Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 20  Next

Grainfed,

There is a problem though. All of the examples that you've listed come from religiously based websites. What does Harvard have to say on the subject? Where does the CDC weigh in?

How do these religious websites keep populating your examples? I'm guessing it's but one of two ways:

1. You read these websites and allow them to form your opinion.

2. You're looking for legitimate reasons to disguise your hatred of homosexuals and whilst out googling the internet, these are the websites which support your view.

Derby's right though, you seem to be singling out gays as being the only high-risk group for health dangers. Shouldn't your own reasons then make you be one of the greatest supporters of gay marriage? That way, all of this promiscuous behaviour is curbed and two healthy men can rub their penises on each other without fear of disease.

If you really don't believe that evolution exists and God created the world, well then, God must love a cock in His ass or it wouldn't be here on Earth, would it? Do you think then maybe that the whole "turn the other cheek" quote from Jesus really meant for men to pull their butt cheeks apart?

You know what the real problem with homosexuality is? That anybody has a problem with it at all. Life's too short to be worried about where other men are ramming their dicks.

Unless you like to think about that...

   

In the early 90s Peninsula (The Harvard Journal) published a huge in depth critique of the homosexual lifestyle and the politics surrounding it. Ironically, the publication was attacked by CNN, Time and eventually even the Harvard admin itself. The attack on their report was very similar to the rationale of many of the CKA posters in this thread being that if you don't accept homosexuality then it is not because there are serious questions about the lifestyle but rather you must obviously hate or are religiously motivated in your opposition and any points are rendered meaningless weighed against your perceived motivation.

This form of debating with the marginalisation of those with contradictory viewpoints at its core rather then a challenge to the viewpoint itself is characteristic of the debate surrounding homosexuality.

That mostly religious based organisations are the only ones left bold enough to publish contradictory findings that most universities or government researchers avoid given the Harvard experience, hardly dismisses the validity of the results itself.

As a so called champion of intellectualism do you support research that has unexpected results which are not politically correct being suppressed?



They acknowledge that there is a serious problem with AIDs/HIV being rampant in the community and that there is declining use of protective measures by homosexuals but refuse to weigh in politically.



See above.
,


I don't hate gay people just the practice of it and either you refuse to acknowledge this or just fail to have the ability to distinguish between the two. You can oppose smoking without hating the individual smoker wouldn't you agree?



I don't believe in either. Evolution is still an unproven theory and the creationists are obviously wrong as well.



Do you think then maybe that the whole "turn the other cheek" quote from Jesus really meant for men to pull their butt cheeks apart?

I'm neither a big fan of Muslims or Christians but that is a pretty insulting and uncalled for comment against these groups. You're just using this as an opportunity to flame and promote your intolerance and bigotry against religion and once again demonstrating how inappropriate it is that you are a moderator and that CKA has a double standard when dealing with the garbage you spew.



So then by default you support NAMBLA, rapists etc?

Again as I've stated many times, what you and DerbyX do in the privacy of your homes is your business and I will defend your right to sodomy. I will however oppose your encouragement or advocacy of a lifestyle that is not healthy, does not promote a strong soceity, encourages the legitimacy of other forms of paraphillia and contributes to pedophilia.

   

No but basing it on faulty reasoning is.



I don't believe our "our biology" is designed one way or another. Do you believe our biology is "designed" for monogamous long term heterosexual couples or is that a product of our cultural traditions?

"biologically" speaking homosexuals manage just fine.



Irrelevant. None of that has any thing to do with "thinking those occupations are wrong" but inmaking their jobs better.

If AIDS were eradicated then any statistical blips between gay and straight lifespans would be virtuality eliminated.



Choosing to smoke and being born gay are apples and hockey sticks.

Once again I'll point out that eliminating the AIDs factor would nullify any comparrison.

"Deprogramming homosexuals" Absolute bullshit right wing Xtian nonesense. Núff said.

Christian gay support group

I choose this reference because it comes from a group of people who believe in the same faith you do and not the thousand or so "left wing" sites that quite frankly annihilate this myth about converting homosexuals.



How does that dispel the fact that the 3X longer math is wrong?

That doesn't even touch on the fact that these studies are often a dime a dozen and quite frankly are used by anybody pushing an agenda.



That may be difficult as my data came from professional journals that I don't have access to anymore as I am not at univeristy.

Suffice it to say it comes from several factors including the toll of child-bearing and child rearing on a women, the considerebly more energy that women invest inmarriage, and the fact they they actively seek peer support whereas unmarried men often don't.



Perhaps because I have expert knowledge that you don't. My lab does about 5-10 HIV tests per day. By contrast we do over 6000 glucose, creatinine, cholesterol, HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. Those tests are an example of standard monitoring of health as you age (in simple terms).

In the hospital my drop was to draw blood from all the people admitted to the wards and let me tell you that geriatric patients vastly exceeded those admitted for HIV related reasons. In fact HIV treatment propably constitutes <1% of healthcare costs at every hospital I worked at and my current place of employment.

In addition, healthcare costs are rising specifically because the baby-boomers are retired and reaching the age where it usually increases dramatically.



Good enough.



Ahhhhh but if you recall I challenged you to explain why homosexuality was wrong. I didn't make any statement that homosexual sex is "safe". I infact can explain medically while anal sex is more riskier then vaginal sex but that isn't the point is it.

If you say its wrong on the basis that the lifestyle is less safe then a hetero lifestyle then we can use that argument to say job X is wrong because its less safe then job Y.

You are ex-military (though I believe you said you are still a reservists). Is that "lifestyle" wrong because it is less safe then being an accountant?

Quite frankly there are alot of jobs and lifestyle choices made by hetero married people that are unsafe and lower life expectancy also. Are they "wrong" also?

What about if I said that cops/fireman/soldiers/etc shoud be made to remain unmarried because its to risky a job for "family men" and then cited statistics showing that children of people in those occupations had a far greater chance of having a parent die. Then I cited studies showing that children of single parents (studies that include death alongside divorce) fare worse then children of married parents and came to the conclusion that for the good of "family society" people in those occupations should remain single.

In conclusion, even if I concede that pursuing an active gay lifestyle is an inherently unsafe choice it still doesn't support your statement that its wrong. It may support your reason for not choosing to pursue such a lifestyle but it certainly doesn't make it "wrong"

   

You'll have to provide more than that. I searched google a number of ways but couldn't find this article. If true, you've got a nice card in your hand.



You're right. What business is it of your's what two consenting adults do? See below where you state you "hate" the practice of homosexuality.



What debate? Is there a movement afoot out there seeking legal repercussions against gays? What is the end result of any perceived "debate"? Let's say you "win" this "debate" and prove conclusively that homosexuality is the biggest threat to public health in North America? What of it? What is your purpose in arguing against gay men dipping into each other?



Aside from this supposed Harvard study, what other university or government agency is actively researching the public health effects of GAY sex, not the impact of disease in the public health? Churches, for better or for worse, have staked a claim by condemning all sorts of practices they believe to be immoral. Consequently, they seek out "studies" which bolster those beliefs. I looked at the two religious sites you provided. They're not seeking the truth of the effect of gay sex on public health, they're looking for studies such that they can hate gays. If one of them published a study which found gay people in safe monogamous relationships enjoy the same rate of AIDS incidence as hetero couples, they don't have it on their sites.



You're worried if I'm politically correct or support censorship?



Prove it.



Your argument fails. Smoking is forever a health risk, that is, there's no way to engage in safe smoking. Sex, on the other hand, can be. Secondly, being gay is pretty much indistinguishable from having gay sex. Smoking isn't.

Also, you have a pretty sinister context behind your argument. Your argument seems to imply that homosexuality, like smoking, is a filthy choice which can be corrected.



Evolution is an unproven theory? Are you mad? Evolution is a fact. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. This isn't the forum to debate evolution being fact (which by the by, doesn't require your approval), but it does imply that you're a little bit more inclined to rely on your religious sites for support than you explicitly state.



Sorry Grainfed, you'll have to think this one out harder than you did. You're posting religious websites which decry homosexuality as a sin, a vice and a ticket to hell. Or in the case of Exodus International, a shaky path to pedophilia.

If you're going to slander well then by gosh, so am I.



Oh Christ, you're not going to have another meltdown and try to recruit CKA to help you box me are you?



Oh Grainfed, I just don't care what two consenting adults do. Your two above examples don't conform to that standard. Nice try though.



Homosexuality contributes to pedophilia? Why, how do you figure that? And are you sure that the average child molestor isn't straight? Here's some interesting food for thought while you think that one over: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=7804768

   

This isn't a case of a liberal quoting a conservative anti-war think tank. This is a conservative quoting an anti-homosexual, conservative website.

And I never brought god, the bible or hate into it.

Besides, at least one of the studies you quoted is severely flawed.

   

OK. Way too much stuff to respond to point by point so I'll just get to the meat of each one. If you feel I've overlooked something important don't start assowling that I'm trying to dodge the issue rather just raise it again.

The Bible/Koran or God seem to be the boogieman used by extremists on all sides to press their point. My nonreligious; entirely sound opposition to homosexuality in order of importance boils down to this:

1. It's practitioners obviously have some mental defect, as there is no way this is behaviour is intended. These people need to be helped rather then encouraged to live a lifestyle that a significant majority say they would chose not to live if actually given a choice.

2. It is a far more serious health issue then the controversy surrounding the consequences of smoking or alcohol yet scant lip service is barely paid as if the lifestyle itself outweighs the value of the human participant.

3. The quest for lifestyle affirmation and push for legitimacy is certainly one of the problems chipping away at the foundation of the family. I don't for a minute believe that it is the principle cause but rather one of a litany.



I would say cultural traditions. But there is a big difference between human biology that never intended for anal sex to be practiced or same sex mating and human social interaction that dictate behavioral norms.



With the knowledge of almost exclusively homosexual related medical ailments ranging from gay bowl syndrome to HIV I've never actually conversed with anyone who proclaims to be a medical professional and completely dismisses the negative health repercussions as your comment suggests.



There is much evidence to the contrary. Undoubtedly the problems associated with homosexual sex in the past would not have a similar mortality rate today utilising modern medicine however, the best of records seem to indicate no movement in longevity for more then a century as something keeps coming up. Here are some things to consider with source posted at end (please do not chastise the source but rather refute the information with contradictory evidence;

"As early as 1858, G. Tardieu reported on the age distribution of males imprisoned in France for sodomy. Of the 216 who ages were given, the age range from under 15 to 69, with a median age of under 25. Eliminating all under 18, the median age rises to almost 40.

In 1914, M. Hirschfeld reported on German males convicted of involvement in sodomy. The age distribution ranged from under 15 to over 50, with the median of 24 years. Since "over 50" was the last category, we cannot determine just how many, if any, attain the age of 65. But only 9 % were over 50.

In the late 1930s and 1940s, Kinsey and his investigators spent more than 12 years seeking out and interviewing homosexuals. Because Kinsey and his colleagues were regarded as sexual liberators, homosexuals were eager to volunteer for his study. There is no reason to believe that his sample was not representative of all age groups available. Yet fewer than 1% of his homosexuals, male as well as female, were over the age of 65.

The Mattachine Society, the earliest of the "gay rights" organizations, gathered together a representative group of homosexuals for Evelyn Hooker to study in her highly influential 1950s study. The oldest of the 30 subjects was 50, the next oldest was 44, and the median age was 33.

In the early 1960s, Berger attempted to draw a sampling of elderly homosexuals, but had to begin his scale at 40 years and only 34 of 112 were over the age of 59,

From 1969 through 1970, the Kinsey Institute surveyed homosexuals in San Francisco. Although they recruited respondents in eight different ways, only 23% of male homosexuals and only 18% of lesbians were over the age of 45, despite the fact that the investigators tried for 25% from this age group. Their initial decision to draw only a quarter of their sampling from homosexuals over 45 indicates they already knew the problem existed, and they ended up omitting figures on age distribution from their report.

In 1977, the largest survey of homosexuals reported 0.2% of its lesbians and 0.8% of its homosexual males were age 65 or older.

The Spada Report: The Newest Survey of Gay Male Sexuality, in 1978, reported the median age was 30, with only 2.5% over age 65. J. Spada was openly homosexual and polled 1,022 male homosexuals by mail.

An openly lesbian M. Mendola, in 1979, polled 405 homosexuals by mail. The median age of those polled was 34, and only 10% were 50 or over. Source: The Mendola Report: A New Look at Gay Couples.

From the mid 1970s' to the early 1980s, interest in Gay Bowel Syndrome, sexually transmitted diseases, and hepatitis B generated a number of samples of the homosexual population.

- From 1977 through 1979, 102 homosexuals case histories were collected in Seattle and the oldest was 58.

- In 1979, 101 homosexuals who belonged to a group restricted to those over 40 was reported, and only 21 were over age 65.

- Also in 1979, 5,324 homosexual visitors to Denver's STD clinic had a median age of 27, a mean age of 28.5 and the oldest was 67.

- In 1982, only one of 103 homosexuals examined in San Francisco was over the age of 65.

Source



Actually, researchers have found specifically a "smoking gene" but to date the 'gay gene' which exonerates the practitioner from choice remains elusive outside of media assumptions and unfounded staements by persons such as you in debates such as these.



Professor Spitzer of Columbia University was instrumental in having homosexuality delisted as a mental affliction but in continuing research discovered that some could actually quite easily be cured. Do you believe Spitzer and Columbia U BS rightwing Xtian nonesense too?

"A study based on interviews with 200 men and women who claimed to have switched their homosexual preferences demonstrates some "gays" are capable of becoming "predominantly" heterosexual through psychotherapy.

"In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation were substantial, credible and believable," said Robert Spitzer, the professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York who conducted the study.

"The subjects' self-reports of change appear to be, by and large, valid, rather than gross exaggerations, brain-washing or wishful thinking," Spitzer said in a summary of his analysis, according to the Washington Post

Source



Can you imagine the outrage and backlash if I responded that way? I do though appreciate the value of anecdotal input though.



Health consequences are part of my rationale but not the sole basis. I am more disturbed of their quick dismissal by homosexual advocates and believe this political based suppression of hard medical data is irresponsible and if the information was more widely known there would be less impetus to promote and encourage the lifestyle amongst youth and less active homosexuals would succumb to these consequences.



It is if you join because you have a death wish.



Personnel and families that are associated with dangerous occupations are routinely briefed as to the hazards and every attempt is made to mitigate them. Further, these hazards are talked about at every opportunity so that the danger or threat is ever clear and present in their minds. Advocates of homosexuality are not only dismissing the health hazards outright they are also actively working to suppress them.



Fair enough statement that I won’t argue against. But what is wrong is not so much the negative health consequences that I doubt anyone could seriously debate, but rather the suppression or dismissal of this information. Would you be so forgiving if this travesty centered around the promotion of a lifestyle based on smoking instead?



Not really. I doubt you would care at all what is in the article. You asked about Harvard and I remembered that some student's work and the campus paper were thrashed not for what they published but for the audacity to publish it. I have no problem with countering viewpoints but I despise thought control on any level. Here is a reference I found to help lead you in the right direction if you are actually interested.

“CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (FR) - On November 12, 1991, Peninsula, a conservative student journal at Harvard University, published its 56 page critique of pro-homosexual politics. Immediately following its release, a furor erupted which has continued unabated. Faculty members, administrators, student groups and virtually every other student publication at Harvard have denounced Peninsula's assertion that homosexuality should be viewed by society as morally wrong.”

[url]act&list_uids=7804768[/quote][url=http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0231_Furor_over_Gomes_con.html]Source[/url]



Why can’t I do both? Why is this an impossible scenario for you? Soldiers, police officers, legislators, religious leaders,medical practitioners and even some activists work hard to support the choices of others while definitely disagreeing with the choice itself.



I’ll leave that to Canadian John McKellar, the homosexual activist and president of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism who wrote:

“As an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and will always be the great human norm. But I have no time for the modern, feel-good, pop-culture mentality that facilely equates homosexuality with heterosexuality and asks no deep questions about human psychology beyond the the superficial liberal-vs-conservative, freedom-vs-oppression dichotomy. And I have even less time for the unsatiable demands and infantile caterwauling of my radical brothers and sisters who want to make the whole world their closet.”



Firstly, there are many learning institutions both privately and publicly funded actively carrying out research in homosexual related issues. Sometimes the results confirm the initial hypothesis and at other times they are contradictory. When they confirm the MSM media generally picks up on these studies and when they contradict (if not first disposed of) they are generally picked up by the religious press and their advocates. In either case, neither party tends to publish information contrary to its dogma.

Secondly, even gays themselves generally dismiss the ridiculous notion of monogamy amongst homosexual men. Though there are definitely some gays in committed monogamous relationships it is generally accepted that this is the exception to the rule. Please provide references to studies that suggest otherwise.



No. I know that you already support the censoring of others should they have an opinion that is contradictory to yours but this should be debated in another thread.





Consider it proven.

SourceCDC Report: HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men



Let me correct that misconception. I am not implying it but believe it to be true.



Is that right?

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. “
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

My professors always taught that when you start seeing something that is not completely proven as fact then you will stop challenging the precept and the science itself will stagnate. That there is considerable evidence inherent in the mechanisms of evolution is well documented and indisputable. That it is any thing other than still a theory would be news to most academics still involved in the research.



Are you serious? If not in a forum about a creationist museum trying to contradict the conventional wisdom of evolution at the expense of intelligent design then where exactly do you purpose it be debated?



That is your misconception. It is true that most Muslim organistions advocate death for homosexuals but the vast majority of Christian sites seem to operate around the mantra of ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’.

However, I’ve already touched upon the fact that the MSM ignores contradictory evidence with the same vigour that religious publications do. There is not a lot of unbiased sources to turn to out there but if you wish to dismiss a particular study not because of who conducted the research but rather who presents it to support their viewpoint the old adage of leading a horse to water and being unable to make him drink comes to mind.



Not sure where I slandered anyone deserving of your complete attack against all the religious members of CKA but the CKA forum rules for the general members and Dayseed seem to be well understood.



I recruit no one, without malice in this comment people just generally don’t like nor respect you and there are many outwardly frustrated with the two tiered rules of conduct ever present when you’re involved. Sometimes a little ranting is necessary to exemplify the point. I do not regret risking my membership to highlight both that and to express disdain for your graphic and distasteful incestuous comments directed at my family.



I took these points from a Christian advocate but I’d like you to dismiss each report based on their actual information rather then the source of the points.

· The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.5 (5. K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275. )

· Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population. they constitute about a third of child molesters.6 (6. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet. ) Further, as noted by the Encino, Calif.-based National Association for research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), "since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent or pedophile victims are boys who have been molested by adultmales.7 (7. Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, IU.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia, op. cit., p. 2. )

· A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestations by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.)8 (8. Patrick Boyle, Scout's Honor (Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1994), p. 3l6. )

· A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged In homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.9 (9. W. L. Marshall, et al., "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336, cited in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't Want You to see," Colorado for Family Values Report, Vol. 14, March 1994. )

· Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads.10 (10. Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., "A Content Analysis of 'The Advocate,"' unpublished manuscript p. 18, quoted in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't WantYou to See," ibid. ) The authors also note a statement from a book review by homosexual activist Larry Kramer that the work, "like much canonized male homosexual literature, involves sexually predatory white men on the prowl for dark-skinned boys to gratify them.11 (11. From "Lany Kramer's Reading List," The Advocate, January 24, 1995, p. 99, cited in "Status Report," The Reisman & Johnson Report of Partner Solicitation Characteristics as a Reflection of More Sexual Orientation and the Threat to Children, First Principles Press, January l995.)

In a 1985 study of the rates of molestation among homosexual pederasts compared to heterosexu1 pedophiles, Dr. Paul Cameron found the following:
· 153 pederasts had sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years.

· 224 pedophiles had molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years.

· The average pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each heterosexual pedophile molested an average of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5 to one. 12 (12. Dr. Paul Cameron, “Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil,” Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 1227-1236.)



I thought you weren’t going to discuss this topic anymore with me? Anyway, this request to put the bible thumping/bashing aside is aimed at all the defenders of homosexuality and not you in particular.



Sure it did, it made us intelligent enough to create them. That same intelligence should also highlight the fallacy of homosexuality but unfortunately politics trumps information in a very similar scenario to auto manufacturers and pollution issues.



What a ridiculous Icewol type point.



Good to see you trying to participate and applying that post modern educational dictum of ‘what counts is the effort more than the substance’.

Still a long way to go before I can take you seriously though.

   

Here is a copy of the TV ad that converted Iceowl.

[youtube width=425 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIRW-yhmg4[/youtube]

   

Grain I strongly suspect you just love to wind Owl up.

   

[youtube width=425 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS9aykVuzk[/youtube]

   

Not true at all. If I did I would post some of his personal home videos such as this one:

[youtube width=425 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xFIw5lFqjc[/youtube]

I'm actually cow belling.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 20  Next