic relationships."
This is hilarious. I don't have a preacher. I do find anal intercourse perverse however, sick in fact and all the disgusting sexual foreplay exhibited by homosexuals in those type of situations. Why? Because, they end up sick and spread disease to others. It ends up costing our society big bucks in healthcare dollars - money we tax payors must give for bad choices.
I'd much rather my tax dollars go to cancer treatments, heart, and other childrens diseases that are real genetic problems not caused by the irresponsible choices of lifestyles.
AnalRetentive| 6.19.09 @ 9:28PM
Jeff,
You are kidding right? You gave me a google search? Sorry pal, the very first link is exactly what I talked about. All it does is confirm a persons physical actions. Of course brain patterns emerge differently just like someone with higher math skills are different than someone with poetry. There is a reason APA backed off their 1998 statement and made new statements that studies are "inconclusive" Jeff.
Because, in genetics they cannot find any evidence! Dealing with the brain is after the fact.
Plus, let me give you another clue about evolution. "Gay genes" are not passed down from father to son, or mother to daughter, vice versa. A son of a gay father can be perfectly straight. Why Jeff? It is a choice due to environmental stimuli, some of it very sad.
Many young men, teenagers are mistreated, abused, lack fathers, some are molested, etc., and do not have good role models growing up. These are the contributing factors to most homosexuals choices. Many end up leaving the lifestyle at an early age. Many mature, realize it was a mistake, and go on to have a happy normal relationship with the opposite sex.
This is what people like you cannot stand, nor the powerful lobbyist groups who want to act like fascist and prevent therapy for individuals who desire help to come out of the darkness of homosexual community.
The APA even agrees now that it is not ethical to prevent therapy. From the APA pamphlet on homosexuals...
"Mental health organizations call on their members to respect a person's [client's] right to self-determination."
Why Jeff? Because all the latest research shows that people do in fact revert back to normal lifes once they receive therapy. And they should be allowed to seek help. Yet the angry, bitter people in the homosexual and lesbian community want to disallow it. Why Jeff? Do you agree with them?
Do you think it is ethical to refuse individuals their rights to medical help?
Some more quotes from experts in the field...
“I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” -Steven Goldgerg, Sociologist
“If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.” - Douglas Abbott, University of Nebraska
Get it Jeff? Genetics shows there is no correlation between the homosexual act donor and heredity. Understand?
Also, you misunderstood my post about male semen. It was to show the reason homosexuals are at higher risk to AIDs. Not that it caused homosexuality.
Jeff | 6.19.09 @ 10:16PM
1. I never mentioned "gay genes".
2. I am not a professor of sexual sciences but having taken human sexuality courses in college most reasonable people agree homosexuality is not a choice. Why would anyone choose to be gay when they would have to deal with people like you.
3. I said there are physiological differences between homo and heterosexual persons. Studies showing similarities between homosexual male brains and women only affirm this.
4. "Many young men, teenagers are mistreated, abused, lack fathers, some are molested, etc., and do not have good role models growing up. These are the contributing factors to most homosexuals choices. Many end up leaving the lifestyle at an early age. Many mature, realize it was a mistake, and go on to have a happy normal relationship with the opposite sex." Hi I am a bigot.
4. Who is arguing homosexuals shouldnt be allowed to get therapy if they want?
5. "Yet the angry, bitter people in the homosexual and lesbian community want to disallow it." If they are angry and bitter it is because homosexuals have long been discriminated against and been the target of violence simply because of their sexual orientation.
6. Ok, homosexuals are at a higher risk for contracting aids. Do you want a cookie?
7. That bullshit about therapy for gays and them becoming better? You are a wierdo.
7. This is obviously a very important and emotional topic to you. I am curious to know why? Is it because someone has feelings therapy has yet to work out?
Pingback| 6.19.09 @ 10:20PM
The American Spectator : Fiends With Benefits | Anal Cancer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Carol D| 6.19.09 @ 10:45PM
AnalRetentive -- YOU are SO smart! Why are lucking on the Internet and not in the White House? Our country NEEDS more people like you! YOU know everything! Oh, how we all wish we could be like you. Science, religion, etc. your knowledge is so vast is all seems to come out of your ass.
Dan Ester| 6.19.09 @ 10:49PM
I'm a single straight male.
I REFUSE to pay for unwed mothers having bastard babies ( like Palin's little whore daughter ).
I REFUSE to pay for straight folks having kids they can't AFFORD.
M Wright| 6.19.09 @ 10:53PM
Carol D! You hit it 100%. AnalRetentive has some SERIOUS problems. Facts not based on facts, but what his/her little mind can understand. LMFAO.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 12:49AM
Jeff,
I see you called all your bitter, angry friend to the rescue.
M. Wright, Carol, and other heterophobic bigots,
Did you see little Jeffy give me a cookie for being right about homosexual death rates being higher than the norm from contracting AIDS?
The only pathetic people in these comments are the bitter ones who cannot provide any evidence that homosexuals are "BORN THAT WAY"
Since little Jeffy can't prove it, now all his friends are trying to take up for him.
Not a single one of you have provided any evidence to the contrary of my talking points. I've quoted doctors, psychologist, even the APA and all I get in response is a bunch of sore losers angry at the truth.
When you have nothing to advance your argument, all you can do is shout down and attack others.
Sorry, doesn't work here. Either provide scientific information that "Gays" are "born that way" or you have nothing.
What you should be doing, is asking yourself why you would let young men move into a dangerous lifestyle, die and not care about it.
Again, the problem is you buy into propaganda instead of facts, science and reason. And you obviously do not care about the death of millions in this nation due to lifestyle choice that could be avoided accept due to ignorance and perversion.
So if you like people dying due to anal intercourse diseases, AIDS, drug abuse, alcohold and high suicide rates, keep on defending your positions and not telling the truth to those you say you care about so much.
I've had friends and co-workers die from this terrible disease. Could've been stopped by a single choice not to have dangerous sex with multiple men.
Keep living in your dream world. Must be nice to be in such a bubble where people die and you refuse to tell them the truth.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 1:24AM
Jeff,
Lets take your talking points one at a time...
1. I never mentioned "gay genes".
You said they were "born" that way. You've been in college and do not know about DNA? So genetics has nothing to do with being gay? Thank you for your admission.
"2. I am not a professor of sexual sciences but having taken human sexuality courses in college most reasonable people agree homosexuality is not a choice."
I've taken college level courses as well in sociology, biology, higher level math, computer science, psychology and chemistry. Plus extended classes on genetics. Unless you actually study the science of genetics, you cannot begin to understand the debate at the technical level. So your assertion about consensus opinions is meaningless from that level.
If you want to appeal to consensus, the majority of scientist now agree homosexuality is influenced by environment and social surroundings. They all agree homosexuals are not "born that way" as you like to put it. I brought up genetics because I'm well read in the area and that is the normal claim by gays and their supporters.
I didn't make up my answers. I also quoted APA to you. Why not answer some of my questions? Why did the APA update and change their standards? Since Carol is all huffy and puffy, maybe she can answer it. You, Carol, and your other little friends cannot seem to admit when you are wrong. And you refuse to deal in facts. Instead, you call people names, insult, rant, rave and twist facts based upon your hurt little feelings. This is a sign you have no real argument.
"Why would anyone choose to be gay when they would have to deal with people like you."
First off, I do not attack gays personally. I am talking about facts. I care about gays more than you do. I tell the truth. If you are a teenage homosexual it is likely you die early due to AIDS higher than the normal rate of any other population. Why? Because it is a sexually transmitted disease in the homosexual community. It only crosses over by blood(anal sex is more likely to cause bleeding because men are not designed for anal intercourse). And now it is known that male semen increases HIV infection rate by 50 fold, sometimes up to 100,000. If you want to talk about being "born that way." Look at a man's body anatomically. The reason they have so many problems with cancer and disease is due to the abuse of the colon and rectal areas. Genetically, they were born as males. Women on the otherhand are born for intercourse and to receive males. What do you not understand about this medically?
"3. I said there are physiological differences between homo and heterosexual persons. Studies showing similarities between homosexual male brains and women only affirm this."
Show me the study. You did not cite a single study, you only bluffed with a google link.
"4. "Many young men, teenagers are mistreated, abused, lack fathers, some are molested, etc., and do not have good role models growing up. These are the contributing factors to most homosexuals choices. Many end up leaving the lifestyle at an early age. Many mature, realize it was a mistake, and go on to have a happy normal relationship with the opposite sex." Hi I am a bigot."
No Jeff, your are the intolerant fascist, just like your other friends. I cannot be a bigot. Know why? Men are not born gay, thus it is a choice. I disagree with there choice. I feel sorry for them. I wish that they would not make the lifestyle choices they do. Funny how you ignore the actual evidence I put before you, then simply insult with an ad hominem attack. Again, you have no argument, only Fascist comments that label people you disagree with. You are the intolerant bigot.
"4. Who is arguing homosexuals shouldnt be allowed to get therapy if they want?"
The homosexual and lesbian organizations. Are saying you did not know this? They lobby against treatment for therapy. Wake up Jeff. You've been fed a bunch of lies and don't know it.
"5. "Yet the angry, bitter people in the homosexual and lesbian community want to disallow it." If they are angry and bitter it is because homosexuals have long been discriminated against and been the target of violence simply because of their sexual orientation."
Wrong, they're not angry because of me. They're angry because they've made bad choices. Why do drug users get angry Jeff? Do you think we should just allow anyone who does drugs and is angry to do them freely? And then pay for their problems?
"6. Ok, homosexuals are at a higher risk for contracting aids. Do you want a cookie?"
No, your admission is a start to understanding the truth. Yes, they are at extreme risk. But you left out another truth. They die at a higher rate than any other group as well. Don't you care?
"7. That bullshit about therapy for gays and them becoming better? You are a wierdo."
Are you just joking now? So, above you ask who denies them therapy? Now you call me a name because I say therapy works? LOL, well take it up with the APA and scientific studies that show homosexuals after 16mos of therapy can and do return to normal lives, get married to the opposite sex and are happy, not bitter people.
"7. This is obviously a very important and emotional topic to you. I am curious to know why? Is it because someone has feelings therapy has yet to work out?"
Another insult? Is this all you got. You're college educated? Didn't you receive better training on how to make a cogent argument? Again, ad hominem attacks show you have no real facts or science behind your statements, only bitter, angry and insulting comments. That means you are the one with issues to deal with Jeff, not me.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 1:34AM
Dan,
"I'm a single straight male.
I REFUSE to pay for unwed mothers having bastard babies ( like Palin's little whore daughter ).
I REFUSE to pay for straight folks having kids they can't AFFORD."
So Dan, you want to pay for everyones bad choices in life? Is that your answer? Do you want to pay for the alcoholics beer too? How about the heroin addicts heroin?
Where do you stop paying for bad choices and immoral behavior? Do you have a stopping point? Or do you just keep rewarding bad behavior?
Ever ask yourself why Bill Clinton signed the Welfare Reform act Dan? It stopped people from receiving money their entire life for not working.
Are you saying you are against Clinton on welfare reform and we should pay for people not to work?
How far to you want to carry your moronic strawman point Dan?
My point is that bad choices that cause people to lose their lives should not be encouraged, especially if they're lies. Gays are not "born that way" It is a lie. Science says so.
Maybe you just want to stop science like Bush?
MarkAllen| 6.20.09 @ 1:34AM
This would seem discrimiatory and would open up the right to sue on the part of a co-habitating heterosexual couple.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 1:38AM
Carol,
Do you wish to exchange childish rants, or actually provide some evidence for your side that "gays are born that way"?
I've provided links, quotes from Doctors, the APA opinion that gays are not born that way.
What do you have besides snippy, childish comments?
Jeff | 6.20.09 @ 4:11AM
Analretentive, I have neither the energy nor the willpower to continue this argument. I guess we will just have to agree that you are a wierdo and I am not. Frankly nothing you can say will change my opinion of the situation. Im sure you will come back with all types of quotes and random studies, but really I dont care. I am unable to summon the necessary facts at the moment. But you are wrong, simple as that. I hope that someday you will become more accepting of the GLB community even if i am not holding my breathe. Good Day. I hope therapy goes well and your affliction is cured.
tman| 6.20.09 @ 7:57AM
I don't know what you guys are talking about, the new policy in no way discrimiates against heterosexual people. They are free to establish a non-married relationship with someone of the same gender to recieve benefits just like everyone else. It's not society's fault that you CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender...
J| 6.20.09 @ 8:15AM
Anal Retentive:
I was working on a finance paper when I stumbled on this article and the extended argument between you and Jeff. I see he has given up so I'll start up.
I went to the APA's website and what you describe as their position is not their actual position.
This is your original quote:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Since you did not include a link to your source, I have to assume that the very similar page I found was the basis for your quotation. If this is not your source then post a link to your source.
I wondered what it was that you were not including in your quotation because it pretty much flew in the face of what I had been hearing for the last ten years. When I went to the site (here's the link http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31 ), I understood why you selected what you did. What follows is not the entire article but covers much of what you have been saying here.
******************************************
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.
Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
No. This is a common myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is that contracting the disease can be prevented by using safe sex practices and by not using drugs.
*******************************************
You may notice that several of your assertions in the posts above are repudiated in this article. You may also notice that your original quotation from the APA is really an edited version of the first couple of paragraphs of the quotation that I pasted without editing into this post.
1. You stated that "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." If you read the section directly after "What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?" then you would see that MOST scientists AGREE (that would be consensus) that sexual orientation is "most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."
2. You repeatedly assert that sexual orientation is a choice. However, the section directly after that reads: "No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
So gay people aren't choosing to be gay. If you have evidence to the contrary then please provide citations.
3. For some reason you asked for a study that shows some physiological difference between gays and straights even though the information that you used in your argument that you got from the APA (which I suspect was not actually from the APA) stated that "nature and nurture both play complex roles." So, here. This is a study from the University of Chicago http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
4. I don't know if I missed it, but you said you provided an opinion from APA that said gays are not born that way. If you are referring to the quotation I copied from your previous post and put in mine then where does it say that? How do you feel about my source from APA, which includes a link, saying something completely different?
5. You claim that the APA supports therapy to turn gay people straight. The same page I (PROVIDED A LINK TO) says the complete opposite:
"Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias."
That's all for now. Your arguments are filled with misinformation. You misunderstand your own sources (if they are even legitimate).
I especially enjoyed using your often cited APA to repudiate some of your points.
Norfolk Business Directory | 6.20.09 @ 8:39AM
It is very interesting article and quite impressive and more informative and looking forward to read such article. Please come visit my site Norfolk Yellow Page Business Directorywhen you got time.
Chesapeake Business Directory | 6.20.09 @ 8:42AM
Since I’m new to blogging, these articles are greatly appreciated; very useful and informative blog and every body must visit this blog. Please come visit my site Chesapeake Yellow Page Business Directorywhen you got time.
syn| 6.20.09 @ 8:52AM
It seems we are going backward to a time when Alexander the Great said "men are for pleasure, women are for breeding' .
By the way, Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice, extracted children from both females then high-tailed it out of both marriages to be with his male lover who just offers pleasure.
Homosexuality does not have the right to violate the relationship between Yin and Yang!
I will not submit to being treated like a dog, breeding for homosexual Emperors!
Anonymous| 6.20.09 @ 10:21AM
Straight power! Stop heterophobia! Diversity includes heterosexuals (not to mention conservatives) too!
Homo Sapiens| 6.20.09 @ 11:17AM
This is all so bizarre. If I, or another person, claimed to be an eagle or an orchid -- something that our DNA says we are not -- we would be in a pyschiatric hospital for evaluation. But if I, a woman, say that I'm "transgender" or "transsexual," I can claim to be a man and people are supposed to believe it.
When the subject is creation, we're all required to believe that science has all the answers; but when it comes to believing what the DNA in our cells tells us we are -- well, we can believe whatever we choose. You have your truth, I have mine.
And there is no such thing as a true "sex-change" operation. Chastity Bono now wants to "become a man," and after her "gender reassignment," people will call her "him." But all the drugs and surgery in the world won't change her into a him. Every cell in her body, every strand of DNA, will still testify to the fact that she has always been, and always will be, female. She won't be a man, she'll be a mutilated woman.
catladyjan| 6.20.09 @ 2:46PM
The Narcissist in Chief could care less about gays, women, blacks, immigrants, you name it. Its always about HIM! He's pathetic.
Divorced Dad| 6.20.09 @ 2:57PM
Ok, I have an answer for all this talk about Gay Marriage and sharing of benefits. When the gay couple apply for their marriage license one of them must be legally defined as the *husband* and one the *wife* and they get to choose. If they should file for divorce the husband gets to pay the wife 80% of his after tax take home pay to the wife as spousal support and $500 per child per month for child support. How much you want to bet they gay couple never gets beyond: No, your the husband..no, your the husband, etc". How many will be stampeding to the courthouse then?
They want Gay Marriage...I bring you Gay Divorce.
bobmontgomery| 6.20.09 @ 3:58PM
The wisdom of the folk is exemplified in these comments. Unfortunately the political parties and the mainstream churches will not stand up for what they purport to believe. If a pol says he supports traditional definition but not a constitutional amendment, he doesn't support traditional marriage. Better get the lawsuits going before the O appoints a couple more Supremes and a whole slew of Districts and Appellates.
Homo Sapiens| 6.20.09 @ 6:16PM
Here's a thought: If I, as a woman, can claim that I am really a man trapped inside a woman's body, can I also claim an ethnicity that is different from what my DNA proves? Here I am, a Caucasian gal of Scottish-English ancestry, but maybe I'm really an Asian man. Who's to say I'm not, if that's what I think I am?
Or let's see...the Eastern Band of the Cherokee is doing pretty well with its gambling operation in North Carolina. If I say that I'm a Cherokee (woman or man) inside a Caucasian body, will they accept me as a member of the tribe and cut me in on some of the tribal winnings? That is, of course, if what I claim to be is what counts.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 8:11PM
J,
Thank you for at least trying to deal with actual facts, even though you try to paint me as some nefarious liar.
So, lets look at your post and link. The APA's new brochure is from 2008. The APA's position is now changed. My quotes stand. Anyone can see the brochure linked.
My quote was from the APA's brochure that was recently updated to change their statements from 1998. Their information in 1998 was wrong, based upon incorrect studies and assumptions. The latest brochure updates the latest scientific information on genetics. It essentially states they cannot confirm that people are born homosexual because scientist cannot find any evidence that genes regulate behavior in DNA that make male men attracted to anal intercourse with other men.
Here is a direct quote from the current brochure...
Question: "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?"
Answer: " There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.
So, it is you who are a liar now J. You said I was spreading misinformation. Yet the brochure says exactly what I quoted from it. I did not lie or misinform. I told the truth. You need to deal with it.
"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
Understand J? They cannot make any scientific conclusions. The old brochure J, made bad conclusions. So they updated the brochure to be accurate with current scientific reality. Homosexuals are not "born gay."
"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;"
Understand J? The APA admits there is no scientific evidence, but then add the bias in from the LGBT community that is a heavy lobby in the APA. "Many people think... " It is a gratuitous statement with little meaning. They have no evidence nature is involved at all.
"...most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
Really, so why then do people chose therapy about homosexuality? Because men and women realize they are men endowed with physical body functions for their gender. Those that seek out treatment for a healthy lifestyle do recognize their is a choice in their lives. We are not a bunch of atoms made up by accident.
Funny how you left my quote out of all your quotes. So who is intentionally misleading people now J? Who is spreading misinformation? That quote is directly from the APA brochure.
Then you quote some other stuff from the site about myths that all homosexual get AIDS. I never stated this myth, you did. So what is the point of you quoting it J? Trying to mislead people about what I stated? Trying to poison the well by slandering me with untruths?
Anyone can look at my statements above. I said according to the CDC, homosexuals are at higher risk of HIV infections and die at higher rates than the heterosexual population. Which is true.
Jeff in fact agreed with me. Offerred me a cookie for being corret. Or do you disagree J? Care to back it up with factual evidence from the CDC?
You are trying to deceive readers here by putting words in my mouth, that I never said. It is you who are the deceiver, clever one, but still misleading people on purpose.
CDC stats show homosexuals die at a much higher percentile due to AIDS than heterosexuals. This is a known fact by scientist and any informed person about the medical profession. This does not even cover the higher rates of STDs, rectal cancer, etc.
Why don't you find a link to try and mislead or discredit this truth J about homosexual death rates?
"I wondered what it was that you were not including in your quotation because it pretty much flew in the face of what I had been hearing for the last ten years."
Everything changes J. The truth is being told now. What you quoted has not change, but what I quoted in fact did change. The APA updated their brochure to match the current scientific knowledge. I did not lie.
They updated their position from the 1998 statements. So, you should read the actual brochure produced in 2008.
The 1998 statement in the brochure stated the following: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
This has now been omitted from the brochure in place of recent evidence to overturn shoddy science and assumptions from the 90s. So, it is you that are trying to mislead the readers here J.
"When I went to the site (here's the link http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31 ), I understood why you selected what you did."
You "undestood why?" Meaning what? That I was hiding something? No, not at all. I stated that I quoted it from the APA. If I was hiding anything, I'd never reveal the source. Otherwise, how would you know where to get the information J? So stop stating I am intentionally misleading, when in fact I told everyone where I got the quote from.
All I did was report the facts, quoting from the actual brochure. Why is it you leave out that information specific information J in your quotes?
Is it because you are biased? Because you do not want the truth to be told? That the APA did in fact change their position on science related to biology and DNA?
You then say...
"What follows is NOT the entire article but covers much of what you have been saying here."
Bingo, NOT being the key word. You put in a bunch of junk unrelated to what I stated as fact. I was not arguing anything but that the APA changed its position about the science. That is true. You left out the quote from the brochure.
Again, you like to leave out information for your biased position. You cannot attack me for the same act that you accomplish.
My other quotes sources are taken from legitimate studies on sexual behavior, Spitzer Report from 2003...
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer; Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417.
In his study, Spitzer states, "...clearly goes beyond anecdotal information and provides evidence that reparative therapy is sometimes successful."
Get that J? Reparative therapy is sometimes successful. In fact, we've known this for decades. That some men and women drift in an out of same-sex relationships and ultimately end up back in heterosexual marriages. This study shows that for those who do participate in therapy, they benefit and some go back to normal relationships.
The APA has a duty to admit this and update its site with this information. To not do so is unethical and a lie to the public at large. It is a lie to parents as well. The reason the APA is pushed into lies is the lobby by groups like LGBT. I stated this above to Jeff. That the lobby groups prevent open and free decicions by individuals. Because they are threatened by the truth.
Is therapy for homosexuals harmful? No....
Spitzer's study...
"they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself."
Why did they find it helpful J? Because, they became better equainted with the reasons for their confusion. Of this study, 11% of males and 37% of females reported complete change to heterosexual lifestyles.
That is solid evidence people are not born gay. It is a choice, a choice that should be allowd to change if people want therapy. The LGBT community should stop acting like fascist in control of psychology when scientific studies show they are clearly wrong.
Spitzer's study found benefit and not harm for individuals. Spitzer said, the APA should stop using a "double standard" re: reorientation therapy. Currently the APA discourages individuals from therapy, while promoting pro gay therapy. This is a result of the Lobby influences as I stated. It is one-sided, unfair, fascist and ultimately unscientific.
The brochure is a big update and change by the APA. The APA now admits it has no evidence for sexual orientation or behavior based upon DNA and scientific research.
As I stated, studies show homosexuals can and do change back to heterosexual lifestyles with therapy. What we don't know is just how many would change back if the APA would stop allowing the LGBT community to stop acting like fascist and allow for freedom in the medical system. The results would probably be much higher. But what we do know, is that a tiny percent of people, 1-2% claim to be gay, but not we find that in a simple study 10-37% switch back when allowed therapy and go onto happy normal lives. I suspect the percentages would go higher if not for pressure by gays and the media to condemn anyone that does not accept their position. The only people acting out rage and anger are the fascist who refuse to allow therapy for those that seek it.
The APA admits itself that patients have rights to self-determination for their own therapy. As I quoted correctly from the brochure. If it truly believes this, then it will open up its practices to be inclusive of all communities, not just a special watchdog group that prevents help for those that seek it.
Far from me being misleading. It is the homosexual and lesbian lobbyist committed to misinformation and deception. They seek to shut down any therapy for those that want to return to a normal life.
The APA took a big step in its admission that biology and DNA are scientifically unproven to show people are born homosexuals. Now they need to take an even bigger step and allow for the rights of those that refuse to remain in the homosexual community, instead of allowing them to be condemned by an angry, mob like crowd.
Which is very evident today by all the comments here attacking me as a bigot. All the physical attacks, mental, emotional rants, boycotts and firings in California.
The unruly mobs today are the LGBT community. Angry with their own lives, they threaten others and refuse to admit scientific evidence into the debate.
In the end J, you did not rebut my original quotes. You simply left them out for your own deceptive purposes of bias. The APA in fact did change the brochure from 1998 in admission of scientific evidence that homosexuals are not born gay.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 8:29PM
Dan,
Your mocking examples above are childish. By your logic, you will support Pedophiles, rapist and murderes to live free?
Think about your position for a minute.
If we take your side, Carols, Jeffs and J's. If behavior were intrinsic to our atomic, chemical and DNA.
Then the obvious conclusion is Pedophiles, Rapist and Murderers are "born that way" too.
So, we as a society have no moral right to lock them up in jail. They are all "born that way."
This makes your arguments a fallacy built upon a wish due to your bias for the homosexual activist.
Dan's mocking rant points out the absurdity of the homosexual born that way argument.
If we go with Dan's and Jeff's version of reality, then none of us have moral authority to put Pedophiles, rapist, or murderers behind bars.
They are born rapist, pedophiles and murderers due to their DNA.
If you disagre with this logical fallacy, then we are all Bigots according to Jeff's, Carols, and Dan and J for oppressing pedophiles, rapist and murderers.
The homosexual logic for being "born that way" ends up absurd. And equally absurd is the claim of bigotry.
Instead of reading and learning about the facts of science, psychological conditions leading to identity confusion, they go by their emotions, lies and propagand they hear repeated on TV and by their well-meaning friends. They then join in with the mob and attack anyone who disagrees slandering and slurring their positions. Labeling people as bigots.
So Jeff, Carol, Dan, J... by your logic, you are all bigots against pedophiles for not allowing them their natural born ways to molest children.
Great argument guys... Next!
Stop acting like fascist, as only your side is correct and we as individuals are not allowed to teach our children differently in the end based upon solid scientific evidence and logic.
This is not a religious issue. It is a matter of science, logic and reason. It appears the only religious fanatics are those that stick to their blind ways of abnormal behavior, then demanding everyone bow down to their gods of perversion.
They end up being hypocrites with double-standards for a "special group" of people where logic and norms do not apply to them, but everyone else.
BTW, do you Jeff, J, Carol, Dan support Pedophile rights? Do you support NAMBLA? The ACLU does. Just curious if you do.
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 8:33PM
HomoSapiens,
Haha... great point. But then, you make to much common sense to the emotional rants of the LGBT activist community. They cannot allow logic to creep into their arguments.
Great summary and shorter than mine!
AnalRetentive| 6.20.09 @ 8:53PM
For those who may not know who Dr. Spitzer is, he is the one that removed homosexualty as a mental disorder in 1973 from the guidebook of psychological disorders.
He has since changed his mind based upon actual scientific studies...
"Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted-but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue-some people can and do change."
His 2003 studies I pointed out above show this is factual. It has been known a long time. But the media(tied down by gay lobbyist) refuses to tell the truth to the public. The media is now and has been part of the problem in disseminating the correct information to the public. Instead of acting as a watch dog for truth, they are now a biased watch dog for a one-sided, far left, pro homosexual message.
This is why you see homosexuals presented mostly on TV as happy people, carefree, without troubles, in different comedies, movies and drama.
The straight heterosexuals who disapprove of such lifestyles are represnted as evil, dumb and close-minded bigots.
It would be a good idea for everyone to turn off ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, TNT, etc., for a week and send a message to them and their sponsors for more equal and factual treatment of truth regarding this highly volatile issue in our nation.
A problem that ruins peoples lives, family lives and actually ends up killing people because of their uninformed choices. Broadcast journalism should be ashamed of themselves for not presenting the truth without bias.
Frankly, all TV broadcast should be broken up from Hollywood and corporations like GE. Since the law was changed to allow the hollywood ownership and corporate takeover of media, our nation has sufferred from outright lies, bias and omissions of truth. The far left has taken over every major network. And hollywood is rarely reprimanded for the filth it throws in our childrens faces daily.
Homo Sapiens| 6.20.09 @ 9:59PM
Thanks for the kind response, AnalRetentive. You are making excellent points as well.
Seems to me that so much of this GLBT stuff is, at its core, about doing away with truth -- it's about making words mean anything one chooses for them to mean. About claiming that there is no absolute truth in the world.
If our civilization can no longer agree that day is not night, that evil is not good, etc., then we are doomed to a life in which those in power settle such questions for us. We, the people, will have little in common, and so might will truly make right, at least as those in power define "right."
Joe(formerly AnalRetentive)| 6.21.09 @ 12:57AM
HomoSapiens,
You are correct about the twisting of truth and twisting of words. It is why I pointed out being "gay" is about making choices. Just like a smoker, a pedophile, etc., is a choice. People who get addicted to drugs can quit. Every single drug rehab expert will tell you that the drug user must first want to change their lives. This is the same with homosexuals and lesbians. They must want to change. The ones that sincerely do want change do. That is called choice.
So, are people bigots when they banish smokers? Or banish drug users? No! Likewise, when a parent is raising a child and teaching a young boy or girl growing up about the sexes and states they are born to be in monogamous relationships with the opposite sex, are they bigots? No, not at all. It is normal, just teaching them not to use drugs, or not to molest someone, or not to kill.
We all make choices in life. Some just refuse to admit it and deal with their choices. They then blame others for all their mistakes. This is common of people with addictions, sexual, drug or alcohol.
They call good evil and evil good. They refuse to look at the logical outcome of their own theology and failed morality.
They lable people with vicious untruths.
I do not hate the "gay" community, nor do I demand homosexuals change their lives for me. All I ask is for the whole truth to be told so that parents and those people "thinking" about "experimenting" with homosexual acts get the clear facts before they make such foolish choices in their lives.
This is a free nation. We have the right to speak out about the truth. It appears the "gay" community wants the right to oppress free speech and scientific truth.
If the "gay" community truly want to be treated equally, then they need to treat others with equal respect and stop the lies, the hate and the oppression of truth.
Loving people means you tell them the truth when it protects them from dangerous consequences.
Also, if people are a seekers of truth, then they except the facts, not ignore them. It is sad, because I've known young men who died, that if the truth were told to them without all the emotional shame and oppression, they could be alive today.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.21.09 @ 8:20AM
Do I dare suggest a sodomy czar?
Oldefarte| 6.21.09 @ 4:20PM
Discrimination should never be tolerated, but they should simply GO BACK INTO THE CLOSET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim| 6.21.09 @ 6:58PM
Let gays get married so they can experince responsibilty for their actions. The problem is not gay marrige, the problem is that people know the gays won't stop until they legaliaze sex with children.
Alan Brooks| 6.21.09 @ 7:28PM
gays were more interesting in the closet.
Revolutions, including sexual revolutions, have become dull-- today's revolutionary is tomorrow's old farte
J| 6.21.09 @ 10:58PM
Jim
That is a ridiculous assertion.
The false equivalency between consensual adult homosexual sex/marriage and child rape should be readily apparent to anybody who is honest with themselves and those they are trying to communicate with.
Marriage confers certain rights in this country to the men and women who enter into it. Excluding people those rights simply due to the gender of their partner is wrong.
The story of this country, in my view, begins with people setting high standards of freedom and equality at it founding and then slowly living up to those ideals. Every time that this country has moved towards living up to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, reactionary forces have resisted that change. The progressive abolitionist movement was opposed by the establishment. Women sufferage was opposed by the establishment (and failed in many state referendums). The integration of the military was resisted by the establishment. The civil rights movement was resisted by conservatives. In the end, all of these progressive social movements succeeded. Today's gay rights movement is another such movement. Fifty years from now, those who opposed equal rights for gays will be viewed as misguided as those who resisted the other movements listed above.
Demographic changes within the U.S. are on the side of those advocating gay rights. Today's young people are far more supportive of gay rights than are older people. Tolerance is the way of the future. I don't really care if a state bans gay marriage because I know that in maybe twenty years it will be legal everywhere. Additionally, I don't really care about what one calls it. If civil unions provide the same rights as marriage, then just do them instead. Marriage. Who cares? I've been married for five years and the possibility of gay people getting married too in no way means that I need my marriage "defended" by a law preventing such recognition for gays. The way that it's argued by some conservatives makes it seem like the only reason why some of them are married to women is because they can't marry another man. If gays got marriage rights, there would not be a phenomenon of men getting divorces so they could get married to their golf buddies.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
No group in society has the right to sex with children. Some underage teens have even been prosecuted for having sex with each other or sending naked pictures of themselves to other underage teens.
Joe| 6.21.09 @ 11:19PM
J,
"I find it difficult to argue with somebody who is being intellectually dishonest. You say that I am lying because I use a different source than what you did."
That is not what I said. I defended my source. The Brochure is the PDF on the very link you quoted. Read it!
J. you are the one that attacked me first saying that I was intentionally misleading and misinforming people. You called me a liar first without using the word. Then you questioned my source. I told you their new brochure. Then you call me "intellectually dishonest." That is the same as calling me a liar J., yet again!
So get off your high horse as if somehow you believe you're more special than me. I gave you the correct quote from the very LINK you posted in your comment. The only one acting badly in this conversation is you, by calling me a liar first.
All the other garbage you throw out is a bunch of psuedo intellectual rubbish. It is a bunch of psychologist heavily lobbied by the LGBT fascist organization who refuses to allow good science to take place.
I quote more information from Dr. Spitzers study and you try to put it down. Truth is, he once believed what the LGBT lobby pushes still today, that people cannot change.
The study shows in fact - they do! More so, he determined the amount of change would be higher in a study population of willing participants who wanted to change. Not only that, a majority of gays do want to change.
J. how about some logical questions for you.
1) are Bisexuals born bisexual?
2) are pedophiles born pedohiles?
3) are Polygamist born polygamist?
4) Are male and female born with normal age of puberty in 10-13, range of age? If so, why not allow them to be married?
If the LGBT lobby is correct, then the answers to the above would be YES. If that is so, you, me and our justice system has no right to stop those groups from acting out on their innate desires, or how they were "born that way".
Yet even you show that there is a moral line you will not cross. Funny, that you can do that for one group and not another. Interesting that you do have some morals, yet expect others not to follow them. And then you want to force their confused lifestyles on everyone else. The LGBT wants to force the abnormal "gay" lifestyle on children even in kindergarten! It is crazy to do this. Why not force polygamy on 5yr olds J?
Got an answer? You end up being a hypocrite. Because if you justify one desire or behavior, it opens up all of society perversions practiced by pagans in the past.
Are some people born for beastiality J?
This is the problem with the LGBT logic. It is a failed logic, a fallacy and it should not be taught as truth to children.
Joe| 6.21.09 @ 11:59PM
“Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
I said no to this, so why keep shooting a dead horse?
Lets see how you try to get around the real issues...
"No. This is a common myth."
Duh, no disagreement. And it is not a commone myth anymore. It was a myth decades ago when people did not know for sure how it was transmitted. Anyone with informed by the news knows this.
"In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation."
Simply not true. How do you protect the act when a man is orally stimulating another man's anus with his tongue J? Do you recommend he use a tongue condom? Frankly, you may have more information on that issue than me these days. But you and I know it occurs. You also know that anal intercourse does more than just allow for transmission of aids. Because that part of a man's anatomy is not made for sexual penetration, or any other kind for that matter, the sexual acts performed by homosexuals put great stress on the male receiver, not just physically with tears to the rectum, but also higher rates of many different disease.
Lets list off all the diseases at higher rates than average population. The following are all quotes from recent studies...
Anal Cancer:
"One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal carcinoma. Several recent studies have indicated the rate of anal dysplasia to be increasing in men with and without HIV. Ninety percent of men with HIV have the human papiloma virus (HPV), while 65% of men without HIV have HPV. HVP type 16 is the most troublesome for developing cancer and is found in a significant portion of gay men."
Now anyone with a brain and/or a college education can read those statistics and understand the disaster that takes place in homosexual physical relationships. 90% is devasting, even 65% without HIV! Homosexual men are litterally playing russian roulette with anal sex.
Are you telling me J., that 65% of the homosexual men do not use condoms? This is crazy, it is insanity to allow a child to go down this path. Its like sending an astronaut to the moon with limited protection from radiation. Condoms are not working J. Men are dying. Young men that once had promising lives.
"What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is that contracting the disease can be prevented by using safe sex practices and by not using drugs.”
I just showed you one simple example of anal cancer. Condoms are not working, or upwards to 65% of men are not using condoms.
What is your excuse for this fact J? This is not just about HIV/AIDS. It is about all types of diseases that end up harming or killing young men J. Open your eyes and actually care about the individuals that are lost to families because they are not being told the facts about such high risk. The behavior is much of the cause, but so to is the actual act of anal intercourse because a man's body was never intended for such penetration. Anyone with a biology course knows this.
"...was intended to counter your obsession with the death rates of gays."
This is a joke. Why are you not concerned about the high death rate of young men J? Its what caring people think about. I'm not obsessed, I'm upset! I'm angry that young children are being taught that this lifestyle is safe by people like you, if you only "practice safe sex." That argument does not fly anymore. People are dying left and right, but you are concerned about my thoughts?
Is it not time J., that you think sincerely about the millions dead and dying?
"I agree that homosexual men have a higher rate of HIV infection."
Finally, an admission. Thank you. Now don't forget to leave off AIDs. As a demographic, homosexual men die at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. Just look at CDC records. We actually need much more research to determine if women are being infected by bisexual men.
"However, as the APA points out, it isn’t the fact that they are homosexual that results in HIV infection; HIV infections result from not following safe sex practices."
It is also a fact that HIV/AIDS and death rates are much higher in the homosexual community than in the lesbian community J. Why is that? Don't you think that scientist and citizens should be informed, do testing, studies and find out why it is higher?
"HIV is related to behavior not sexual orientation."
You can keep pounding the behavior or safe sex issues, but you are ignoring the reality of death rates. Plus you refuse to admit that homosexuality is a behaviorial trait! So, you want it both ways. You want to say homosexual anal intercourse is a result of behavior, but the LGBT community says gays cannot change and should not be allowed therapy because it is harmful. Then you say they die because of this behavior, acting out physically their passions only because they don't use a condom?
Wow...
"So what is it that you want? What should be done with the gays? Why shouldn't they get equal rights?"
Because J., it is a choice, like smoking, pedophilias, bisexuality, polygamy and beastiality. It is all a choice. Equal rights is based upon a narrow definition of civil rights, which is only related to how we are born, black, white, women, men. We are not born "gay."
Next, gays should not have the right to force educational classes upon young children of any age until after 18, just like alcohol, etc., since it is a choice, not a DNA evolutionary branch on some fake tree. And because it is not evolution, in fact it stops evolution, it stops procreation of the species, it is unnatural. Science admits this.
If we give people special rights for their choices, then you must open the door to all other sexual choices and get rid of age limits for marrying based upon puberty. Polygamy should be legal based upon your call for equal rights, so should pedophilia and the most disgusting beastiality. And if you think I'm joking, just go to Europe. They are allowing much of this to take place, as well as the middle east.
So J., what do you want? True Equal Rights for All choices? Or only your special rights for a few?
Other than denying the marriage act and the forced education of children, I'd like equal rights in studies in the APA and an equal right for normal heterosexual Families at the table in the Media, in print and for universities and media to give the other side of the story. To report factually how many homosexuals die. I'd like studies to know how many women die due to infection from bisexual men. I'd like open therapy sponsored by the APA and heterosexual rights promoted, and the LGBT lobby to leave those who want to go back to a normal heterosexual lifestyle alone and stop demanding that therapy is seen as harmful, when clearly studies show it is not.
Thats a start J. And it is very reasonable. I do not want to condemn anyone. I simply want the truth to be told.
Joe| 6.22.09 @ 12:17AM
J.,
I do not have time to post all the diseases homosexuals get as a result of anal intercourse at this moment.
I posted a link to Scientific America above. The study shows that male semen increases HIV infection rates by an order of 50. Sometimes up to 100,000 the normal rate!
This should give us an explanation about why homosexual men get higher rates of HIV/AIDS and death.
The lesbian community, the heterosexual community are below the homosexual rates.
You can chalk this up to behavior all you like. I agree, it is all a choice, the attraction of young boys to men is often the result of deep psychological chaos in their mind as a result of molestation.
In a 2001 study...
"In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women."
This is common sense. Without a good relation to a father, incest, beatings, oppression, psychological disorders develop.
"Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation."
That is a direct correlation to dysfunctional sexual confusion as a result of a physical sexual act perpetrated on a child. What APA and all people should be doing is condemning the act, putting the idiots behind jail, and then helping the child with a normal heterosexual lifestyle choice.
It is obvious we have real problems with young boys not in healthy relationships with their fathers. This does not cover divorce or the feminization of our society. Where mothers without husbands are left to deal with difficult issues of child raising. I suspect that the amount of homosexuals in our nation are correlated with divorce rates as well.
Study was done:
in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2001 Oct;30(5):535-41. Title: Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons.
BTW, I forget to give the study for Anal Cancer above. Here it is.... done in 2004.
Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):404.
There is so much more to add. I'll get to it tomorrow J. It appears you want to continue the conversation. Thats good with me. Stop attacking me as a liar, and I'll do the same. Otherwise, when you do, don't be surprised if I hit back and ruffle your delicate feathers.
Joe| 6.22.09 @ 12:20AM
J.
One last comment. According to your logic, people are born religious as well. In fact, evolutionary psychologist write research on this fact.
If that is true, then every school in the nation must teach religion to all children, taught that it is a condition of our genes and treat us with equal rights.
Starting to get a glimpse of how absurd your argument is from the LGBT community?
Joe's Fan Club| 6.22.09 @ 1:18AM
Joe,
You are my hero, and a born leader.
The gays have woken up the silent majority, but they are not giving up.
All hands on deck to make sure gay marriage is defeated in New York:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/breaking-ny-marriage-vote-may-come-wednesday-with-constituent-action/
Joe| 6.22.09 @ 2:11AM
JFC,
Mocking by fools is an honor. Thank for proving that by deception you try to win. Why are you promoting the HRC? The HRC walks hand in hand with LGBT community. Nice try. I didn't even have to pull up the link. Next time, learn some HTML so you can be even more deceitful in your quest to fool other readers.
For those reading. JFC's link is pro "gay" choice. He thinks he is being smart, but he is a fool.
Did you really think I wouldn't know about the HRC? Guess again. I'm more informed than you. Let me know when you want to try a real argument next time.
You guys are more arrogant than I thought. Such arrogance about your opponents leads to false pride.
Proverbs 16:18 Says "Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 14:12, There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
This is the truth for homosexuals and people like you JFC. What "seems right" to them and you ends up in death for a high percentage. It is honestly, very sad.
Think about all the lost sons to families because of a choice made about a big fat lie told to everyone in the public through our media. Dying as a result of propaganda.
Thats not Equal Rights. That is a death march, assisted suicide, without knowing the consequences of their choices. You believe in allowing them to die without telling them the truth. You end up participating in the assisted death.
You would think someone interested in "Human Rights" would have the courage to tell the truth to young men and not send them down a dangerous path of death and disease.
But you JFC, are a fool, so you mock others who disagree with you and participate in lies.
When I was younger, liberal and blind, I accepted as factual all the rubbish that many uninformed, self-rightous people like you pushed. I did this without critical thought. Without looking into the actual research.
My college education allows me to sniff out a bluff, a strawman and other fallacious arguments made by uninformed people like you, or the propagandist and lobbyist for your side.
Stupid post like yours JFC are a dime a dozen from the childish, emotional ranters on your side. Mock, joke and ridicule all you like.
It does not enhance your position.
Truth is homosexuals die at a higher rate. HRC should be demanding the truth be told so young men do not die for no good reason at all.
Have a good day JFC. Next time, try linking to a stupid pet trick, much more entertaining and substantially a higher level of thought than yours.
Joe| 6.22.09 @ 2:20AM
What is "Gay Bowel Syndrome"? Maybe J, Carol, Dan, JFC or the LGBT lobbyist can tell us? But that would mean telling the truth to the public.
Gay Bowel Syndrom is the diseases and problems associated with anal intercourse and related sexual activities such as rimming(oral stimulation of the rectal area).
From a study...
"The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10% of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum.[8]"
That is quite a list based upon a single choice. The Human Rights Commission should demand that young men considering the choice of homosexuality be informed about all the dangerous diseases they might contract due to their physical actions. This is only fair.
We do it for tabacco, why not inform the public about Gay Bowel Syndrome?
Next.
J| 6.22.09 @ 4:09AM
Joe,
On the religion argument you posted, I only disagree to a degree. I don't think people are born religious because the root meaning of that word is "to link back." Religions exist to provide a link to the original founder of that religion and that person's mystical experience or connection to god or whatever the root truth for that religion is.
I think that people are born with the mystical or mythological imagery hardwired into their brains. This is the reason that religions worldwide share certain constructs.
I do think that teaching mythology including Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Christian, and Islamic mythology in their mythological context would be a good thing. I am an advocate for equal rights for members of any religion, even though I am not a member of one. I pretty much left the church (Southern Baptist) in 6th grade when I couldn't deal with the anti-intellectual assault on science by the church and the insistence on literal interpretation of the Bible.
I don't see how insisting on equal rights for all religions would somehow show how the arguments put forward for equal rights for gays are ridiculous.
I really like how you call math a bunch of pseudo intellectual bulllshit basically. The math was right there for you to see. Only 37 out of 200 of these highly motivated people who were much more religious than the general population were able to switch sides. The rest of the group just became bisexual. The study said that 35-40% of the participants had seriously considered suicide because of their disapproval of their own sexuality. Only 18.5% of participants were able to switch. Doesn't that disturb you? These highly religious people disapprove of their own sexuality so much because they are condemned by their religious leaders and people like you. If it is such a choice then why were so few able to make the switch?
You still do not understand my point about behavior being the root of the diseases you are talking about. The behavior is unsafe sex. Condoms block HIV. Condoms block HPV. There is a product for oral sex or a "tongue condom" it's called dental dam. Same stuff the dentist uses on your mouth to isolate teeth.
"So what is it that you want? What should be done with the gays? Why shouldn't they get equal rights?"
Because J., it is a choice, like smoking, pedophilias, bisexuality, polygamy and beastiality. It is all a choice. Equal rights is based upon a narrow definition of civil rights, which is only related to how we are born, black, white, women, men. We are not born "gay."
So, if the scientific community suddenly found that being gay was 100% genetic. Which I will say it is not. From what I've read, about 35% of sexual orientation in men and 18% in women is accounted for by genetics, the rest is environmental. Would you then be in favor of equal rights for them? If not, why?
And you don't have to continue to argue about the therapy thing. I think that if somebody wants to do it then they should be allowed to. This is consistent with my overall position that people have the right to do what they want as long as nobody else gets hurt. Don't bother with the argument that gays damage society because they don't procreate. We have too many people in society who do procreate and then raise their kids in a way that they are destined to appear on Jerry Springer and are thus damaging society through procreation.
I'll have to be a couple of days before I can respond to your whole post because I have to work in the morning. I just stayed up an extra hour that I didn't mean to.
Homo Sapiens| 6.22.09 @ 8:03AM
J, when you return, please let me know your answer to the long-running question about "equal rights" for all kinds of marriage -- i.e., polygamy, polyandry, marriage between close relatives (incl. fathers and sons, sisters and sisters, who would not give birth to "inbred" children), marriage among multiple numbers of close relatives, etc., etc. If same-sex marriage should be allowed on the grounds of "equal rights," on what basis should we disallow marriage among any combinations of people who love each other? Should "equal rights" be denied to them, or granted?
Mikey| 6.22.09 @ 9:42AM
The sauce thats good for the goose is good for the gander. All you folks crying Fowl over how straights cant enter into civil unions think its just fine for gays to be forbidden marriage rights. Discrimination should be a one way street. Let gay couples get any kind of recognition that straight couples dont and that equals heterophobia, but you folks who want to deny marriage rights to gay couples deny charges of homophobia all day long. You cant have it both ways people. BTW gay people dont hate or fear straights. Gay people and their allies (who are straight btw) fear fearmongering bigots.
Homo Sapiens| 6.22.09 @ 2:16PM
Mikey, instead of calling people names, how about answering my questions, in the comment above yours? Thanks.
J| 6.23.09 @ 3:30AM
Once again I visited this site too late and the next two nights are for poker so I might just be doing brief comments until the weekend.
I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry. I would not enter into either of those relationships but if that's what somebody else wants and the tax code can be restructured where immense collective marriages don't become some sort of tax evading scheme or welfare ripoff then I don't see why it shouldn't be legal. Of course, from a class perspective, I do have some concerns that the rich would be able to monopolize breeding chances through multiple wives or husbands. I think that one of the reasons why the Islamic world is so effed up is because young men get so sexually frustrated at the lack of available women that they become more receptive to martyrdom and its 72 virgins. I have done no research on this idea, but I remember reading back in 2002 or 2003 about the rampant homosexuality among Afgan men which was ascribed by the reporter to the fact that girls cannot be alone with a man without a male relative being present. More recently, I read an article withing the last month or so in the NY Times about how the Iraqi "former" insurgents have started to terrorize the families of girls who spurn their advances by planting IEDs outside their houses or shooting at them and their families.
I can't support incestuous marriage. I just seems that members of a family can have too much power over other members of that family for the relationship to be truly consensual. It seems to me that one party would end up being the recipient of a total mind fcuk. For example, that apostate Mormon group from Texas where girls were being married off to their uncles. There is no way that anybody could convince me that those girls who should have been in high school were acting on their own volition when they married men in their 40s or 50s. That cult also illustrates the reason for my concern about the concentration of women with richer or more powerful men. In order to prevent the young girls from wanting something else, teenage boys are frequently excommunicated from such groups. These teenage boys, then have to make their way in the world after never having received a proper education. It just seems like a mean thing to do to both the boys and the girls.
I understand the opposition to these proposed forms of marriage. The crux of my views on all of these (including gay marriage) has to do with consent without coercion. For example, I believe consent cannot come from a teenage girl who has been brainwashed into believing that God wants her to bang a guy holding an AARP card. There is coercion in the establishment of that marriage. A father who has physically and mentally dominated his son into submission over the first 18 years of the kids life marrying his son would be wrong because of the abuse inherent in that relationship. Relatives have too much power over each other for there to be a truly consensual relationship.
I've got to go to bed.
For your next post, can you tell me why providing equal rights to all religions (which is the current state of our country) would illustrate the absurdity of providing equal rights to gays? I would argue that the fact that religions are treated equally in the U.S. is the reason that Americans are more religious than Europeans who have official religions. The fact that the U.S. government doesn't support one particular church has created a marketplace for religion. Sclerotic churches get displaced by new more energetic ones. Albeit some really wacky ones (i.e. Scientology, Wicca, The Flying Spaghetti Monster). Who's to say that the government stopping its endorsement of one particular type of marriage wouldn't make marriage in this country stronger?
Homo Sapiens| 6.23.09 @ 7:31AM
It seems true, then, that demanding "equal rights" for same-sex marriage could also lead to other combinations of people also demanding the right to marry.
You asked me to tell you "why providing equal rights to all religions...would illustrate the absurdity of providing equal rights to gays." That question must be directed to another commentor, because it was not a point that I had been making. I would say, however, that allowing freedom of religion (which is guaranteed by our Constitution) and guaranteeing the rights of various combinations of people to marry (which isn't) are very different topics. I agree with you that incestuous and multiple marriages could involved coercion and other problems; but in the arena of "equal rights," their proponents might argue that they have the "right" to try to make such marriages work, with society's blessing.
"Who's to say that the government's stopping its endorsement of one particular type of marriage wouldn't make marriage in this country stronger?" I think it's that "let's try it and see what happens" kind of attitude that seems too loosey-goosey for many of us. Social engineering can have unintended consequences; and over the course of many centuries, Westerners have found that one man, one woman marriage works out best (and most fairly for the wife and the children, in particular) than any other combination. "Cohabitation" (which my grandparents called "living in sin") instead of marriage is becoming quite common, and the disastrous effects it can have on the participants' chances for a subsequent good marriage, and the devastating effects it has on children, are one example of "let's change society" gone bad. I've seen this in my own family.
My grandparents would have tried to knock some sense into young women who are shacking up with men by asking this rhetorical question: "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" They weren't talking about livestock.
J| 6.23.09 @ 7:57PM
Homo Sapiens,
My previous post was mostly directed at Joe who posted the following:
One last comment. According to your logic, people are born religious as well. In fact, evolutionary psychologist write research on this fact.
If that is true, then every school in the nation must teach religion to all children, taught that it is a condition of our genes and treat us with equal rights.
Starting to get a glimpse of how absurd your argument is from the LGBT community?
end quote
I agree with your assessment about how the two are apples and oranges. I should have been more clear since I was addressing Joe in regards to an assertion that he made which seems illogical to me.
Regarding your post on the different types of marriage, I just laid out why I favored or opposed one or the other. I don't think that the government should be involved in the personal consensual relationships between adults. The fact that the government gives preferential treatment to a certain relationship can disadvantage all others who are not eligible under the law to be a party to that contract. So give them civil unions, let heterosexual couples in on them too.
As far as that rhetorical question goes, there are plenty of young women out there who feel the need to get milked.
Homo Sapiens| 6.24.09 @ 10:04AM
J, when advocates of multiple marriage and marriage between close relatives demand equal rights to marry, I hope you will express your objections to them. Rest assured, the day will come when they will demand it.
Pingback| 6.26.09 @ 10:30AM
Teen Alcohol Abuse: A Critical Problem - The Blog Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lingerie | 9.17.09 @ 9:47PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie
Pingback| 9.18.09 @ 7:48AM
True Alcohol Treatment Requires An Individualized Plan « Wicked Blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
bfdg | 12.20.09 @ 12:02PM
Mikey, instead of calling people names, how about answering my questions, in the comment above yours? Thanks. http://www.led-lamp-manufacturer.com/
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:21AM
Thanks for the interesting post!UTI Treatment