Study Indicates HOMOSEXUAL ACTS Shorten Lifespan

[Merlin1047]

Your argument is based on bigotry. You can say you're not a bigot until you're blue in the face but you want to deny the right to civin un--er, SECULAR MARRIAGE (have another cookie) to gays, when only good things can come from it. This is the land of the free, where all men are created equal, but you want things to be unequal for those who were created gay.

Thank you. Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.

Typical leftist dolt. You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it. You accuse me of intolerance. Look in the mirror, Skippy.

 

[Mariner]

"There's no such thing as homophobia," it's just a "made-up word"?

You're starting to sound like President Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."

All our words are "made-up." They serve as shorthand for larger concepts. This particular concept (in the mild form that I intended, as I explained above) fits you perfectly. Why not wear the label with pride?

I'm surprised that you care that liberals would consider it unacceptable. You don't care what gay people think of your opinions, so why would you care what liberals like me think?

Mariner.

 

[nakedemperor]

Thank you. Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.

Typical leftist dolt. You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it. You accuse me of intolerance. Look in the mirror, Skippy.

For some reason your disgust at homosexual relationships makes it impossible for you to embrace the most fundamental principles of America. THIS is the substance of the argument, tolerance. And your lack thereof is responsible for inequality. Look in the mirror? Man, i'll be intolerant of your intolerance, I don't care if your feelings get hurt. But what's the result of your intolerance? Its a little more...tangible, shall we say.

 

[Merlin1047]

For some reason your disgust at homosexual relationships makes it impossible for you to embrace the most fundamental principles of America. THIS is the substance of the argument, tolerance. And your lack thereof is responsible for inequality. Look in the mirror? Man, i'll be intolerant of your intolerance, I don't care if your feelings get hurt. But what's the result of your intolerance? Its a little more...tangible, shall we say.

My feelings get hurt? Don't flatter yourself. In order for you to accomplish that, I would first have to develop some level of give-a-shit in regard to your opinion of me. Trust me, I could not possible care less.

Meantime, you continue to prove that you lack a rational basis for your argument so you resort to childish, petulant personal attacks.

Your continued reliance on the constitution proves your ignorance. There is not now, nor has there ever been any constitutional guarantee such as you claim. Simply because someone desires something does not mean that there is a constitutional basis to claim it as a "right".

One last note - I have by and large attempted to keep my posts on this subject on a rational and factual basis. You have responded with personal attacks and transparent attempts to provoke me. Continue in this vein and you will find yourself given some time to consider the wisdom of your immature name calling.

 

[nakedemperor]

My feelings get hurt? Don't flatter yourself. In order for you to accomplish that, I would first have to develop some level of give-a-shit in regard to your opinion of me. Trust me, I could not possible care less.

Meantime, you continue to prove that you lack a rational basis for your argument so you resort to childish, petulant personal attacks.

Your continued reliance on the constitution proves your ignorance. There is not now, nor has there ever been any constitutional guarantee such as you claim. Simply because someone desires something does not mean that there is a constitutional basis to claim it as a "right".

One last note - I have by and large attempted to keep my posts on this subject on a rational and factual basis. You have responded with personal attacks and transparent attempts to provoke me. Continue in this vein and you will find yourself given some time to consider the wisdom of your immature name calling.

You hyporcrite.

"Thank you. Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.

Typical leftist dolt. You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it. You accuse me of intolerance. Look in the mirror, Skippy"

So I'm a dolt, pathetic, bitchy, and immature, and MY personal, petulant name calling is in question?

Pot, kettle. Get off your horse.

 

[Merlin1047]

You hyporcrite.

"Thank you. Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.

Typical leftist dolt. You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it. You accuse me of intolerance. Look in the mirror, Skippy"

So I'm a dolt, pathetic, bitchy, and immature, and MY personal, petulant name calling is in question?

Pot, kettle. Get off your horse.

I do not issue idle threats.

Take two days off. Perhaps your attitude will improve. Or perhaps this case of PMS you seem to have will have passed by then.

 

[OCA]

"There's no such thing as homophobia," it's just a "made-up word"?

You're starting to sound like President Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."

All our words are "made-up." They serve as shorthand for larger concepts. This particular concept (in the mild form that I intended, as I explained above) fits you perfectly. Why not wear the label with pride?

I'm surprised that you care that liberals would consider it unacceptable. You don't care what gay people think of your opinions, so why would you care what liberals like me think?

Mariner.

I care what libs think only because libs will go to underhanded and dirty tactics to get what they want, such as the case with gay marriage up in Queerachusets, they got 1, just 1 judge on the Supreme Court to order the legislature to pass a law making it legal, never mind that the citizens were against it it just doesn't matter to libs.

What will libs and homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists say now when marriage is banned in the U.S.? That here in our majority rules democracy that we are all just a bunch of homophobic bigots? Nevermind we are standing up for what is unarguably right, we are just neanderthals, not progressive enough.

LOL another thing, this who are we to judge bullshit....we judge everyday in this country, look at our laws. Passing a law against queer marriage will be no different. That argument needs to be chucked in the garbage can.

 

[OCA]

For some reason your disgust at homosexual relationships makes it impossible for you to embrace the most fundamental principles of America. THIS is the substance of the argument, tolerance. And your lack thereof is responsible for inequality. Look in the mirror? Man, i'll be intolerant of your intolerance, I don't care if your feelings get hurt. But what's the result of your intolerance? Its a little more...tangible, shall we say.

Nakey read this and read it good, tolerance for some things are fine, like i'll tolerate cell phones on the golf course, i'll tolerate somebody with 18 items in the 15 or less aisle but I will not tolerate something which is so vile so unarguably wrong, something which violates the tenents of a civilized society. We pick and choose our battles and unfortunately for you common sensical Americans have drawn the line in the sand to queer marriage, it will not be crossed. Please learn to live with all the basic rights thjat you and I share equally under the constitution and stop asking for "special" rights. They will not be granted.

 

[musicman]

"There's no such thing as homophobia," it's just a "made-up word"?

You're starting to sound like President Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."

All our words are "made-up." They serve as shorthand for larger concepts. ,

Mariner.

Can't agree with you here, Mariner. I tend to subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh theory: "Words mean things".

Any honest attempt to make sense of combining the prefix "homo" and the word "phobia" would yield a bizarre definition like, "neurotic, irrational fear of human beings". In other words, it's meaningless; that's why it's not really a word. Rather, it is a made-up term whose only reason for existing is the advancement of a specific sociopolitical agenda. I, therefore, refuse to dignify it with "word" status. Many agree with me.

 

[Mariner]

Take a look at the website I mentioned. As you say, the word began as an irrational fear of homosexuality, and is now more commonly used in the way I intended as simple dislike of homosexuality.

I can see a grain of truth in your point--that if the word still has too many meanings to be clear, then we should be careful how we use it. But this is the natural history of language. You can choose almost any word and confuse yourself with its origins. Word meanings are agreed by society and evolve over time. I see no problem with using this word as long as we agree on the definition--I'd propose the mild version I quoted above.

OCA--you persist in claiming that your opinion that something is "obviously" vile is more important than a gay person's desire for equal rights. You want to take rights away from others who do you no harm..

As for Massachusetts, gay marriage has caused nary a blip. The sky didn't fall on May 18th. There were no riots or anarchy. There was no flood of heterosexual divorce. From my house, you could hear the wedding celebrations. If you want to preach "traditional values," go teach in a red state, where the talk is cheap but the divorce rates, out-of-wedlock birth rates, and teen pregnancy rates are all typically higher than in Massachusetts. Gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage, and it doesn't threaten your right to marry (if you haven't already).

Isn't equality a traditional value too?

Mariner.

PS It's quite clear that you and I will never see eye to eye on this, so maybe we should give it a rest?

PPS Merlin--you specialize in ad hominem attacks, and then express outrage when you receive some (from NE) in return.

 

[jimnyc]

OCA--you persist in claiming that your opinion that something is "obviously" vile is more important than a gay person's desire for equal rights. You want to take rights away from others who do you no harm..

Take rights away? Wrong! How about just not extending them ADDITIONAL rights. They already have the identical rights as you and I.

PPS Merlin--you specialize in ad hominem attacks, and then express outrage when you receive some (from NE) in return.

Please PM Merlin if you have a question, moderators will not be questioned about their diecisions on the board.

 

[Mariner]

I based my statement that OCA wanted to take rights away on something he said above about homosexuality being ok in private but not in public. I assumed he meant that, for example, gays shouldn't hold hands or kiss in public, which would be taking rights away.

If on the other hand he meant "public recognition via marriage" then you're right, he's not actually advocating taking any rights away, he's just in favor of continued discrimination against gays in the marriage laws.

Mariner.

 

[jimnyc]

If on the other hand he meant "public recognition via marriage" then you're right, he's not actually advocating taking any rights away, he's just in favor of continued discrimination against gays in the marriage laws.

How can it be discrimination when EVERY citizen is held to the same standards? I don't believe it's discrimination to not extend the current laws to fit their lifestyle.

 

[007]

If on the other hand he meant "public recognition via marriage" then you're right, he's not actually advocating taking any rights away, he's just in favor of continued discrimination against gays in the marriage laws.

Mariner.

There's nothing "discriminatory" about his position, or any of the other millions and millions of people that agree with him, including me.

"Marriage" is meant for a MAN and WOMAN. What part about that don't you understand? Is it too complicated? Two men wanting to marry is about as stupid as taking a top fuel dragster to the Daytona 500 and wanting to race.

Get a fucking clue.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html

<center><h1><font color=red><a href=http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html>New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal</a></font></h1></center>

Stop watching gay porn and come out of the closet ya big queen! You'll be a much easier person to live with.

 

[Mariner]

I don't understand is the passive-voice phrase "meant for" that you used. Who decides that? Why does your opinion on that automatically outweigh the opposite opinion of gay people (and their straight friends, such as me)?

You know, my strong feelings on this subject arise from actually knowing many gay people and several committed, loving gay couples, both men and women. When you and other people here post, it doesn't sound like you've spent any time with such people. When I look at these friends, I simply cannot imagine saying to them, "You don't have a right to the same societally recognized commitment to one another that I have to my wife." It strikes me as deeply unfair, and opposed to the basic principle of equality that makes this nation great.

I do see the issue as a one-way street. At every step, America has chosen to increase equality and enfranchise groups previously seen as "other" and threatening to the fabric of society. Younger people support gay marriage more strongly than older people. I'm sure we'll have it eventually--and I don't think it'll do America the slightest harm.

Mariner.

 

[007]

<center><h1><font color=red><a href=http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html>New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal</a></font></h1></center>

Stop watching gay porn and come out of the closet ya big queen! You'll be a much easier person to live with.

Nice try pulit, but no cigar. That was...

 

[Patriot]

<center><h1><font color=red><a href=http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html>New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal</a></font></h1></center>

Stop watching gay porn and come out of the closet ya big queen! You'll be a much easier person to live with.

I didnt know that a total of 64 men constituted the ENTIRE concentration of men on the planet. Talk about generalizing.....

 

[Patriot]

I don't understand is the passive-voice phrase "meant for" that you used. Who decides that? Why does your opinion on that automatically outweigh the opposite opinion of gay people (and their straight friends, such as me)?

You know, my strong feelings on this subject arise from actually knowing many gay people and several committed, loving gay couples, both men and women. When you and other people here post, it doesn't sound like you've spent any time with such people. When I look at these friends, I simply cannot imagine saying to them, "You don't have a right to the same societally recognized commitment to one another that I have to my wife." It strikes me as deeply unfair, and opposed to the basic principle of equality that makes this nation great.

I do see the issue as a one-way street. At every step, America has chosen to increase equality and enfranchise groups previously seen as "other" and threatening to the fabric of society. Younger people support gay marriage more strongly than older people. I'm sure we'll have it eventually--and I don't think it'll do America the slightest harm.

Mariner.

My opinions are derived from my gay friends that cant hold a relationship to save their life. They all ( the lesbos) had bad experiences with men before deciding they were lesbos and to top it all off they liked to all ( male and female friends) like to flaunt their gayness in my face and most tried to flirt with me.

I never flaunted my desire for the opposite sex in their face AND I never cheated on my boyfriends and used people the way these people did. ( Hence the reason they are all no longer my friends..)

This is how I can easily say that it is NOT about love but about literaly fucking around. In fact many of my friends told me they never wanted to be married and that they weren't just bi-sexual but were tri-sexual meaning they would "try" to fuck just about anything that moved.


And no procreation IS threatening our society. No more kids equals no more society. What part of that DONT you get?

 

[Mariner]

monopoly on promiscuity.

I seem to know a different type of gay person than you. More than half the gay people I know are married, and all but one of the others is in a long-term committed relationship.

As for procreation--there have always been gay people. In the past they stayed in the closet as spinster aunts and bachelor uncles. What makes you think that if gays can marry each other there will suddenly be no more babies? Being gay isn't contagious.

Mariner