|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 17, 2009 16:13:31 GMT -5
i'm sure the odds of a monogomous gay couple living long healthy lives are better than those who live promiscous lives. by the same token, the odds of a smoker who only smokes 5 a day are better than one who smokes 2 packs a day. then again, some heavy smokers live well into their 90's.
the studies are not based on onesies and twosies. they are based on many, many participants. while some monogomous gays may live much longer than 42, on whole gays die off early. the numbers don't lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 17, 2009 16:20:23 GMT -5
This is absolute CRAP. You've made yourself look foolish by posting it. The author, Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs (www.familyresearchinst.org) sites multiple studies from the 1960s, 1970, and 1980s. He even sites many "studies" that he and his brother did in the 1990s. To say that his information is out of date and biased is the understatement of the year! Moondog, you'd better ask yourself if you're seeking the truth or just trying to reaffirm your own bigotry. Just because you refuse to face facts and are biased against the traditional family does not mean the data is false. In fact, data from the only country that allowed open homosexual marriages contradicts everything you say. When you can't refute the argument, attack the source. Your MO will not work this time. You are a fool who is showing his true agenda. Anti-God, pro socialist government, liberal, close minded propagandist. You can deny all you like, but you are wrong. And by the way, oh lemming of the left, the latest study among them was 1997. Funny how they all reach similar conclusions. Why don't you write to the people who did the studies and tell them how biased they are? I tell you why, because they would bury your stupid ass in data from here until the cows come home, and all of it would prove you wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Feb 17, 2009 16:20:55 GMT -5
Come on, are you intentionally being dense? Gay people have struggled to be able to live lives that are free from discrimination and oppression. AIDS spread like wildfire through the underground gay communities in the '80s and '90s, so of course their life expectancy wouldn't be as high.
The comparison to smoking is ridiculous. Smoking (even one cigarette a day) negatively affects your health. You have failed to show any proof that being in a monogamous, STD-free, homosexual relationship has any negative affect on one's health.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Feb 17, 2009 16:31:34 GMT -5
This is absolute CRAP. You've made yourself look foolish by posting it. The author, Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs (www.familyresearchinst.org) sites multiple studies from the 1960s, 1970, and 1980s. He even sites many "studies" that he and his brother did in the 1990s. To say that his information is out of date and biased is the understatement of the year! Moondog, you'd better ask yourself if you're seeking the truth or just trying to reaffirm your own bigotry. Just because you refuse to face facts and are biased against the traditional family does not mean the data is false. In fact, data from the only country that allowed open homosexual marriages contradicts everything you say. When you can't refute the argument, attack the source. Your MO will not work this time. You are a fool who is showing his true agenda. Anti-God, pro socialist government, liberal, close minded propagandist. You can deny all you like, but you are wrong. I will absolutely attack the source because they put out false information. Only a nitwit like yourself would buy into something from such an obviously dubious source. Your source, the Family Research Institute, was originally known as the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality. They have "...one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse." So, you see, they have an agenda, in other words, they are biased. And guess what moondog: The American Psychological Association (APA) dropped Cameron from its membership on December 2, 1983 for lack of cooperation in an inquiry into his research methods.The Boston Globe reported that FRI's 2005 budget was less than $200,000. The FRI website lists only one scientist on staff, apart from Paul Cameron, Dr. Kirk Cameron, his brother. Why don't you read this article from the Southern Poverty Law Center and then admit that you made a mistake by posting that article. If you fail to admit this, we will see you for what you are, a pigheaded, bigoted buffoon: www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=588 |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 17, 2009 16:33:31 GMT -5
Come on, are you intentionally being dense? Gay people have struggled to be able to live lives that are free from discrimination and oppression. AIDS spread like wildfire through the underground gay communities in the '80s and '90s, so of course their life expectancy wouldn't be as high. The comparison to smoking is ridiculous. Smoking (even one cigarette a day) negatively affects your health. You have failed to show any proof that being in a monogamous, STD-free, homosexual relationship has any negative affect on one's health. How dare you say I am the one being dense. It is you who is displaying moronic debating skills and acceptance of lies. Nothing I have posted is anti-gay, nothing. In fact, I have openly stated here on this thread, board and other places that I support the First Amendment and any church who would perform Homosexual marriages. However, that does nothing to eliminate the risk of a homosexual life style. That is the lie you are trying to advance in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. In other words, you will ignore the facts just to cling to your preconceived opinions that are not supported by a single fact. So, who is really being dense here. If you think homosexuality is such a good thing, then teach your kids to go out and sleep with multiple same sex partners regularly, I don't care. But do not teach those lies to my children, or there will be hell to pay. I teach my kids the truth. It is a risky, unhealthy and deadly lifestyle, more unhealthy and deadly then smoking, period, end of story. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the truth does not mean I have to be ignorant and stupid by doing the same. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Feb 17, 2009 16:34:32 GMT -5
AIDS spread like wildfire through the underground gay communities in the '80s and '90s, so of course their life expectancy wouldn't be as high. And just why did AIDS spread like wildfire? Hmmmmmmmmmm? I don't see any offer of proof on your part that it doesn't have a negative effect, or for that matter a positive one. So what's your point, really? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Feb 17, 2009 16:44:38 GMT -5
For a couple reasons:
1) Homosexual promiscuity in the '80s was linked to the fact that gays had to live their lives underground. The mainstream acceptance of gay culture has done wonders for gay people's self esteem and acceptance of the way nature made them.
2) Due to the way in which gay people have sex, HIV is more easily transmitted from partner to partner.
My point was counter to moondog's assertion that "The simple fact is homosexuality shortens a persons life span." This is not true, it is the lifestyle, not the homosexuality that shortens life span. Homosexuals can be in a loving, monogamous relationship and they will suffer no averse effects from their homosexual behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 17, 2009 16:46:31 GMT -5
Here attack these folks too then source of data proving the short life spans of homosexualsOr maybe you would like to discredit this physician JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.But, you will attack them won't you. Because it turns your belief on its head, even though there is not a single study to the contrary of these. And, you will attack them based on their belief systems, because you have no belief system. Face it, every homosexual I have known was at greater risk of death. I know two of my friends have died of AIDS. I believe others I have known over the years may have passed, but I am not sure. However, just because you do not want to believe the truth does not change it. Also, just because they live a shorter, hedonistic life style does not mean I hate them or discriminate against them. I just prefer not to be around them. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 17, 2009 16:47:27 GMT -5
i would venture to say that having unprotected anal sex just (even once) has great potential to negatively affects your health. especially, if that phallus has been doing the same to other unprotected anuses. same for those who performa oral on said phallus which may have been involved with other unprotected mouths or anuses.
excuse me for being so vivid in my illustrations but it needed to be said.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Feb 17, 2009 16:51:05 GMT -5
i would venture to say that having unprotected anal sex just (even once) has great potential to negatively affects your health. especially, if that phallus has been doing the same to other unprotected anuses. same for those who performa oral on said phallus which may have been involved with other unprotected mouths or anuses. excuse me for being so vivid in my illustrations but it needed to be said. And couldn't you argue the exact same thing about heterosexual sex? If both partners are tested to be sure they have no STDs, how would it negatively affect your health any more than safe heterosexual sex? |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 17, 2009 16:51:55 GMT -5
AIDS spread like wildfire through the underground gay communities in the '80s and '90s, so of course their life expectancy wouldn't be as high. And just why did AIDS spread like wildfire? Hmmmmmmmmmm? I don't see any offer of proof on your part that it doesn't have a negative effect, or for that matter a positive one. So what's your point, really?You are absolutely correct. There are zero studies to the contrary, in all of the reading I have done. And I have read a lot about the subject. Even Kinsey came to the same conclusion and he was pro-homosexual in his approach. The very fact that he could not get enough homosexuals in the upper age brackets to study caused him to leave the data he gathered out of his second report. The reason he could not get the numbers was due to the higher death rate creating a diminishing population among homosexual men. saunterelle can deny all he likes, that does not make him correct, it makes him ignorant of the truth. Instead, his approach is to claim I am a bigot because I believe the numbers and do not openly promote this unhealthy life style to my children or anyone else. It only reveals his level of indoctrination by those promoting the life style as being as healthy and normal as a heterosexual relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 17, 2009 16:53:57 GMT -5
For a couple reasons: 1) Homosexual promiscuity in the '80s was linked to the fact that gays had to live their lives underground. The mainstream acceptance of gay culture has done wonders for gay people's self esteem and acceptance of the way nature made them. 2) Due to the way in which gay people have sex, HIV is more easily transmitted from partner to partner. wow! you just provided two explicit examples that difinitively prove moondog's point. you claim that gays were promiscous because they had to be "in the closet" so to speak. why then couldn't they be monogomous in the closet? why? because they didn't want to be. as noted by moondog, a small percentage of gays wnat to live a monogomous "married" lifestyle but the vast majority do not. that majority prefer to have multiple partners thus putting them at greater risk. similarly, a heterosexual person who sleeps around has a greater risk for disease (and shorter life) than someone who doesn't. |
|
