Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to I HAVE YET TO HEAR A GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY UNIONS THAT WAS UNRELIGIOUS
janey
You are right. That really is all I ask for.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2004 at 6:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Dear Kooka,
Today has been a good day. I have learned several new things and when that happens, one’s day must surely be good. Janey goes off to kindergarten. . . .
Or perhaps not kindergarten, since most of this was review. Perhaps we should call it either kindergarten revisited, or first grade. Whatever! Needless to say, after tripping over my own two feet, I knew I had to do some serious research to discover where I went wrong. In between making apple sauce (got a great “do” on this batch), vacuuming the house and doing a multitude of other jobs, I spent some time surfing the Net and exercising the flabby muscles of my brain.
What I have been reminded of today is that while I brought up laws from the Old Testament, those laws were either fulfilled or abolished by Christ – as written about in the New Testament. You are quite right when you listed off a few of the many laws required of the Jews in the OT; I cannot imagine living during that time, although I realize many of the laws were given by God for his peoples’ protection (I mean, how would they have known that raw or under cooked pork could cause Salmonella?). Some of the OT laws were once again discussed in the NT – and it is those which carry the greatest weight. As Jesus stated, the two most important laws were to love the Lord God with all of your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Imagine if we all followed these two rules. Life would be so much simpler!
So now that I’ve dusted myself off after falling flat on my face, does that mean I have changed my opinion on gay marriage and the rights of homosexuals? Hmmmm. No, although it has certainly caused me to think. And what more could you ask for, eh?
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 8, 2004 at 4:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks Kooka, and I'm enjoying this every bit as much as you, hard headed though we both are. Glad to give you a different perspective on Christians.
Still formulating that response and mulling it around in my head.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 8, 2004 at 1:12 PM
| link to this | reply
janey
You have no idea how refreashing you are. You have earned a lot of repsect from me.
Instead of getting emotional and just telling me I do not understand any of it and such, you are being very rational and willing to really talk out the ideas.
I have been here for just over a year now and very rarely have I found Christians who I look forward to getting comments from them. Right now you are one. I look forward to your next comment, even if it disagrees with my views. It most likey will be thought out and uninsutling.
I wish there were more like you here on Blogit.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2004 at 10:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka my dear
I walked right into a corner, and completely walled myself off with multiple layers of brick and mortar. You are so very right! I shall have to ponder this for awhile. I do have some bit of an answer formulating in my brain, but must mull it over in my head for awhile.
Glad you're keeping me on my toes! Janey out. . . to lunch.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 8, 2004 at 10:32 AM
| link to this | reply
janey
Trust me, this is far from being a record. It is high, but there are many posts here which have gotten much more.
So do you stone women who are not virgins on their wedding night?
Do you make sure you do not wear clothing made of more two fabrics?
Do you stay home and do nothing at all on the Sabbath?
Of course no pork products, rights? Or shellfish?
Do you do the correct animals sacrifices to God, including your first born son or an animal in its place?
And that is just the beginning of the list.
I can find many things in the Bible that are outdated and can not work in this day and age. Unless you follow every single rule in the Bible, you are picking and choosing. I have yet to meet anyone who has truly followed every rule in the Bible. For one you do becoema hypocrite. There are times when you have to stone peoplr to death or sacrifce your own child to God, but there is that rule 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', yet God asks you to kill in his name very often. So by that you have to figure out which rules to follow and still be doing God's will.
As for homosexuals being bigger with the spread of STDs that comes from a irresponsibility. They are not concerned at all with the idea of birth control because they can not get each other pregnant. So it is just becoming a popular thing for them to use condoms and such regularly. It is not homosexuality itself that is responsible, but a misguided idea that they could be less responsible. I think those numbers will change a great deal over the next few generation as homosexual at more responsible.
As for the sex crimes, I still feel that those numbers are very, very bias. Case by case I am sure that many incidents where the criminal is labeled as being homosexual is not accurate. it may have had a man or boy situation to it, but a pedophile is not the same thing as a homosexual even if it is with the same sex.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 8, 2004 at 9:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Janey Here . . . helping you win a record for most number of comments!
Hi again, Kooka,
Looking at this issue solely from your perspective, and with your reasoning, there is no problem with homosexuality . . . aside from the increased risk of STDs and the statistically significant increase in child abuse among homosexual pediphiles. Your comments about smoking and alcohol are apropos and well taken.
What this discussion boils down to is the difference in values between you and me. I believe in Judeo-Christian principles that do not change over time. I do not subscribe to the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy, or moral relativism. Because of my beliefs that the Bible and its teachings are immutable (unchanging) and applicable yesterday, today and forever, I must accept that such teachings on homosexuality are also unchanging. God hates sin, all sin. And for some reason, He particularly hates the sin of homosexuality. But God loves the sinner, all sinners, and made a way for us to be redeemed.
Oh yeah, there are reconstructionists circulating all over the place, with different interpretations on the Bible. Westwend, for example, believes that the book of Corinthians was just written to the church in Corinth, and therefore the teachings there in chapter 6 do not apply to us today. But my response is, OK, so if the teachings were specific only to one group in history, then we might as well throw out the entire Bible, since it was written over time with the last words written about 2,000 years ago. If the Ten Commandments were only given to that new, small Nation of Israel, then heck, we don't need to follow those rules today. Why bother? They're outdated and annoying. So I'm not happy with the way my neighbor is treating me, I'll just off her in a dark alley some night, since "thou shalt not murder" no longer applies today. Many of today's laws are based on biblical principles.
Fact is, I don't like everything in the Bible. There are some rules that I struggle with today. This business of wives submitting to husbands gives me acid reflux. But just because I don't like the rules doesn't mean I pick and choose which ones I'll keep and which ones I'll throw out.
Golly but I've been waxing long winded lately.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 8, 2004 at 8:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Oh Bother
Oh golly, but that poetic description of your name did not help any. Either I'm brain dead (no pun intended, it's the topic of my latest blog), or just too obtuse at the moment and so will eagerly await your post on the origin and meaning of "Kooka."
And speaking of brain death, obtuseness and generalized fatigue, I shall have to ponder your other post after sleeping awhile.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 7, 2004 at 9:43 PM
| link to this | reply
janes
For the history of my name, go here:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/kooka_lives6634/132578
Although there is even a bigger story behind that, but that is how the name got started.
Just for you I shall do a full post on it here soon.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 7, 2004 at 8:37 PM
| link to this | reply
janes
The key to all is when you say 'In my more concrete moral thinking'.
What makes your moral thinking more concrete than mine?
I am completely leaving what I personally think of the act of homosexuality out of this. I do not at all think it is right for two men to be engaged it such acts. I am hypocritical and have no problem with lesbians, but as a perverted heterosexual male that is just how I am. I think two women going at it is hot.
I am leaving that part out of the debate however. I am just focusing on the relevant ideas of what harm can come from allowing homosexuals to have recognized unions. It matters not what our morals are or if the idea offends us. The only reason to make a law against such unions would be if there is proof that such unions will cause harm. So far all I see if proof that such unions will have a positive impact for all.
I find smoking to be very offensive, but I am not pushing the idea of making it illegal, although I can not figure out why a person would ever start smoking. I find going out to drink as a way of meeting people to be offensive as well (the few items I was dragged to a dance club I could not figure out the point to it all, since it seemed very insulting to the human race for such places to be so popular), yet I am not going not push for that to become illegal. If you wish to go out and drink so much you have no clue where you are when you wake up the next morning to be your idea of good night out, then that is your right. It if your life and if you wish to smoke or drink tog et drunk, then it is you right to do so. Both things are well known to be harmful to people, yet we allow for such things to be legal. Homosexuality seems to be something that would become less harmful the more legitimate we make it. Since it will not go away, why not make it less harmful?
I do not defend others' right because I agree with them, but because I believe that people should have rights.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 7, 2004 at 8:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka_Lives
Kooka, Kooka, Kooka my friend, we are going in circles on this aren't we. (Curious to know the history of your screen name, by the way. Am I too nosey?). Anyway, this is obviously a subject about which you feel very passionate, as do I. You do make a valid point about more settled couples having a better track record as far as their sexual alliances. In my more concrete moral thinking, the improved numbers still don't justify the lifestyle. . . but your point is well taken.
Regarding children, oy but that's a sensitive issue. I feel very strongly that the very best environment for children is to be raised by a loving mother and father in a commited marital relationship. Having said that, I am very much aware of the fact that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and that children are the victims in these splits. That said, from what I've read, children in the end gain a better perspective on sexuality from having two heterosexual parents. I understand the desire of homosexuals to adopt and have chilren; it's a very human desire. I need to ponder my response some more before blithely writing a flippant comment about homosexuals adopting children. Not quite up to that tonight!
I'm thinking my next blog will be on something as bland and innocuous as, oh, well, we'll just have to see what flows from the fingers, eh? Have a great week!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 7, 2004 at 8:12 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion
I still think a lot of that comes from the idea that homosexual couple are not really a family structure. Our society makes it clear that a married straight couple is a family unit all its own with the regular possibility of children. Since gay couples generally have no possibility of children, we treat such couples as not being so much a family unit. we are still saying that homosexuals should be all about the sex and not really worried about the commitment issues of a relationship.
Are the any statistics that talk about those couples who have children to raise together?
Although I would like to point out that you findings do show a pattern and that is that homosexual couples while they do have multiple partners it would seem, still have a very reduced number of partners compared to the non-coupled homosexuals, which you had said were 500 to a 1000 (Which I still feel to be a high number) in a life time compared with 8 a year. I think that does point to gay unions as being a positive direction to go.
The commitment issue is a big part of why the fundamentalist do not wish to see such a thing as gay unions to be legal. That would justify the idea that homosexuality being about more than just sex. That would do way with much of what the fundamentalists wish us to believe about homosexuals. Just the possibility that laws could be passed to help make the homosexual community become more legitimate and end up looking cleaner, is a scary thing to those who want it to look as ugly and sinful as possible.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 7, 2004 at 11:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks!
Thanks, Kooka, for your comments. I think that, as long as we live in a "fallen" and imperfect world, there will be homosexuality . . . and infidelity and murder and lies and rape and stealing. . . . I realize that homosexuals, in particular, may not appreciate being grouped together with these other deeds, but that's always going to be my perspective as a Christian. But I would be the first to point my finger back at myself for commiting many wrongs and being extremely far from perfect.
As for homosexuals being faithful within the bonds of marriage, that hasn't been seen in other countries where marriage or civil unions are permitted. For some reason there is a restless need among the majority to have sexual encounters outside of the commited relationship. In the journal titled AIDS, a study of Dutch homosexuals (where gay marriage is legal) was done showing those couples in a committed relationship actually had on average 8 sexual partners per year. In the Journal of Sex Research, a study was done of married heterosexual couples finding that 77% of men and 88% of women remained faithful to their marriage vows. These results were replicated at least two other times (that I'm aware of). So I'd like to think that homosexuals would remain faithful if given the opportunity to marry, but I question whether that would really happen or not, since it's not happening in other countries.
Hope your w/e is going well, Kooka. Good "chatting" with you.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 7, 2004 at 9:58 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion
I am just so amazed that there ar those out there who do real research before they start to try and debate this issue. You have found some great facts. It is very refreshing to find someone who holds your stance who is going for more than just what she feels and what she believes. There are some bloggers who do make up facts as they go and out right lie to try and get their point across. It looks like you are not one to sink to that level.
Of course my counter to that is fairly simple. Do you think ti is possible to get rid of the homosexual issue? I don't think homosexuality will ever go away myself, even if it really is a 'learned lifestyle' as you believe. So would it not make sense then to create laws that promote the idea of homosexuals having monogamous relationships? Would it not make sense to make it so that they would desire to settle down and gain form having some kind of union, it does not need ot be called marriage, but a union giving them benefits?
It would seem to me that one reason for such promiscuity is that due to their lifestyle they feel they have nothing to gain from being faithful to just one person and so they do not see the reason as to why they need to. If they could have legal unions that have them advantages to being together I would think they promiscuity would go down greatly. It seems to me that it is not homosexuality itself that creates such promiscuity, but the attitudes our society has towards them that which says they need to act that way because their lifestyle is about sex and not relationships. I would bet that if we accepting gay couples as part of society we would then see those numbers drop down to what they are for heterosexuals. It is society that tries to say gays should not be faithful to just one person.
It then becomes a health issue of helping the homosexual community to to be faithful to just one partner and that can be best achieved by allowing them civil unions that reward them for having committed relationships.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 6, 2004 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
JO
So sorry about that comment it was intended for someone else about another blog. What I had to say to you was: I am sorry we have to prove our facts. You did an excellent job of that. Thank you,
posted by
Justi
on November 6, 2004 at 12:34 PM
| link to this | reply
JO
It is not easy to understand just what you are saying or feeling. I do know this post has stirred up some different responses. It is a very good post. Is there anything I can say or do? If you want prayer or just to ask questions in a more private setting email me. God bless you.
posted by
Justi
on November 6, 2004 at 12:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Somebody asked for some stats sources -- here are a few to ponder
Some stats along with more info. . .
This is demonstrated by a host of studies - including some conducted by homosexuals themselves. Sex in America (1994) found that while 68% of men and 76% of women had only one heterosexual partner in the previous year, only 2.6% of homosexual men and 1.2% of lesbians had so limited themselves [5]. An earlier study estimated the number of lifetime partners for the American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67 for those who never married) [6]. Another found that while fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy) and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30 [7] [8].
5. R.T. Michael, J.H. Gagnon, E.O. Laumann, G. Kolata, "Sex in America." (Boston: Little Brown, 1994).
6. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and Risk," presented Feb., 1990 to American Association for the Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of Chicago; cited in
7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A. Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee, reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p. 54.
========
Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."15
A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.
Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, "Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most," San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL.
Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).
I'm not into beating a dead horse, but some of you did not believe my stats mentioned at an earlier post down the line. No skin off my teeth; however, I did want to reassure you that I am not making these things up. The numbers are different depending on the study, but all of them are similarly high.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 6, 2004 at 12:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
I am sorry to have to point this out to you, but bad things happen to good people. AIDS happens to good people who do nothing wrong. Sickness happens to good people who do nothing wrong. You could live in a society where everyone does your idea of 'good' and bad things will happen. Bad things happening have nothing at all to do with how the people are acting.
And we can get into a debate as to what is good and what is bad and you will find some serious disagreements on that one.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Justsouno
I keep feeling that those who wish to get rid of all those who disagree with them are really the ones who need to go and form their own country, since they do not for one moment believe in the true values of America. Because if all those who disagree with you were to leave, (Easily well over half the population) then there would be no point to freedom, until of course the next generation came along and they expressed their differing views and you went and sent them away. Before too long there would only be hand full of people left.
Democracy and the American way are suppose to inspire people to come and share the differing views and learn how to work together. With all voices getting the chance to be heard. Not just the majority who share the same views.
But that is my opinion. I believe in freedom and America and democracy.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 3:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
I think David has it right here
".......a concept of freedom so that all people could be free to live without persecution.......period"
Although there are more levels to it than just being free of persecution, but that does seem to cover the most important aspects of it.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 3:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Democracy:
a way of governing a country in which the people elect representatives to form a government on their behalf a country with such a government the idea that everyone in a country has equal rights
posted by
roofpig
on November 5, 2004 at 2:18 PM
| link to this | reply
No, David.
It's just that I was so naive that I assumed if people were free to do whatever they wanted, they would always do good, because doing bad things leads to feeling bad, and trouble and death, like not being able to marry and death from AIDS, etc. You see... I was thinking that if I could just be free to do good, I would be free from evil. I guess as long as people can do whatever they want, I can tell them when they're wrong, right?
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 2:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks roofpig
posted by
David1Spirit
on November 5, 2004 at 2:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane's Opinion
Your comment was exceptional. It was factual. It will have absolutely no effect on those who believe as Satan. He is the father of lies. He twist anything he gets his hands on. He works through those who will not hear or see. As the Bible says 'there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not see. They don't see the majority rules in a Democracy. If they do not like that leave, create their own country.
posted by
Justi
on November 5, 2004 at 2:14 PM
| link to this | reply
David1, thanks, that's what I wanted to say but didn't.
posted by
roofpig
on November 5, 2004 at 2:12 PM
| link to this | reply
YLF
The original concept of freedom was so that people could be free to live piously and worship God without persecution......
I really like that line.
What about a more modified one that goes:
".......a concept of freedom so that all people could be free to live without persecution.......period!"
Wouldn't that be much better??? 
posted by
David1Spirit
on November 5, 2004 at 2:09 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka,
The original concept of freedom was so that people could be free to live piously and worship God without persecution. I think this other stuff is taking advantage of the idea to a great extent, don't you?
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 1:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
I would ask why you hate the American idea of freedom?
Just shipping those who are different from you away does not solve the problem. So who do we ship out next? I am sure you would have me and my kind on one of the first islands. You can not have atheists in your idea of a perfect world I am sure. Everyone better agree with the same religious values or they will be shipped off to an island. You would most likely end up on a island before too long, as would about 99.99% of the population. In the end you would have a great minority left who is all that if considered the right people for America, And even they would not be able to agree on which one is fully right.
Also, they do not choose to live that way any more than you choose to be straight.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 1:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Yeah, like, why don't they create an artificial island way out in the ocean, and everybody who wants to live that way can make an over 21 adult decision to go live voluntarily in some tropical paradise without anyone else complaining about them. That way, you wouldn't bump into that group accidentally, because they would have to fly over a large body of water to get together. And they could make their own laws. Whadya say?
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
All those quote were from JanesOpinion's post on the issue. I am very curious about them myself and plan to do soem research on those numbers.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 1:23 PM
| link to this | reply
No, that quote directly below does NOT look fabulous.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 1:05 PM
| link to this | reply
"According to one study, 43% of gay men have had over 500 sexual partners, and 28% have had 1000 or more." ??????????????????????!
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 1:04 PM
| link to this | reply
I already posted my reply to you there, but here it is agian
I would love to know where you get the idea that homosexual do not show tolerance for other's opinions? They show as much if not more tolerance for others than most of everyone else.
"According to one study, 43% of gay men have had 500 sexual partners, and 28% have had 1000 or more." That sounds a little high to me. But at the same time how many straight women out there have slept around as much. Some of that is not even sex, but oral sex and such. Not being responsible for your sexual actions is the problem, not your sexual preference. And would it not make sense then to make laws that will help to promote the idea of homosexuals having one partner and sticking with that partner? All the homosexual I have known have not been big on sleeping around. I know a few who have been in very deep relationships. Now I know of many, many heterosexual people who have slept around like crazy, including several couples who have had open marriages.
"Lesbians and gays are more prone to depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide." That is clearly due to the attitude towards them and the simple fact that they have no choice in their sexuality but feel they need to conform and force themselves to live a lie because it is what is considered the appropriate life style.
"As many as 30,000 of sexually abused children (in one year) in the City of Los Angeles were victimized by homosexuals." And how many children as sexually abused by straight people? I know no one myself who has ever been sexual abused by a homosexual, but a lot of people I know have been abused sexually by a heterosexual in their life.
"It is also my belief that homosexuality is a learned and conditioned behavior." I have yet to see any logic to defend this idea at all.
Go here to see the post I had already written on the subject
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/kooka_lives472/2004-10-19
You main flaw in logic is that you are only looking at the statistics of the homosexuals and not comparing them tot the heterosexuals to see what the differences are.
You might as well just make a statement like '100% of those who are born die' without looking at any of the real statistics about life.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 10:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Here's my (mostly) Unreligious Response, Kooky
(The rest of my response can be read in my blog).
I would state that my gripe with the whole homosexual popularity movement is that it is insidious, and somewhat akin to boiling a frog -- as the freedoms of those people who hold a particular belief (i.e. evangelical Christians) are gradually rescinded in favor of another group (homosexuals) who demand tolerance of their own opinions – but who choose not to show tolerance for the opinions of all. For example, one reason why the majority of Republicans were against the hate crimes laws is NOT because we support violence against gays and lesbians. Rather, it’s because part of the wording within the hate crime laws would have prohibited pastors and anyone teaching in a public place from quoting the verses from the Bible (against homosexuality) or expressing an opinion against the homosexual lifestyle – and that is a grossly HUGE suppression of the American Christian’s right to freedom of speech. So with the legalization of homosexual marriage, the very next logical step within the eyes of the left leaning politician is that of condemning “hate” speech such as the above verses. And before you know it, Christians will be muzzled and even thrown in jail for their beliefs and teachings. And by the way, those same hate crimes are already on the books in Canada.
And why, you ask, do many Christians not agree with the homosexual lifestyle (besides what the Bible teaches)? Well, an easy response is that it’s not a healthy lifestyle. According to one study, 43% of gay men have had over 500 sexual partners, and 28% have had 1000 or more. They make up the majority of Syphilis cases and also comprise a large percentage of Gonorrhea infections. And besides AIDS, a disproportionate number of homosexuals have Hepatitis. Lesbians and gays are more prone to depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. As many as 30,000 of sexually abused children in the City of Los Angeles were victimized by homosexuals. Oh and by the way, it costs the Government and insurance companies around $300,000 to treat each patient with AIDS. Fifty percent of all AIDS cases are homosexuals.
Responding to my question as to why she went through so many partners, a lesbian friend of mine replied that it was likely because they were not allowed to marry. But I have serious doubts about that explanation. In fact, in places where homosexuality is legal (such as The Netherlands) they’re finding that most are not getting married. It’s much easier to have multiple partners outside of the bonds of marriage. Or for many of those couples who have married, it has been found that their “marriage” survives because each man has agreed it’s OK for the other to be promiscuous WITHIN marriage. OK, well then, so much for marriage.
IF you've survived all of the above, there's more where it came from at my blog "JanesOpinion."
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 5, 2004 at 10:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, kooka,
I really don't have the experience of them being the greatest of perverts by a long shot, but I still don't need church via TV if I want church.
Roofpig, what are you zinging about down there?
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 9:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
You are the one who started talking about perverts on TV.
I can think of no greater group of sick perverts on TV than priests.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 8:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Or a playground. DOUBLE ZING!
posted by
roofpig
on November 5, 2004 at 8:56 AM
| link to this | reply
What do I care if priests are on TV? If I really wanted to see a Priest, I think I would go to church.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 8:54 AM
| link to this | reply
ZING!
posted by
roofpig
on November 5, 2004 at 8:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
So you do not think priests should be on TV either?
I agree with you there.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 8:52 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm going, roofpig.
I'm going to think of something good for dinner and get some laundry done for my family and when they put sick pervs on my TV, I'm going to change the channel.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 8:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Sounds like you're pretty set then. What need do you have to think of others? It seems none at all. You go girl.
posted by
roofpig
on November 5, 2004 at 8:41 AM
| link to this | reply
roofpig,
Hey, you don't even know. I
love being at home and being expected to bake and cook and sew and keep things decorated, and I don't wear shoes most of the time, and I love being pregnant, and I didn't vote because I think men are the war mongers and I don't want to vote for the military and there's no choice given for that on election day, and if I love my family, I think I'm better off hiding behind my computer screen than wagging my adorable butt in front of some slobbering boss man anyway. So there.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 8:34 AM
| link to this | reply
westwend,
Yeah, sure, and when they came for my father's murderer, I didn't interfere then either.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 8:31 AM
| link to this | reply
YLF, that's cool, I'm all for stripping women of their rights and forcing them back into the kitchens.
Kook, I've asked so many people this very question and I also have yet to hear a solid argument that isn't in some way religious based.
posted by
roofpig
on November 5, 2004 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
i guess i'll have to try to paraphrase a poster
relates to Nazi Germany
says in essence:
When they came for the Jews, what did I care -- I wasn't one.
When they came for the Blacks -- I wasn't one.
When they came for the homeless and street people -- I wasn't one.
When they came for the Moslems
When they came for the Buddhists
When they came for the Gays
finally they have come for me.
so if you don't care for the gays -- then what groups will you care for?
will they come for you some day do you think?
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 5, 2004 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
What do I care about gays? I am not on their side.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 8:13 AM
| link to this | reply