Click on this link: it'll warm your heart (if you're in favor of defending traditional marriage and family, that is!) ;-)
Addendum: some of you can't link direct to YouTube so I direct embedded it above...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Message to Americans in 2008
You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.
The author? Abraham Lincoln. Let's not forget what has made America great and unique in the world.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.
The author? Abraham Lincoln. Let's not forget what has made America great and unique in the world.
Must See Videos
Campaign '08 Links
- Campaign 2010: Repeal the Heath Care Disaster Bill
- Video on California Prop. 8: Please Watch
- Protect Marriage: Yes-On-Prop-8!
- Conservatives are More Compassionate
- Conservatives are More Compassionate #2
- Value Voters USA
- Campaign America '08 Supplemental
- The McCain Campaign
- The Obama Campaign
- Polls at Real Clear Politics
- The Corner @ National Review
- Riehl Worldview
- MacArthur Family Blog
- My BYU Sports Blog
- CNN Electoral Map Calculator
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(207)
-
▼
November
(13)
- As I've Been Saying...
- Romney's Good Sense
- Support for Mormon Efforts Supporting Prop 8 from ...
- Offer to Peasants?
- Marriage Defended
- President Obama
- First in Line!
- Let's All Agree to Ignore the Always Faulty Exit P...
- Go Prop 8!
- Go Prop 8!
- Now It's All About Turnout
- Memo from the McCain Campaign
- Your Must Read Article of the Day
-
▼
November
(13)
27 comments:
You should send a copy of this to Steve and Barbara Young!
This prop 8 thing has got me so mad I can't see straight, and not for the reasons you might think. Prop 8 is hateful and bigoted. Shame on the church for getting involved with this! For one thing, the millions of dollars spent could have been better used helping others who really need it, not spreading hate. Ridiculous!
Just one person's opinion....
I don't think Prop 8 is hateful or bigoted. There is nothing in Prop 8 that prevents people from choosing their preferred relationships. Ultimately, Prop 8 simply recognizes the wisdom of societies throughout the world throughout history that have established the basic family unit which has stabilized life, especially for children, as well as the larger societies made up of these families.
And ultimately, this stability will do more to lessen poverty than any dollar donation could possibly do. Therefore these dollars, if they prove helpful in helping Proposition 8 to pass, will have helped the poor more than a direct donation would have, many times over.
The hatred in the campaign on Prop 8 has come almost entirely from the opponents. The supporters have been respectful, which I don't think can be said of the other side.
And let's not forget that Mormons represent only a fraction of 8 supporters. Catholics have been arm-in-arm with us, as have those of many other faiths as well as many arguing for Prop. 8 from an entirely secular position.
Nope! Not buying that yes on prop 8 will help the poor. I think that's a stretch!
I'm sure that any opposition to the "coalition" is only because of the fact that prop 8 IS hateful and discriminating. Just because a family doesn't fit into the "mold" that others have made, doesn't mean that they don't have the right to be a family, even if you don't agree with it! As for all of those who feel that their family will somehow be damaged if prop 8 is defeated, shame on you, too! My standard statement that I use with my children is, "Some people may believe and do things this way, even if we don't believe or act the same way. It's called freedom of choice and accountability." End of story... I REFUSE to raise my children to believe that others are less than they are because of differing lifestyles or belief systems. They know right from wrong and have the values that we've taught them, but ultimately they have CHOICE. If one of your children were gay, wouldn't you want them to have the same opportunity to raise a family with someone they love? And no, being gay is NOT a choice, so it could happen despite a "good, moral" upbringing...
I have good friends who are gay, and I assure you I harbor them no ill will. They are fine people. It doesn't matter that I would make certain choices differently from them. It doesn't even really matter what that "cause" of being gay is. There are any number of legal issues that can be dealt with that Prop 8 will have no effect on - visitation rights can be defined any number of ways, beneficiaries can be defined by choice, not legal marriage status, and so forth. And again, people can choose their voluntary relationships, Prop 8 or no.
But it's interesting that centuries of human wisdom and experience that has noted the benefits and stability provided to children and society by marriage between man and woman as the core of family life and child care/raising, would be tossed because "we're so smart today" and think we know better.
You and I it sounds like are unlikely to agree, but you notice it's you accusing me of being bigoted and hateful. I'm not throwing epithets at you. I just hold a different position that I believe in. Let's try including a little respect in the discussion.
I'm not saying that YOU personally are being hateful. I'm just not so sure that others on the "prop 8" bandwagon aren't!
We are WAY beyond what defines a "traditional" marriage in our society. I am FAR more concerned about the welfare crack moms who are raising children than homosexual couples. It really becomes a civil rights issue to me. Whether or not I agree with homosexuality should not be the point. I see MANY heterosexual couples that have NO business being married or raising children, but I don't see a "prop" on that! I think it's more about a loving, nurturing home regardless of sexual orientation or religion for that matter.
Sure, homosexual couples now have "benefits" of marriage as defined by the government, but I believe if falls just a bit short. I see nothing wrong with the validation of these relationships, and I don't believe that it effects my marriage in any way. I don't believe that society will fall apart if this is voted down. Remember where we were a generation ago with segregation and there sure were strong opinions on that issue! (Held by "good, Christian people", I might add...) Just an opinion.
Once again, I didn't mean to attack you personally. I'm just so red hot mad at the way SOME people on the "right" behave themselves.
Assuming that there is nothing wrong with validating the relationships of homosexuals, what about the incestuous or pedophiles? They cannot help the sexual impulses they feel, correct? But that is obvious, you say, because it involves children and it is not right. Consider this. Redefining marriage diminishes the rights of(you guessed it)children. I am speaking for them because they cannot. Children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father. Every time a child is robbed of these rights there are negative social consequences. There is no question to this statement and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Fatherlessness and motherlessness have serious consequences and the government can never create enough programs to compensate for it. Enduring marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for the physical, mental, social, emotional and economic development of children, men and women. Every deviation from this brings hardship to all involved, especially children.
We love many people that we don't marry. If feelings of love were all that mattered brothers could marry sisters, fathers could marry daughters, etc. With no restrictions the possible arrangements could be endless. If marriage is based solely on one's affections, desire for companionship and genital stimulation then there is no logical reason for not legalizing incestuous or pedophillic marriages.
Marriage is the union of two sexes, not just two people. That is an important distinction. Governments and societies have given certain privileges and benefits to heterosexual marriage because these unions have the biological potential to provide societies with a tangible benefit--children. Two women or two men sleeping together doesn't provide any measurable benefit to society. There is no societal benefit to unions based on the perception of love (remember many cultures still have arranged marriages and love has nothing to do with it) and genital stimulation. Homosexual unions can never produce a child with a mother and a father, thus the children will suffer because of this.
Standing up for marriage between a man and a woman is not only NOT hateful and bigoted but is the only logical and right thing to do to not diminish the rights of children. Yeah! for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for standing up for children and recognizing their need to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Remember if homosexuals are discriminated against in certain types of preferential treatments then so are all single people. Single individuals do not receive certain institutionalized benefits provided by the government because these benefits are there to facilitate and assist a married couple in bearing and effectively rearing the next generation.
Sexual preference and behavior is neither inherent, involuntary or immutable, unlike race. There is no discrimination taking place in the instance of homosexuality. It cannot be compared to segragation. Homosexuality is not innate or what a person is. What a person does (his or her behavior) should never be equated with what a person is. No human being should ever be reduced to his or her sexual impulses. There is no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute genetic, biological or hormonal causation for homosexuality.
Call it hatred, bigotry, or discrimination...but that is the only thing that can be cried out due to ignorance. The reality is not only are those who have strong beliefs in the institution of marriage between a man and a woman being made to be the bad guys but they are beginning to be forced to do things that are against their moral beliefs due to this so called discrimination cry. Take a really good hard look at what you are really defending and standing for and recognize that there are definite consequences for redefining marriage and they will directly affect children everywhere.
It is time to remember children and their need for stability and their fundamental right to a mother and a father. Not only are they worth millions of dollars....they are priceless. No money spent on the well being of a child is money wasted.
In my opinion, there are a lot more constructive ways to help the children. How many times have you donated TIME at your local food pantry or women's shelter? Have you volunteered in a impoverished school to help build children up out of poverty? Are you a foster parent? Are you a big brother/big sister? How many times a week do you help out families in need?
It's EASY to throw money at something, but if you don't walk the walk, don't talk the talk! Of course we are ALL want what's best for children, but I don't see how having two loving, nuturing parents is an issue. Fight some REAL issues that REALLY matter when it comes to children then I'll listen to your "it's for the children" arguement. And if you already do, then great, but it seems that most do not. If you want to throw money at something that will REALLY benefit children, how about sending it to Africa to buy the mosquito nets to help fight malaria. Millions of people, and CHILDREN, have died from something that is so preventable. It sickens me the amount of money WASTED on this pointless issue that could have been used for a better cause.... one that benefits CHILDREN!
Thing is, adoption by gay couples would have no more guarantee of "two loving, nurturing parents" (and I would argue studies suggest a significantly lower chance) than traditional marriage adoptions. And there is no shortage of traditional marriage couples anxious to adopt children who would make wonderful parents. There's an avalanche of terrific research documenting the benefits to children of having a mother and a father as their parents. We could discuss options if there were simply not enough wonderful married couples willing and anxious to adopt, but that's not the case.
"If marriage is based solely on one's affections, desire for companionship and genital stimulation then there is no logical reason for not legalizing incestuous or pedophillic marriages."
I always LOVE this point of view! And you think I'M ignorant?? There is a HUGE difference between a sexual predator and two consenting adults who love each other.
"Sexual preference and behavior is neither inherent, involuntary or immutable, unlike race."
Love this one too.... You mean to tell me that gays CHOOSE their sexual preference and WANT to be persecuted?? Are you kidding me??? Tell that to the kids who committed suicide because they're attracted to the same sex and would rather die than tell their parents and friends who will disown them. Nice "loving" family...
And I'M the one who's ignorant... That's funny!
Obviously you have some serious anger issues that you need to deal with. Just so you do know, yes I do give my time and energy to children every single day. I do have several children living in my home who are not mine. I know what it is like to take on children who have struggles and need help. I do it daily. I was a big sister for several years for a child who had been sexually molested. I also worked with adolescents who were in trouble with the law. I fight child pornography on a continual basis as well. I wonder who really is just doing the talking here. There is no "throwing" of money around and I am in the trenches everyday fighting for children.
As far as the differences between a sexual predator and two consenting adults, are you familiar at all with how many partners a homosexual man typically has in his life? The average number is 300 partners and it goes up from there. Now that's love isn't it. Are you familiar with groups of homosexuals who seek out and look for young boys to have sex with? If that isn't a sexual predator what is? Have you seen the behaviors of gay men and women in their gay pride parades? It is all about sex and not about love. Call it what you will, when men go to the park seeking for sex with an anonymous "lover" that is a sexual predator! You cannot tell me that most homosexual men are in monogamous relationships. That is just not true. Get your facts straight.
I do have someone who I care for very much who is openly gay and lives with a partner. I am familiar with how difficult it is for them to have those types of feelings and to deal with them.
It doesn't matter to me that you think I am ignorant to this subject because I am not and have plenty of knowledge and experience in dealing with it and in being an advocate for children.
It is impossible for you to be convincing in your point of view when you act as though you can't control yourself. Your anger is a sign of immaturity and your inability to have a mature discussion. There will always be differences of opinion in many things but to be able to discuss them with respect is one way of helping others to open their minds to things they may not have considered before. Bickering and arguing and yelling in people's ears does nothing but show you have some things you need to sort out in your life. Why all the defensiveness? Maybe you are the one struggling with your feelings? If you are this is not a personal attack but a statement of beliefs and facts. I am not looking to offend but to inform. Hopefully you can work through your anger and then talk about the issues without behaving so defensive and angry.
No, I am not stuggling with my feelings... I am 100% heterosexual. And I don't have anger issues. I just feel VERY strongly about the rights of people.
Since you seem to throw numbers around, I was wondering if you had any numbers on heterosexual people and how many partners they tend to have in a lifetime... or how many heterosexual people are pedophiles. Contrary to popular belief, just being gay doesn't make your a pedophile and vice versa. I know a lot of young men who try to seduce young women... same arguement. Just like everything else, numbers certainly can be skewed to fit anyone's needs or purpose. I'm not denying that some homosexual people are promiscuous, but there are quite a few heterosexual people that are, too. I'm sure your homosexual friends are just as upset by the behavior of SOME homosexuals as you are. I know I certainly don't like the "in your face" approach that some take, but there are a lot of other groups that are equally annoying.
And as for controlling myself, you seriously must be ultra-sensitive if I've been that offensive. I thought we WERE having a mature discussion. We're never going to agree on this so it's a mute point. Especially since you seem to have all the facts, and I'm just ignorant. I guess that's how a mature discussion goes....
p.s. Good for you and your work with children. Unfortunately, there are plenty of others who like to talk big but do nothing.
Once again, I find it very sad the amount of money spent on this issue that could have been used to directly benefit others. Seriously.... Just think of what good could have been done with that dollar amount!
Hey, this an important and needed discussion. My main thing is I think we have solid evidence that a child does best when they have a loving mother and a loving father as their parents, and there are PLENTY of such couples anxious to adopt. The definition of marriage in this sense is important not just in a semantic sense but for this benefit to the children and society. Also, anytime I hear people assume that we are so superior in our day and that we are just so much more enlightened than those lowly mortals that have preceded us in the long line of humanity, I think to myself "don't be so sure."
That said, respect all around and finding ways in specific legal issues to allow voluntary chosen relationships to be recognized is a good thing.
I actually am not ultrasensitive and I wasn't offended by you. Your manner of expressing yourself comes across as defensive and angry at times and so that makes it difficult to feel like you are even open to discussion.
I don't have numbers on heterosexuals and how many partners they have but I am sure that some have a lot and many do not. My point with homosexual men is that many of them have a lot of sexual encounters and that as a population they have tendencies to have more sexual encounters with each other than a typical heterosexual man because men are more consistently sexual driven than women. They also don't have the tendency to worry about having an emotional relationship with the other person as much as a woman would in a heterosexual relationship. This obviously isn't the case for all homosexual men but for many this is what their behaviors suggest.
In relation to pedophiles I really don't think you could really call one heterosexual, only because they don't really care about the sex of a child they abuse. They abuse boys and girls alike. Just the nature of abusing a boy connotes homosexuality. In others words I think they are past thinking I don't do that because I am heterosexual. That's just my opinion though.
When I talk about numbers I am trying to relay that the life of many homosexual men is a difficult and short life. They have so many partners and the reality is many of them get HIV and AIDS and have a life expectency much shorter than it could be....around their 50's is about as long as they live. Their life is hazardous and unpredictable and is not conducive to raising children and being in a relationship to do so. It is the same with heterosexuals. If they choose to have many relationships with multiple partners the risk of disease goes up and the environment is not conducive to raising children either. It seems that people who live like that don't generally want children to get in the way of their lifestyle anyway.
I could go on and on about all the men (and women) out their addicted to pornorgraphy and what that is doing to our society as well. Just as you have strong feelings about homosexuality, I do about pornography and all the issues surrounding that.
I know that we aren't going to agree on the homosexuality issue and that is not my intention. My intention was to write about the facts and the studies done on living a homosexual life and the consequences of redefining marriage. There have been studies that show it is a short and hazardous life. It is not conducive to marriage. Seriously, if you think about men and women and the struggles they have in marriage, think about how much harder that would be for a man to stay with one man and have a continual lifelong relationship with them.
The homosexual agenda is one in which they are trying to make it seem as though those who disagree with that lifestyle are hateful and bigoted. It is an agenda and is not based on truth. I don't hate my homosexual friends, I just don't agree with their lifestyle. Just like I don't agree with a man having an affair with his secretary at work if he is married and has a wife at home. I believe that we have a Creator who set limits and boundaries for us to be happy..not miserable and hateful. I feel we all have issues to work out in life and we all need each other to get through them.
The last thing I will say is the LDS church spends loads of money on humanitarian service all the time and they are typically the first ones there in a crisis. They are helping a lot of children every single day. If you get involved with the humanitarian work you will see all that is being done. Really the way that LDS people spend their money is their business. Think about how much money was spent on the campaign for president. If you want to talk about a waste that is a great place to focus.
Good luck in your goals and aspirations.
Here's the deal... Believe it or not I DO feel that children are better off with a mother and a father. The fact is, our society is made up of many different types of families. Single moms and dads, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, step-families, etc. I think we need to tread lightly when we decide what defines a "family". Most families don't fit the "mold" for one reason or another. Exclusion leads to bigotry, hatred and persecution. I don't doubt that this issue has caused some to express their "homophobe" ideals and consider it justified. By this I mean inacting violence toward others. Does anyone remember Matthew Sheppard? That poor boy was murdered by people who believed that homosexuals were less than human beings. Now I know that most people don't take violent action, but some will take advantage of the opinions of "the group" to justify their actions. It worries me.....
Here is a perfect example of religious bigotry and intolerance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE
Also, note this article.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14236
All I have to say is if you're gonna dish it out, you'd better be able to take it! It goes both ways... Not that I condone it, but I do find it ironic. I mean, what did you expect?
Anyhoo....
Here's what Ellen DeGeneres had to say today...
"My Thoughts on This Historic Election
Watching the returns on election night was an amazing experience. Barack Obama is our new president. Change is here. I, like millions of Americans, felt like we had taken a giant step towards equality. We were watching history.
This morning, when it was clear that Proposition 8 had passed in California, I can’t explain the feeling I had. I was saddened beyond belief. Here we just had a giant step toward equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away.
I believe one day a “ban on gay marriage” will sound totally ridiculous. In the meantime, I will continue to speak out for equality for all of us."
I'm sure this will mean nothing to those on the "prop 8 bandwagon" since she is a lesbian, but I believe her concerns are heartfelt and genuine. I can only imagine her disappointment, and I'm sure there are many out there like her. But oh well.... It's not like they're real people or anything. They don't fit in the mold.
Here are just a few of the comments that some California residents had to make about the commercial against prop 8 with the so called mormon missionaries.
By User from Bakersfield, CA Today at 10:42 am PST (Updated Today at 10:42 am PST)
Is this the only way you can campaign? To slander and make stupid and inacurate videos about a religious group you obviously know nothing about? How about being mature about your vote and your beliefs like the rest of us... get a sign and rally or vote or be civil or hold a healthy debate!
All this did was push me over the edge to vote YES on 8! It's time to grow up people and stand up for what we believe is right in the mature way! If people made ridiculous movies for a yes on prop 8 campaign that depicted gays as animals or uneducated or some stupid movie that was totally false it would be a national upheaval.. why is it ok for some anti-religioun group to show these videos?!
GROW UP!!!!! I dont care what you stand for or believe in, its about being respectful to others feelings and beliefs. A little respect goes a long way.
Concerned Californian
Ridiculous Reply
By User from Stanford, CA Nov 4th 2008 at 9:19 pm PST (Updated Nov 4th 2008 at 9:19 pm PST)
I am still in shock that your organization has personally attacked the LDS religion. This is a strong example of religious intolerance. As far as I am concerned, intolerance towards other faiths is in no way "progressive".
Tactics Reply
By User from Provo, UT Yesterday at 12:08 am PST (Updated Yesterday at 12:08 am PST)
Your tactics in this campaign are dishonorable and indicative of poor character. I have to assume from these tactics that all NO TO 8 supporters are ignorant bigots. Playing by your rules now.
disgusting Reply
By Unknown user Yesterday at 1:05 pm PST (Updated Yesterday at 1:05 pm PST)
Not only is this way of campaigning disgraceful, it's disgusting. What do you have against the Mormon Church? From what I understand, their donations came from the members, not the church itself. Grow up, learn the facts and move on and be happy with your domestic partnerships which are protected under california law already that give you the same rights as a married straight couple. Its obvious your negative campaigning has not worked, so why not just give up and throw in the towel now...talk about intolerant and biggots.
Mormon Missionary Video Reply
By SF Resident Yesterday at 1:22 pm PST (Updated Yesterday at 1:22 pm PST)
I am a resident of San Francisco & work at one of the top, & most liberal, ad agency's in the world & I have to say that this spot is absolutely appalling. This is not what our community needs to come together on this issue. How could we stoop so low?
Please stop airing this immediately.
. Reply
By Voter Yesterday at 11:28 pm PST (Updated Yesterday at 11:28 pm PST)
Well folks, the people have spoken.
Thank you.
"Disdainful" Campain Reply
By Unknown user Today at 12:10 am PST (Updated Today at 12:10 am PST)
Wow. Your organization is bringing your represented side and issues to a new low. Congratulations. Your advertising reveals exactly how disrespectful your agenda really is.
This very campaign made what many consider to be gray moral issue a whole lot more black and white for a number of people, the moderate-minded, at that. Again, congratulations on making your position much less attractive, dare I say ridiculous?
A good start in the right direction would be respecting the very people you are condemning for not giving you respect. You make it difficult for those of us trying to defend your cause. For this I have no thank you or congratulations.
It really sounds like gay bashing when you start to mention how many supposed sexual partners a gay man has in his lifetime. The point here is on gay marriage, not promiscuity. There are many who would not take advantage of gay marriage because they don't want that commitment (like some heterosexual people), but there are many mature loving couples who would, and just want lawful validation of their relationship. Like these people..
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10798301
I am not sure where the connection is with stating the findings of a study done with homosexuals (getting the facts from homosexuals themselves) and gay bashing? If I stated how many partners an average heterosexual woman had in her life am I straight bashing? That really is a stretch don't you think? Nice try though.
Like I said, the point is gay marriage, not gay promiscuity. When you start bringing up "facts" that have nothing to do with that, it sounds like you have a different agenda. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps I am against heterosexual marriage because of the number of sexual partners that some straight guys (or gals) have. Doesn't make sense. And that opinion doesn't nullify the union that others have, will have, or desire to have.
Oh, and hearing "facts" from gay guys isn't really statistical facts. So, nice try to you!
Oh, sorry... I guess you did say there was a STUDY done with homosexuals. I was thinking that you were just gathering the information on your own. (Read it too fast...sorry!)
I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing the link to this study, would you? Remember, though, that not all studies are necessarily valid and can be skewed by the researcher. I always take studies with a grain of salt, not gospel.
Oh wait... I forgot my own statement! This should be about marriage not promiscuity. Oops! Still would like to see that link, though.
As far as the studies go I have all the information and there are quite a few of them, but they are written down in books, I didn't get them online. I can write some of them down and give you the references on who did the study and you can look them up online and see if they are there or go to the library. There are quite a few of them and it would take a while to type them all.
The reason I refer to the studies at is because it directly links to the marriage factor. They are stating in several of the studies how homosexual men don’t stay together very long and if they do they almost always have partners outside their main relationship. Also, domestic violence is quite high in homosexual and lesbian relationships. I know there are similar problems like this in heterosexual relationships but the numbers are much higher in homosexual relationships.
I do understand that some studies are more valid than others. There are quite a few different ones that I am referring to, including one from the Center for Disease Control, that I am sure are reliable. You can decide for yourself though as you look up the sources and information about them. Here are just a few of them.
An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that “men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships.” (Maria Xiridou et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 (2003) 1029-1038
According to the Centers for Disease Control interviews, 50 percent of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners, the first several hundred homosexual men diagnosed with AIDS had an average of 1,100 lifetime partners. (G. Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Dutton, 1997)
Clinicians Mattison and McWhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. Most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year.
Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, but in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from 1-37 years, “all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships.”
(David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall)
For homosexual men, the term “monogamy” doesn’t necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. The term “open relationship” has for a great many homosexual men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. (Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York, HaperCollins, 1997), 213)
In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime. (Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, “Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 35)
My point in referring to these studies is that it very unlikely that homosexual men will remain in a monogamous relationship for very long, if at all. In reference to the two men you referred to in the article, we do not know if they include others in their sexual relationship, even though they were married. I know that heterosexuals do not all remain faithful but they are much more likely to do so and I think we both can agree that children need two responsible adults who try to stay together and faithful to one another versus two adults who are much more likely to be apart within a few years and who will have many different partners in their lifetime. Imagine a child trying to cope with parents who continue to change partners on a regular basis, not to mention the risk of disease and other harmful behaviors they would be exposed to. Here are just a few of the studies relating to this issue.
“Homosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children by teaching that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature, sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation, and monogamy in marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ‘marital’ relationship.” (Bradley P. Hayton, To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993), 9)
The U.S. Justice Department’s study found an epidemic of violence between homosexuals. The annual average is 13, 740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. (U.S. Department of Justice, “Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99,”) By contrast, the 1999 statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled 1,558 victims. (Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Federal Bureau of Investigation)
Relationship violence was found to be a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationships; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse. Level of abuse ran even higher among lesbians: 55 percent reported physical violence in their relationships, 14 percent reported sexual abuse, and 84 percent reported emotional abuse. (Study of 499 ethnically diverse homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered teenagers and adults) Susan C. Turrell “ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,” Journal of Family Violence 13 (2000): 281-293
HIV/AIDS is rampant in the homosexual community. Epidemiologists estimate that 30 percent of all 20-year-old homosexually-active men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are 30. (E. Goldman, “Psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay Men, “Clinical Psychiatry News, Oct. 1994) HIV infection rates more than doubled from 1997 to 2000 as safe-sex practices were abandoned. In Los Angeles and five other major cities, one in ten young homosexual or bisexual men is infected with HIV. (“L.A. Studies Show Increase in Risky Sex by Gay men, “Los Angeles Times, 17 Feb 2001) Among homosexual African Americans the HIV infection rate is one out of three. (“Young Gay Black Men Suffer High HIV Rates,” Associated Press, 6 Feb. 2001)
The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1 in 715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1 in 165. (Tom W. Smith, “Adult Sexual Behavior and Risk of AIDS,” (May/June 1991)
I am assuming those numbers have changed by now because the study was done in 1991. I feel that although these issues are prevalent in heterosexual relationships as well, they are much more prevalent in the homosexual community and the marriage of homosexuals along with their choice of lifestyle is not conducive with raising and caring for children.
It really isn’t about intolerance, hate or bigotry, it is about the choices they are making and the way in which it affects themselves and those around them. I don’t feel it is in the best interest of children to be involved in such a volatile environment. I know that many children live in volatile environments everyday but there is no reason to add to the chances of this happening even more.
Bottom line is that the two sides are never going to agree on this issue. You know, there are many legal things that I don't agree with in today's society, but that doesn't mean I should take the rights aways from others to do as they please. For example, I am FIRMLY pro-choice... not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. I may not agree with abortion, but I will not take that right away from another individual to choose for themselves. LDS members and many others choose not to drink alcohol or smoke, but I don't think there will be another prohibition and I'm not going to protest the rights of others to do so if they choose.
Now, let's just move on!
I agree that the two sides will never agree, but hopefully they will be decent and civil to one another in the process of not agreeing. That is what living in a free country is all about… being free to worship and believe as we desire and for each individual to enjoy those rights and privileges.
I understand that you do not want to take away from others their rights to do as they please. I believe, though, that laws and restraints must be in place for a society to be able to be maintained and for people to feel safe. Is it really someone’s right to choose to abort a child after making the decision to engage in sex? Ask a man who found out after the fact that a woman has killed his baby through abortion and he never knew she was pregnant. Where were his rights to claim the child that is his? Where are the rights of the child? Non-existent? A woman’s “rights” don’t supersede those of everyone else’s. It is just not that cut and dry. The argument that it is her body is ridiculous. Of course it is her body but her body can get pregnant and that is what happens when you have intercourse and the egg is fertilized. At least two more people just got involved and they have rights now as well. If we just allow everyone to “do as they please” it will affect you like it or not. You cannot say that you are pro choice and in the same breath say you are against abortion. That is like saying you believe in God but you don’t believe that God exists. There are sides and you have to choose one or the other. When you give people “rights” you automatically are affecting others rights (such as a child’s entire being and life) who may have no say in what the outcome is. If we don’t have restraint and let everyone do as they please….well just take a look at past societies and the fall of those societies. What was the reason for it? Study history and you will see.
I will say that I will always be fighting for the rights of the innocent and unprotected….those who cannot speak for themselves. Those are the rights I will always seek to defend. And no I am not trying to have a discussion about abortion because it is useless and futile and I do not seek to discuss it. I would never agree that a woman has the right to take human life and never feel that it is her “right” to do so excepting of course that she was impregnated against her will. Human life is not something we get to decide when to give and take. That is definitely not our “right” and never should be. When our society is choosing to take life as if it is of no consequence then we are already on a decline that will not recover. If you do not fight against it you are for it and you are a part of allowing it to happen. There is no middle ground in this and the consequences are lasting and very real.
I agree it is time to move on. Thanks for the discussion and hopefully it has done some good in opening up our minds more to each other’s perspective. If not it really has had no benefit at all but to take up our time. I recognize you might want to respond to what I have written but I know the other side of this argument because I have heard it before with friends that I have worked with. I am just as firm as you are in your feelings so…..don’t waste your time, I am sure you have better things to do as do I.
Moving on……….
You're right. I'm just going to assume that your friends have given any argument that I could on the abortion issue and leave it at that. I do also have strong opinions on that as well, but moving on!
Post a Comment