NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Well... (Score:1)
I wish people would stay away from the "religious" argument. There is plenty of other stuff to say. Like the lifestyle being bad unhealthy and bad for families. The 5000 years of traditional man+woman marriages around the world. The historical fight for it in America itself. The slippery slope issue. The list goes on and on without it ever being a religious issue.
Besides, most of the protesters that show up with religious signs for or against couldn't even tell you where Leviticus is found in the Bible. I
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
The fight is about normalizing the homosexual lifestyle, when it is not a normal lifestyle.
50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.
Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: " gay men aren't very good at having and holding lovers...(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually) more rapidly than straight men." And according to them, the average homosexual male first "seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. "The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen," After the Ball," (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.
In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
75% of homosexual men are currently carrying one or more pathogens. Source: Miles, A.J., et al. " Effect of Anal-receptive Intercourse on Anorectal Function. " Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86 ( March 1993 ): p.146.
In 1981, it was reported that 78% of "gay" men have had or have a Sexually Transmitted Disease ( STD ). Source: H.H. Hansfield, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men," American Journal of Public Health ( 1981 ): pp. 989-90.
In a 1997 news article, The New York Times stated that a male teenager entering the homosexual lifestyle today has a 50% chance of getting AIDS by the age of fifty. Source: Sheryl Gay Stolberg, " Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, page 1.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:2)
So if I'm part of any group that has a tendency toward promiscuity I can't marry? Or does that only apply if I'm part of the group that you consider "abnormal"? Weren't eastern europeans considered abnormal? African americans? Or for that matter, anyone with a darkish hue?
If you consider homosexuality abnormal that's your business, I couldn't care less. When you use your belief to tell other people what to do and who to love, that's a different matter. Why should you even care?
I realize it's pointless t
Re:Well... (Score:1)
I am not telling anyone what to do or who to love. I am just stating that I (and the majority of Americans) do not consider homosexuality a normal lifestyle. I stop short in telling them to stop. If they want to risk their health then that is up to them. I even stop short of creating a constitutional amendment. There are better ways to protect marriage.
You arguments against people groups being abnormal is inane. Those people groups do not have inherent health risks associated with them. The color of some
Re:Well... (Score:2)
How are two people getting married "forcing their beliefs" on you? When two muslims get married they're not asking you to believe the Koran is the holy word of God, they're just asking you to respect their beliefs in their own religion and for one another. How is this different?
The other arguments, "it's always been that way" and "it's a health risk" are also wrongheaded. I hate to trot the argument out again but history is rife with examples of traditional practices that have been overturned with progres
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Nice straw man argument.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
For that matter, they also remind me of people who trumpet scientific studies saying that homosexuality is genetically determined and claim that means it should be legal and socially accepted. If tomorrow studies found that it wasn't genetically determined, would they then beli
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Besides, homosexuals aren't the only people who engage in "abnormal" sexual practices. Are you in favor of outlawing all such behavior, so as to avoid legitimizing it?
Re:Well... (Score:1)
But we do already...
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Though only articles I quoted where were about males, the risk of lesbian sex is HIGHER that hetero as well.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Tasty pictures (Score:2)
(*) for those of you heathens who aren't familiar with the Torah, this is actually true.
Fun, but this isn't about taunts. (Score:2)
He wasn't there yeseterday. Instead it was just a doudy group of very quiet Fundies. I thought about doing a little needling, but then I realized that jeez, people are getting married here
God Hates Shrimp (Score:2)
Re:Tasty pictures (Score:2)
What about the naked sushi chef? :)
Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
A) Nobody's forcing their beliefs on you. Nobody's hand-cuffed you to another man, dragged you down to the county clerk and demanded you get a marriage license. By declaring that before the eyes of the law, only a man and a woman can have a legal union you are forcing your beliefs on other people. Mar
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
It's a cop out for saying we shouldn't change, but it's a damn good reason for saying we should only make those changes legally and deliberately, collectively, instead of by fiat of a few (unless those few happen to be supreme court justices
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
Also ?
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
While its good to remember that all law is, in some way, enforcing belief, its about as interesting in the context of this discussion as having a physics argument and someone chiming in, "but you can never really prove anyt
Re:Well... (Score:2)
> associated with them
Actually, there are very clear health risks associated with people groups defined by skin color. Folks with more melanin (skin pigment) are at a much lower risk for skin cancer. The correlation runs the other direction regarding heart disease. You can find trends like this for many health risks.
Some racists would look at a hand-picked collection of these correlations and claim that other races are genetically inferior while
Why stop with gays? (Score:2)
Let's assume those stats you dug up have some basis in reality. Should we legally prevent someone from getting married just because they're a member of a group and thus might be at risk? If we do it for gays, why not every other at risk group? Should we take statistics of STDs, divorce, spouse and child abuse rates amongst various ethnic, social, sexual and economic groups and only give out marriage licenses to those who aren't in an at risk group? If we're going to deny people the right to marry based
Re:Well... (Score:1)
And so far, the result has been normalizing infidelity and adultery.
Not to mention setting seed to the idea that the laws made by government are largely to be ignored.
That is what happens when you pass stupid laws... people start ignoring the law.
Is that really what people want? To weaken the very fragment of government just because some people have a stuffy diety that they think may actually exist?
---
50% of h
Legal Error in Your Favor! (Score:2)
Multnomah's an interesting case because, unlike San Francisco, the interpretation so far is that same-sex marriage upholds the law as the law is written on the books and that it would be unconstitutional by the fourteenth ammendment not to allow the marriages. The county's actions seem to be legal. Of course, people are arguing what the intentions of the lawmakers were (and they're right), and there's already a lawsuit i