Please Read This...Homosexuality

[Rob]

so rob, if it is false to say that one is born gay, due to the fact you could also say that you were born a murderer, are peopel born straight? or is being straight a choice people chose to make.

Peace, the scenario you are trying to make is like saying since I was born a man I'm making the choice to be a man, sorry to break it to you but it doesn't work that way. Put simply, even a scientist couldn't disagree that sex is made with the purpose of reproduction and it is a fact that two men or two women can not concieve. God or nature, whichever you choose to believe, make it perfectly obvious what works and that is why you find the health risks posed by homosexuality.

and if so, Why is it a choice that is better than being a homosexual?

Homosexuality is not natural and is against God. How can this be so hard to understand? Even an atheist should be able to understand the "design of nature". Man + Man or Woman + Woman both are impossible ways to reproduce, which is the number one purpose of the sexual organs you know.

The bible?

sure, we can all agree that being a homosexual is not biblicly acceptable. However, what right do you have to tell someone else they can't be a homosexual, because of your religion.

I never said that someone couldn't be a homosexual because of my religion. The fact is they don't have the right to force me to accept homosexuality either. Marriage is a religious union, not a union that was invented by the United States. I can accept that a practicing homosexual isn't a true believer in the same religion/God that I believe in because they would realize the wrong in their sexual actions and change that wrong. When they try to promote something that I see as wrong toward my children in public schools or on television on a regular basis it is no better than them telling my children what religion is right in school. This isn't about the rights of homosexuals but more about my right to believe what I believe is morally wrong and not have the government butting in teaching my children words like homophobia instead of words like morals.

People on this forum fight to the last drop that it is WRONG for muslims to make women wear burkas and it is WRONG for them to bar TV and other things. Yet, you turn around and tell people it is WRONG for them to do things that aren't your way.

First let me say that you have never seen me post anything about muslims making their women wear burkas. Honestly, I don't see much of a difference between how some different muslims treat women and how some denominations of Christians treat women. I could honestly care less if muslim women are wearing a burka or if muslims are barred from watching certain television shows. You know what, I don't let my daughters wear certain clothing because I find it inappropriate and there are definetly a lot of television shows that get blocked in my house by the Vchip. I don't even let my daughters have the Bratz dolls because I think it teaches them the inappropriate way to be dressing and doing makeup at an early age(my family and I have gone rounds after birthday/Christmas gifts have ended up in the garbage because of this rule). If anything I can at least respect the fact that the muslims show some since of morals, even if I disagree with their religion. I do find it strange how you try to use muslims to condone homosexuality though, since in many a muslim country you could be put to death for practicing homosexuality.

Do i taste hypocritical discrimination?

Again I ask how you can be so worried about the health risks of smoking and not even care about the health risks caused by homosexuals? Do you ever wonder how HIV became the epidemic it has become today? Have you ever wondered about the spread of other diseases caused by homosexuality? How can you say that homosexuals only hurt themselves when many are still having heterosexual relationships/marriages and spreading diseases to sometimes innocent victims? Sure this can happen with heterosexuals too but I think you will find this problem much more often with homosexuals. I ask you one thing, before you even think about responding to this post with more homosexual propaganda, find me just one scientific article that proves homosexual behaviour isn't harmful. I've posted several sites that show the risks of homosexual behaviour in an above post, where are yours? If it is so harmful then why isn't society just as opposed to that as they are to obesity and smoking? Maybe the real hypocrites are the ones crying for gay rights, seems like the best answer so far. I have an uncle who is gay, he is my grandmothers youngest child and my mothers youngest brother. This uncle of mine is only 36 years old yet he looks like he is in his 80's. He has HIV among other diseases and I although I love him because he is still family I don't condone his actions. My uncle knows how I feel about his lifestyle and because of that he never tries to force his lifestyle on me and keeps his actions far from my family. I don't really care what he does behind closed doors as long as he keeps it behind closed doors. The sad part is my Uncle probably won't live to see 40 because of the lifestyle he CHOSE to live.

If being a homosexual hurt someone besides the 2 consenting adults, then, and only then should it be in the same category as murder and pedophilia.

So is statutory rape a bad thing? Two consenting people, (I would say adults but they are only considered adults if they commit a crime considered bad enough to be tried as one otherwise they are still considered children) What about the bisexual who contracts diseases from their homosexual behaviours and then spreads it to the heterosexual population? What about the bisexual who contracts HIV from his gay partner then rapes a woman and gives her it as well? What about all the tax dollars that are going toward paying for these bad choices these consenting adults are making? Have you ever stopped to consider where your tax dollars go? I can tell you this much for a fact, my uncle contracted HIV and other STD's from his choice of lifestyle and for the past 7-8 years has been able to live off of the government because of his bad choices. My tax dollars are being spent on money to keep him alive, hospital visits, his apartment, his food, a monthly social security check to help him pay bills, and pretty much every other dime he brings in. I geuss it would be fair to say that homosexuality crosses the line from two consenting adults as soon as bad choices by perverts starts dipping into my weekly paycheck. You have asked how the government can spend so much money in Iraq and other countries and fail to spend enough on it's own citizens yet you can't see the amount of money being spent on citizens here in the US because of their bad CHOICES! I would much rather see my tax money going to help out a family that can't afford food than to pay for the actions of some degenerate.

 

[peace4all]

Rob, srry i didnt make it clear, I onyl meant the first part of my response to be directed to you, the rest was to the general users of this forum. Sorry about that. I have never seen you particularly post about some of the other issues, I just didn't want to make 2 posts after eachother...

People can be born a man, and be physically, scientifically, a man. People can be born black, and they are, black. With red hair, and, they have red hair (although it may fade some with age)

Are people born homosexual or heterosexual? If being a homosexual is a choice, than so is being a heterosexual, and we were al born allowed to pick, right?
If sex was made only for reproduction, are you against condoms? Birth control? Sex is also used for pleasure. I mean, dolphins realized it feels good too. As for the health risks due to homosexuality, 95% of all disease issues, can be stopped by the use of condoms (this is only in male to male homosexuality) however, since men don't have babies, its not really thought of or used as much. As for the damaging of the rectum, that is still a problem, as would be having sex that is damaging to a vagina (although a vagina IS meant to receive a penis, damage can occur from frequent, or "Rough" sex.) and this again, totally plays out lesbians for health risks.

peace4all wrote:

and if so, Why is it a choice that is better than being a homosexual?


Homosexuality is not natural and is against God. How can this be so hard to understand? Even an atheist should be able to understand the "design of nature". Man + Man or Woman + Woman both are impossible ways to reproduce, which is the number one purpose of the sexual organs you know.

yes, but sex between sterile adults, will obviously never produce children, yet it is still part of nature, and completly natural, and should be allowed. Yes, it may be against God, I can't argue that, But i can argue imposing religous rules on non religous people, is discriminatory to their right to choose religion (as logn as it is not hurting other consenting adults)


as for your statements regarding marriage.... MOST homosexuals would find that a "civil union" would be fine enough to. To be recognized, maybe not by God, but by the united states. Now, As an atheist, I can get married, legally, even though God is 100% against it, and would not approve, and its a sin. What is the diffrence?
By saying it is ok to accept people that are diffrent, is not promoting homosexuality at all. Thats like saying "its ok to accept fat kids" and then saying schools are telling kids to go and get fat. What word instead of homophobia should they be taught "faggot?" I think that word is acquired much earlier in schools.

I do know that muslims are against homosexuality, but I often use things about muslims, because people on this forum, tend to have a general "dislike" for muslims. and not the same dislike they have for Atheists, or Hindu's or any other belief (although, atheism sometimes comes close) (btw, I agree those Bratz dolls are horrible little toys ;-) )

I do agree, that homosexuals pose a greater risk towards HIV than heterosexuals. BUT only homosexual men. Homosexual women, are actually at a lower infection rate.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm

which is much lower than the male ratio. y? because men don't use Condoms.

Yes, I agree that the fact that alot of men are "down low" about it, and in the closet, and have sex behidn their partners backs, will then cause an increase in HIV development, however, that is not due to someone being a homosexual, it is because they are in an adulterous relationship, and un-truthful. The same could happen if they just slept with other women instead. However, being "down low" and "in the closet" is becoming less and less common, now that peopel are finally becoming more accepting to the behavior. Now, Males are more likely to be able to be gay, and admit it, than have to hide it to try to live like a human.

I believe that stautory rape to teh ge of 15, is a bad thing. above 15, i Believe you usually can make your own decisions, and it should not be statutory, however, i think it should be more of a case by case issue. Heterosexuals are much more likely to rape women than bisexuals, and they too are much more likely to spread disease. Rapists in general, are more likely to have diseases that can be spread, due to their lifestyle choices. They oiften don't wear condoms, and have rough intercourse, which can cause more damage, and spread HIV more increased.


as for the last bit of yours. You said it yourself. What about those who make bad choices, that hurt all others?

If everyone in america made good choices, we would be perfect. there would be no war, no hate, no poverty, no disease, NOTHING. However, people lie, they cheat, they steal, they are greedy, hurtful, hateful, rude, spoiled, unhealthy, and cruel.
btw, it is strange, Most people i see on this forum are very much against social welfare at all. you seem to atleast be partially accepting, if not more...

again, I am srry if i generalize some people too much. I tend to generalize the entire forum, by a majority of reactions of the more fundamentalists here. So, sorry about that.

 

[Rick W]

Do i taste hypocritical discrimination?

If being a homosexual hurt someone besides the 2 consenting adults, then, and only then should it be in the same category as murder and pedophilia.

I hope you're not serious.


HIV and AIDS in Pregnancy

AIDS stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The cause of AIDS is the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). HIV can be transmitted through sexual intercourse or exposure to infected blood or blood products. An infected woman can pass the virus to her baby during pregnancy, delivery or breastfeeding. The baby’s condition is referred to as perinatal HIV infection.

An estimated 120,000 to 160,000 women in the United States are living with the virus, and many do not know they are infected. Each year, about 6,000 to 7,000 of these women give birth. Approximately 15,000 children in the United States have contracted HIV, and about 3,000 have died. About 90 percent contracted the virus from their mothers during pregnancy or birth.

Those kids did not give their consent.


The beginning:

July 3, 1981 (New York Times)
Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals

Doctors in New York and California have diagnosed among homosexual men 41 cases of a rare and often rapidly fatal form of cancer. Eight of the victims died less than 24 months after the diagnosis was made.

The cause of the outbreak is unknown, and there is as yet no evidence of contagion. But the doctors who have made the diagnoses, mostly in New York City and the San Francisco Bay area, are alerting other physicians who treat large numbers of homosexual men to the problem in an effort to help identify more cases and to reduce the delay in offering chemotherapy treatment.

The sudden appearance of the cancer, called Kaposi's Sarcoma, has prompted a medical investigation that experts say could have as much scientific as public health importance because of what it may teach about determining the causes of more common types of cancer.

October 23, 1986 (New York Times)
SURGEON GENERAL URGES FRANK TALK TO YOUNG ON AIDS

'This silence must end. We can no longer afford to sidestep frank, open discussions about sexual practices -homosexual and heterosexual. Education about AIDS should start at an early age so that children can grow up knowing the behaviors to avoid to protect themselves from exposure to the AIDS virus.'

The only couples who are safe are those in monogamous relationships where neither partner has been exposed to the AIDS virus

OK, now what? We've been warned early in the beginning of the epidemic but for some reason those warnings feel on deaf ears. Safe-sex may have been an answer back then IF everyone practiced it but as seen over the years not all do even when they know about it. Passion can get the best of people having an ill effect on good judgment no matter how much money you spend on "educating the people" about safe-sex.

You fight tooth and nail against second hand smoke giving no proof of the detrimental toxins involved. I'll admit it smells bad, very bad and I seriously believe this is what people detest most about smoking. None-the-less I wish you'd give equal time to second hand HIV and the practices that exponentially raises the risk of contracting the disease. (If indeed it is a disease)

Political correctness, tolerance and feelings mean nothing to this evil epidemic. Nothing. Fact is, it thrives on them.

 

[peace4all]

Safe sex i slike abstinence.

It only works, if everyone does it.

But even if everyone dosn't it still works decently.

People are lazy, especially men. Men are less likely to protect themselves from disease than a woman. Condom costs, and the fact that condoms main purpose is to prevent pregnancy, is hal fthe problem.

Also, we can look at the fact that Blacks, are more likely to contrat Aids than whites. Maybe it is their body, however, studies have shown its poor, or complete lack of use of protection.

Yes, it is unfortunate that children suffer with aids, and I disagree that that is ok. However, Blaming homosexuality is not just the answer. Taking steps to protect individuals, is. If it was "ok" to be gay in america, and there wasn't still so much hate, many fewer men would put women at risk like that, because, well, they would have no need to.

In a society where, if a man doesn't shoot bambi, or tackle a quarter back, they are considered a lesser person, it is no wonder why men try to hide their orientation more than women.

 

[Steve]

Man nobody is born gay, that I am a woman trapped in a mans body, is garbage. Being gay is a learned behavior.

Really?

Are there classes on it?

 

[peace4all]

wow, nice steve

True, If it was not learned, your saying someone just decied "hey, its cool to do something everybody hates, and have peopel insulting me, harassing me, and mistreating me.....

I doubt it.

 

[Soma-Sight]

As far as the article goes......

It is pretty sad if you have to worry about your boyfriend going to a bathhouse or some such thing.

Hopefully you know him well enough to where you dont have to worry about that!

Sadly, if my girlfriend cheated on me with another girl it probably wouldnt bother me a whole lot compared to if it was with another guy.... I could forgive and forget a lot eacier on that one (after blood test) :

 

[Rick W]

Safe sex i slike abstinence.

It only works, if everyone does it.

But even if everyone dosn't it still works decently.

People are lazy, especially men. Men are less likely to protect themselves from disease than a woman. Condom costs, and the fact that condoms main purpose is to prevent pregnancy, is hal fthe problem.

Also, we can look at the fact that Blacks, are more likely to contrat Aids than whites. Maybe it is their body, however, studies have shown its poor, or complete lack of use of protection.

Yes, it is unfortunate that children suffer with aids, and I disagree that that is ok. However, Blaming homosexuality is not just the answer. Taking steps to protect individuals, is. If it was "ok" to be gay in america, and there wasn't still so much hate, many fewer men would put women at risk like that, because, well, they would have no need to.

In a society where, if a man doesn't shoot bambi, or tackle a quarter back, they are considered a lesser person, it is no wonder why men try to hide their orientation more than women.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsh ... Glance.htm
Transmission categories of adults and adolescents with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2004

It's generally accepted that 2% maybe 3% of the populace are gay. Over 50% (65% shown here) of the HIV cases are from the gay community. Do the math.
Males have sex with other men then give it to the females. Great way to say "I love you". :-?




It's also interesting to note that Massachusetts and California are not one of the 35 areas monitored. Nor are those states required to report HIV occurances.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveilla ... eneral.pdf

 

[Soma-Sight]

It's generally accepted that 2% maybe 3% of the populace are gay. Over 50% (65% shown here) of the HIV cases are from the gay community. Do the math.
Males have sex with other men then give it to the females. Great way to say "I love you".

Thats brutal.

 

[Rick W]

Thats brutal.

That's fact.
And it's not a 50-50 exchange among men/women. 78% of infected women are getting it from men. Only 16% of the men are getting it from women.

AIDS/HIV is a brutal disease. This epidemic is not a game of politics or tolerance. It's about people's lives being destroyed, the destruction of families ... it's about dying. It's about an infectious disease at epidemic proportions.
That's brutal too.

Beating on the drum of "safe-sex" is like blaming civilian casualties not on the bombs dropping on cities and towns but because the civilians don't use their bomb shelters properly ignoring where the bombs are coming from in the first place.

 

[peace4all]

actually, there have been no real studies to determine what percentage of the US population IS in fact homosexual. None. There have been studies citing number of members in groups, compared to average US populace that joins groups, and other things like that, but there is no count. Even if there was, when there is still a HUGE rate of "Staying in the closet" or "down low", how would you get good statistics.

Although surveys and things are supposed to be confidential, people still lie. DO you think if someone was asked if they ever cheated on their wife, in a survey, they would be 100% honest?

Probably not....

 

[Rick W]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -3425r.htm

To Pete LaBarbera, an analyst with the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, the rising HIV cases among homosexual men show the limits of multimillion-dollar campaigns about avoiding AIDS.

"The safer-sex message is not working. If gay men haven't heard of HIV and health risks, nobody has," he said. Despite untold millions spent on education, "the reckless behavior continues," he said.

"Maybe it's time for the CDC and federal government to research the particular health risks associated with gay sex," said Mr. LaBarbera. "The federal government studies the health risks of smoking. Maybe there needs to be some public education on the risks [of homosexuality.]"

Has anyone seen any ads lately about the health risks of practicing homosexuality? No? Has anyone seen any ads lately about the health risks of smoking? Maybe it's just possible Mr. LaBarbera may be on to something.
But we don't want to do that. Might be viewed as discriminatory you know. Besides, if an ads campaign were launched concerning such a thing that might convince some to avoid the practice. And we can't have that either since we're still in the debate whether to trade gay morality concerning marriage for the old fuddy-duddy behind-the-times morality presently in place.

October 23, 1986 (New York Times)
SURGEON GENERAL URGES FRANK TALK TO YOUNG ON AIDS

'This silence must end. We can no longer afford to sidestep frank, open discussions about sexual practices -homosexual and heterosexual. Education about AIDS should start at an early age so that children can grow up knowing the behaviors to avoid to protect themselves from exposure to the AIDS virus.'

As long as we keep sweeping it under the rug the gay population will continue to consider the health risks as something to be listened to yes, but not much more of a risk than any other. Downplaying the risks also downplays the need for funds to challenge the issue and make known the availability of programs/institutions to do something about it. In short, awareness. And if you don't think awareness works just look at what the smoking campaigns have accomplished. Awareness works.

But we can't do that. Therefore gays must get their information within their own circles. People speak of "Coming out" but it's not only the gays themselves that must come out of the closet. Yes, one can cite present programs to combat STDs among gays but it's not much more than the surgeon general's warning on a pack of smokes. You need more than "May be hazardous to your health." You need awareness. Period.

Run ad campaigns for the health risks of homosexuality? Not likely. We are such a risk conscious society concerning safety but for the sake of tolerance we prefer not to acknowledge the risks of homosexual behavior with the same intensity as with other life-threatening issues. And it's shown in this thread how far some are willing to go to downplay those risks.

"Homophobia" will continue to be the term used to assure the prevalence of AIDS/HIV among gays.