Homosexuality is an anomaly

sharkman · June 18, 2007

I'm pretty sure that most homosexuals don't want your approval given that they are apparently doing so much to annoy you.
Indeed, given your stated opinions, most homosexuals would likely hold you in extreme contempt, rather than seek your approval.

Btw, your assertion that homosexuals are seeking your approval tells us more about you than it presumes to say about homosexuals. Just sayin'.

Actually gays demand approval from specifically those who don't approve. That's why their agenda is to be protected on a level with endangered species. That way if anyone even looks at them crosseyed while they're strutting in a gay parade they can claim some form of hate crime, and get the ACLU or some gay equivalent to sue.

Kapitän Rotbart · June 18, 2007

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnS...hosx_lifspn.htm

Your link leads back to a very biased website, with an ultra Christian agenda. Anything this website posts has to be viewed as subjective, rather than objective. There aren't links to the studies cited, and the two studies listed are 9 and 10 years old. I don't think you've proven your point at all.

Through the narrow gate.....

Spiritually and Intellectually aggressive Re-Sources
for Christian living in a pre-Christian age.

Western Civilization is Christian Civilization.

The Biblical re-conversion of the West is a Necessary & Winnable Battle...

"The logical end of defensive war is surrender..." Napoleon

Christians must learn to take the intellectual, moral, & spiritual offensive...

The page itself is secular. The website may be run by Christians, but the specific link I mentioned only presents research. Other than Christians, few people have any interest in posting stats about the GBLT.

Feel free to question it, but you'll have to find counter-proof to consider believing otherwise. Also feel free to ignore Cameron's stats on that page, there are only two quotes of his research, and his research is most questionable (so claims the pro GBLT activists, which could also be questioned).

No one has proven that gays have equal lifespan to heterosexuals nor has anyone proven that the difference in life span is at all smaller than what is stated on the page I mentioned.

In fact, the statistics given by pro gay fag activists are much more questionable, because so many still believe that 10+% of the population is part of the GBLT. Whose research are you going to trust?

Melanie_ · June 18, 2007

The page may not mention Christianity, but it is hosted on the website and written by the same people. This alone makes it subjective. Also, the researchers quoted are not pleased with the way their research is being misrepresented....

Oxford Journals

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

They also state that there has been significant progress in life expectancy in the gay community. AIDS and HIV took a toll, but that toll is decreasing.

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4

I'm also skeptical of the statistics quoted earlier in the article. Sure, people may have tried to do research on older gay men, but that was in a time when gay men were firmly in the closet, particularly those who had reached maturity, and were perhaps married with families, living in denial all their lives. Participating in studies like this would have left them, and their families, far too vulnerable.

Melanie_ · June 18, 2007

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Cameron's research has been called into question by a professor of journalism at Columbia University...

Paul Cameron, a former University of Nebraska assistant professor who now heads a group called the Family Research Institute, claims that gay men have an average life expectancy of 43 years.1 He and his co-authors calculated that figure by checking urban gay newspapers for obituaries and news stories about deaths. But as Walter Olson pointed out in Slate last December, this method produces an unrepresentative sample that includes only those who die; gay men of the same generation who live longer aren't in the sample at all! The sample also is biased toward urban gays who have AIDS and have come out of the closet.
It is easy to test Cameron's assertion. The average age of AIDS victims at death has been about 40. No more than 20 percent of gay men were destined to die of AIDS before protease inhibitors came along. But let's say the number was actually 50 percent. Even with that wild overestimate, the average gay man who doesn't have AIDS would have to die at age 46 to conform to Cameron's 43-year life expectancy. Or, to state the problem another way, if the average non-HIV-positive gay male lived to be 70 (still dying almost 10 years younger than heterosexual men) and half of all gay men were HIV-positive, the average gay AIDS patient would have to die at 16 to conform to Cameron's average.

guyser · June 18, 2007

I suppose one should have checked with the dictionary for accuracy .

ScottSA · June 18, 2007

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnS...hosx_lifspn.htm

Your link leads back to a very biased website, with an ultra Christian agenda. Anything this website posts has to be viewed as subjective, rather than objective. There aren't links to the studies cited, and the two studies listed are 9 and 10 years old. I don't think you've proven your point at all.

The age of a study ought not matter to the point at hand, do you think, considering that for the last few years AIDS has again been on the rise in the NA homosexual "community?" Most sites are biased one way or another, and certainly the optics of your posts suggest that you are retreating while firing ad hominem over your shoulder. He made a point and cited evidence to back it up. I've seen those studies numerous times over the years, and I know very well they exist, and so do you. It's intuitively true anyway.

Just for the information of Melanie et. al. academic assassination is an indication of weakness. Someone may not like the use to which their information is put, but that doesn't render their information incorrect.

M.Dancer · June 19, 2007

Anomaly don't read these threads.....

Melanie_ · June 19, 2007

The age of a study ought not matter to the point at hand, do you think, considering that for the last few years AIDS has again been on the rise in the NA homosexual "community?" Most sites are biased one way or another, and certainly the optics of your posts suggest that you are retreating while firing ad hominem over your shoulder. He made a point and cited evidence to back it up. I've seen those studies numerous times over the years, and I know very well they exist, and so do you. It's intuitively true anyway.
Just for the information of Melanie et. al. academic assassination is an indication of weakness. Someone may not like the use to which their information is put, but that doesn't render their information incorrect.

The age of the study is relevent when the authors themselves have stated that it is outdated, as shown in my previous post. Now, after going off on this tangent, I'm wondering what the original point was of this whole line of thought. Kapitan, were you trying to prove that gay men who have AIDS have shorter life spans? OK, but anyone who has AIDS will likely have a shorter lifespan, and not all gay men have AIDS. Linking all gay men to shorter lifespans because of the ones who have AIDS doesn't make sense. Are you saying there is something else that will shorten the lifespan of a man, specifically because he is gay?

ScottSA, I'm not ready to believe that AIDS is on the rise in North America among gay men because of intuitive evidence. Lets try this instead...

A report from UNaids/WHOaids says it has stabilized in the US

The estimated annual number of new HIV cases has remained roughly stable at 40 000 since 2000 in the USA (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005).

We have seen some increase in HIV in Canada

The number of reported new annual HIV infections has risen by 20% in the past ﬁve years (from 2111 in 2000 to 2529 in 2004)

but the jump from HIV to AIDS has decreased

the annual number of AIDS diagnoses has dropped sharply (from 1776 in 1994 to 237 in 2004)

and in Europe

The biggest change in Western Europe has been the emergence of heterosexual contact as the dominant cause of new HIV infections in several countries.

ScottSA · June 19, 2007

Well Melanie...thanks for supplying a more current restatement of the same point you're apparently claiming is based on outdated info:

"The majority of people living with HIV in the USA are men who have sex with men, and sex between men remains the dominant mode of transmission, accounting for 63% of newly-diagnosed HIV infections in 2003, according to the latest available data (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004a)."

Thanks to our tax dollars and the billions in research we ultimately pay for, they get to live longer and suck even more out of our pockets for an entirely preventable disease:

The estimated number of people living with HIV in the United States of America (USA) at the end of 2003 exceeded one million for the first time, up from the corresponding figure of 850 000–950 000 for 2002 (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004a). There were an estimated 1.04 million–1.2 million HIV cases in the USA at the end of 2003. The increase reflects the fact that people with HIV are living longer due to antiretroviral treatment, as well as the failure to adapt and sustain the prevention successes achieved during the epidemic’s first 10–15 years. Approximately 32 000 new HIV cases were recorded in 2003 in the 33 states with confidential, name-based reporting, a number that has stayed relatively stable since the late 1990s. (Those 33 reporting states do not include California and New York, which have the highest number of persons living with HIV.)

In effect, this study is more damning than the study KR supplied. Thanks. Clearly there are significant health risks associated with bum buggery.

BC_chick · June 19, 2007

Like the hugely disproportionate rates of pedophilia among homosexuals?

Is this one of those stats I've read on Jesus sites like "85% of pedophiles who were convicted of molesting boys, identified themselves as gay or bisexual?"

Well, duh... and how many of the ones who molested girls were straight?

Feel free to throw a link to back up your argument about the disproportionate figures. So far, all I haven't seen any.

Melanie_ · June 19, 2007

Scott, your point was that AIDS among homosexual men is on the rise in North America; this website shows that the numbers have stabilized (unfortunately, they haven't decreased). There is a great chart that illustrates this well, about halfway down the page. The website also shows that there is an increase in the spread of HIV from heterosexual contact and drug use.

I'm not sure what the Kapitan's point was, as anyone with AIDS (gay or straight) will likely have a shorter lifespan than they would otherwise. While there are a significant number of gay men with AIDS, that doesn't mean that all gay men will have shortened lifespans.

Kapitän Rotbart · June 19, 2007

@Melanie_:

I'm not sure what the Kapitan's point was, as anyone with AIDS (gay or straight) will likely have a shorter lifespan than they would otherwise. While there are a significant number of gay men with AIDS, that doesn't mean that all gay men will have shortened lifespans.

My point was, AIDS or no AIDS, homosexuals average a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals.

I'll agree with ScottSA's comment

In effect, this study is more damning than the study KR supplied. Thanks. Clearly there are significant health risks associated with bum buggery.

Feces are considered toxic. We normally discourage people from coming in contact with toxic matter, unless it relates to sexuality, which is absurd. If the gov't were responsible, there would be a health label on condoms saying "not suitable for sodomy". Sexperts are no longer advocating the condom alone but rather combining birth control to prevent pro-creation, but if the condom busts during sodomy, there's nothing to protect from fecal contact, but even if the wrap is successful, it still doesn't guarantee full protection from from fecal contact.

Speaking of objectivity, I've read Cameron-bashing sites. I'm not going to back his findings, which is why I said for the site I mentioned earlier, consider what is given on that page and feel free to ignore anything found by Cameron. However, if you read the Cameron-bashing sites, some of the comments are absurd. Cameron was accused of terrible sampling, even concerning the heterosexuals sampled in his research:

According to his survey, 52% of male heterosexuals have shoplifted; 34% have committed a crime without being caught; 22% have been arrested for a crime; and 13% have served time in prison.

http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html

He sampled some fairly dangerous heterosexuals, some real risk-takers, who are also known for having a shorter life span. I'm not defending Cameron in any way, but the way the information is presentated trying to convince us that his findings are hoax is not much better than Cameron's research itself.

The page may not mention Christianity, but it is hosted on the website and written by the same people. This alone makes it subjective.

Yeah, and if research is conducted by George Bush, the Mexican or Chinese government, the GBLT activists, the Jews, the Atheists (Atheism is also a religion), etc. there will be subjectivity. You won't get research done otherwise, because people who are truly indifferent won't bother researching it... fancy that!

FascistLibertarian · June 21, 2007

Hetrosexuality is just as much an anomaly. As is monogamy. Why dont these people attack those things?

Oh wait its because thats what they are and what they believe.

And they are so stupid that they think that what feels natural for them is natural for everyone.

Wow, I would laugh if these fools were not such a danger.

Anyone that thinks there is anyhting wrong with homosexuality is in need of some education.

cybercoma · June 21, 2007

The bottom line is this, when you treat another human being as though they're not as valuable as yourself, you can be damn sure you're being an a**hole.

Kapitän Rotbart · June 23, 2007

@n00b (FascistLibertarian):

How could heterosexuality or monogamy be anomalies if they are the norm? The norm being what humans by nature are driven towards and the only way for natural procreation... to suggest that this is abnormal, we could stretch this nonsense and state that your conception was abnormal.

Even many liberals would not argue against the statement that homosexuality is "an alternative lifestyle". Granted "alternative" means alternative to the norm, this means gay faggotry is an anomaly.

What's with the S/N, may I ask? Are you both fascist AND libertarian or is this a cry for attention or even a weapon of mass distraction? I'm kind of curious.

@cybercoma:

There is a difference between treating a human being in a certain way and celebrating/encouraging/approving a carnal desire.

If I serve ice cream on a sunny day, I'm not going to refuse to sell ice cream to gay fags or even send them to the back of the line because whether someone practices gay faggotry or not has nothing to do with selling them ice cream, but if I'm running a bed and breakfast, I should not be expected to provide shelter for the celebration of such carnal desires if I disagree with it. Businesses should have the right to turn people down on a moral basis provided the moral objection is relevant to the service provided, if they're willing to bite the loss of clientèle. It is already widely accepted that hotels charge heavy fines to guests who smoke in the rooms even where no law requires this, yet if they turn down a gay couple, they likely get sued.

For the same reason, gays should not be turned down for job applications outside religious institutions and private clubs (who should be allowed to select candidates based on their own moral code) because of their alternative lifestyle, however gay fags should also not be granted preferencial status using government implemented quotas.

I do not judge others, however I should not be expected to support behavior that I disagree with.

And by the way, it's not the bottom line of this topic at all... the topic was started with a quote from a Ukranian politician if I recall correctly, and the bottom line should come down to what the gov't should do concerning supposive "gay rights" (which more accurately translate into special privileges for the gay fags). This has nothing to do for one's respect for another human being.

FascistLibertarian · June 23, 2007

My name is because I am never sure if our government should act in a libertarian manner (probably socially it should) or a fascist manner (probably for healthcare it should). I can not decided which I am

I guess you could say Im bipolitical in this respect.

How could heterosexuality or monogamy be anomalies if they are the norm? The norm being what humans by nature are driven towards and the only way for natural procreation... to suggest that this is abnormal, we could stretch this nonsense and state that your conception was abnormal.

Why do you think these things are natural? What do you define as ‘normal’?

What evidence do you have that humans are by NATURE driven towards heterosexuality and monogamy?

You should check out a few ethnographies.

Try "coming of age in samoa" by margaret mead and "Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman"

by Marjorie Shostak.

Also you might be interested in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Frederick Engels

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...amily/index.htm

As well I would encourage you to read Alfred Kinsey's two studies and also Masters and Johnson's Human Sexual Response

To claim that heterosexuality and monogamy are the norm for all human societies is just plain wrong. Some societies have institutionalized bisexuality (ancient Sparta and Athens for example). Others (ancient Japan) have not cared about sexuality as long as the man is able to produce a child.

If you are going to claim that what you feel is normal and natural then you have to bring evidence.

Further to say something is the 'norm' for all of human society is very problematic for me unless you brign a lot of evidence.

Kapitän Rotbart · June 24, 2007

@FascistLibertarian:

Well, thanks for explaining the S/N, fora such as this one celeberate diversity of ideas, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Being libertarian socially, that means you're socially left (assuming), but being fascist in terms of health care... health care can be considered on a social and economic level... assuming solely economic, does that mean you are for privatized health care (economically right) or only state-run medicare (economically left)? I'd assume the latter because libertarians would prefer privatized health care, meaning you'd mostly be left for both social and economic levels (with possible exceptions)... wouldn't it be easier to just call yourself a socialist or leftist, or even simply a typical Canadian?

I wouldn't mind you actually quoting your literature. I don't know if I could trust anything published on a Marxist webpage (going by the URL you posted). To find a lot of evidence to back my perspective could be time-consuming, most results when I surf the search engine are fora or Christian or even pro-gay websites. I will, however, state that the absence of concrete counter-proof proves my point.

Regarding the societies you mention, certain "tolerances" have been granted, though they may not have been the mainstream. In both cases of monogamy and heterosexuality, alternatives may have been tolerated, but unlikely to have been the mainstream in any place at any time (unless you could bring up some numbers). Anywhere in history where a significant number would have participated in homosexual intercourse or in polygamy/polyandry would be limited to a group of "spoiled" people within a given society. What I mean by spoiled would be those who would be quite well-off, notably rulers and other members of government, people who would never have to work or cook a meal, and could order servants slaves to do whatever they like, and have no accountability. Having "nothing to do", not even having to take care of oneself would lead just about anyone to look for new thrills in their quest for "satisfaction". They didn't have fora like this one (not even the Interweb), no video games, no airplanes for distant world travel, etc. Many of them have turned to polygamy or sodomy and the society under their regime would tolerate this or face death.

A somewhat good example is King Henry VIII, who had too much power for his own good, despite the fact that hardly any Englishman at the time would consider more than one spouse over the course of their lifetime. Although King Henry VIII did not have multiple spouses at once, having multiple spouses during one's lifetime was not typical for English society, nor was it well percieved in most European societies at the time, it was tolerated (anyone who objected was likely an activist for the Catholic Church, who would have quickly been given capital punishment).

Though Islam tolerates polygamy, no muslim society has been identified where polygamic relationships would be a majority. Those in such relationships would be men who are well-off and able to consider several women that a husband and wife are entitled to different treatment within a marriage. In Morocco, Senegal, Afganistan, Kuwait, etc. polygamic relationships are not a majority, even where it is most tolerated.

San Francisco is the world's current gay fag capital, where only roughly 3% of its residents are GBLT. This is still insignificant (though "pro-gay" San Franciscans may be a majority, so few are actually queer themselves).

My point here (summarized) is that although societies may tolerate GBLT/polygamy/polyandry in fear of defying authorities, GBLT or polygamic relations were never a majority in any place at any time (and by place I mean a region containing at least 200 000 native residents, not an inter-regional gathering of minorities from various lands celebrating their minority behavior in one place). Tolerance does not justify behavior, nor does it render behavior normal. Normal behavior would be the most typical behavior, the behavior manifested in the majority of cases without intervention from activists/government, being the sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

You don't have to take this literally, but just some food for thought, God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to be fruitful and multiply the way it was intended to be (God didn't create Adam and Steve).

FascistLibertarian · June 25, 2007

health care can be considered on a social and economic level... assuming solely economic, does that mean you are for privatized health care (economically right) or only state-run medicare (economically left)? I'd assume the latter because libertarians would prefer privatized health care, meaning you'd mostly be left for both social and economic levels (with possible exceptions)... wouldn't it be easier to just call yourself a socialist or leftist, or even simply a typical Canadian?

I am for private healtcare controlled by market forces. I am also for better run public healthcare with more responsibility assigned to the individual for their own health. The state needs to take a more active role. To go into details would take far to long and is not at all the subject at hand. I am for more government intervention in peoples lives in terms of their own health (ie everyone should be AIDS tested at least once a year).

I dont see how anyone can be against having both public and private healthcare......

The Marxist webpage has direct copies of the famous works of communists.

FascistLibertarian · June 25, 2007

My point here (summarized) is that although societies may tolerate GBLT/polygamy/polyandry in fear of defying authorities, GBLT or polygamic relations were never a majority in any place at any time (and by place I mean a region containing at least 200 000 native residents, not an inter-regional gathering of minorities from various lands celebrating their minority behavior in one place). Tolerance does not justify behavior, nor does it render behavior normal. Normal behavior would be the most typical behavior, the behavior manifested in the majority of cases without intervention from activists/government, being the sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

This would be impossible to measure. People will not actively ID themselves as LGBT. The only way you could find out would be to show people SS porn and measure they reaction. The behavior of the minority is not always abnormal. LGBT people have existed in every society.

You are making the mistake also that abnormal = bad. Certainly transexuals are abnormal, as they are somethign like 1:10,000 people. However there is nothing wrong with transexuals.

So your argument is that if one could find a society of +200,000 people where the majority were either LGBT or not monogamous then it would show that these behaviors are normal but if a society like this could not be found than they would be abnormal?

Rue · June 25, 2007

@FascistLibertarian:
San Francisco is the world's current gay fag capital... but just some food for thought, God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to be fruitful and multiply the way it was intended to be (God didn't create Adam and Steve).

No but God created people like you who use words like "fag" and think they are in the position to lecture people and speak on behalf of God because I mean we all know you are God's right hand. Using your reasoning by the way, God would have had to have created Adam and Steve as he created all humans the last time I read YOUR Bible. If you are goiung to lecture people on Christianity and twist it to try defend your ignorance and bigotry at least try make some sense when you spew off such simplistic and pointless comments. By the way, good Christian prophet and spokesperson for God, the word Fag is derogatory. Would you like it if I made disparaging comments about you? Yah I know you are a good Christian and you don't hate "fags". With good Christians like you preaching love and tolerance, none of us have to worry about humanity.

Rue · June 25, 2007

As for the other attempt by Kapitan "I refer to gays as fags" to engage in a treatise as to homo-sexuality may I suggest he go and wipe out as much life as he can on the planet since all life forms engage in homo-sexuality. I would simply wipe all these life forms out since they can't come to church. In regards to the gays or as the Kapitan refers to them "fags" I want everyone to know I saw the Kapitan at the gay pride parade yesterday and he tried to kiss me. I told him it was sinful. Besides I was getting it on with David Miller.

Mad_Michael · June 25, 2007

A somewhat good example is King Henry VIII, who had too much power for his own good, despite the fact that hardly any Englishman at the time would consider more than one spouse over the course of their lifetime. Although King Henry VIII did not have multiple spouses at once, having multiple spouses during one's lifetime was not typical for English society, nor was it well percieved in most European societies at the time, it was tolerated (anyone who objected was likely an activist for the Catholic Church, who would have quickly been given capital punishment).

Let me guess... you watched Tutor on HBO and now you are an expert on 16th century British marriage customs and legal constitutionalism?

You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death. But don't let that get in the way of your righteous rant.

M.Dancer · June 25, 2007

Let me guess... you watched Tutor on HBO and now you are an expert on 16th century British marriage customs and legal constitutionalism?
You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death. But don't let that get in the way of your righteous rant.

Tutor, is an aging line of jet trainers.......

Tudor, is an extinct line of kings......

FascistLibertarian · June 25, 2007

that d and t are too far away on the keyboard for that to be a mistake.

M.Dancer · June 25, 2007

that d and t are too far away on the keyboard for that to be a mistake.

It's an easy mistake...the d and t are very similar sounds to the ear....and are often combined in poetry and lyrics for that reason....Down Town..Tear Drops......