Re: The Homosexual Agenda: "Destroy Marriage In The US!"
Political Pagan
news:9g9ji1t1q6lk2bodl...@4ax.com:
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm577.cfm
>
> The Transatlantic Divide on Marriage: Dutch Data and the U.S. Debate
> on Same-Sex Unions by Patrick F. Fagan and Grace Smith
OH NO!
John Shocked found alt.politics.
--
"It's interesting. I see all these political ads and all these
commentators say it's our job as Americans to vote. Let me tell
you something, with Bush in charge of the economy, this might
be the only job you have all year." -Jay Leno
Rudy Canoza
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm577.cfm
>
> The Transatlantic Divide on Marriage: Dutch Data and the U.S. Debate
> on Same-Sex Unions by Patrick F. Fagan and Grace Smith
>
>
> September 29, 2004 |
>
> In the debate over the redefinition of marriage, advocates of same-sex
> marriage have made a variety of arguments. Many have argued that
> same-sex marriage would be good for homosexuals. Some have gone so far
> as to propose that the change would strengthen the institutions of
> marriage and family by reaffirming commitment and fidelity.[1] Early
> data from abroad, however, do not support the claim that same-sex
> marriage would benefit marriage in general. In the Netherlands, where
> homosexual relationships gained legal recognition in 1998, same-sex
> marriage has not strengthened the family but may have accelerated its
> decline.
>
> As the Netherlands' experiment in legalizing same-sex unions has
> illustrated, same-sex marriage in that country constituted one more
> step in a steady legal and social breakdown of the family. This is not
> to say that the data imply a causal relationship between the
> initiation of same-sex marriage and the breakdown of the family in the
> Netherlands. Rather, the redefinition of marriage furthered a general
> pattern of cultural and legal erosion of the institution. According to
> several Dutch social scientists, their fellow citizens "increasingly
> regard marriage as no longer relevant" because they have been
> persuaded that "marriage is not connected to parenthood and that
> marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices...'"[2]
> Marriage may be losing its place as the fundamental building block of
> social infrastructure in the Netherlands. As the United States
> considers how to respond to the judicial dictates redefining
> marriage,[3] policymakers should be aware of data emerging from the
> European precedent, and they should choose the most beneficial course
> for the family in America by preserving the institution of marriage.
> [...]
Here we come to the crux of the issue. We have a summary analysis that
explicitly mentions that expansion of marriage to include homos is not
the cause of the diminishing importance of marriage, but rather is
symptomatic of a pre-existing deterioration in the status of marriage
in the eyes of many citizens; yet, they then conclude that policy
makers should reject marriage for homos under the guise of benefiting
the family. The conclusion does not follow.
Here is one example of marriage and the traditional notion of the
family being eroded: the horrific explosion of out-of-wedlock births,
particularly to teenagers, since the early 1970s. This began to
happen, and reached its peak (there is, thankfully, some evidence that
out-of-wedlock births have declined a little), LONG before anyone
serious was considering expanding the definition of marriage to include
homos. So, exactly how does allowing homos to marry imperil "the
family"?
Opponents of homo marriage keep asserting, with neither evidence nor a
logically coherent story, that allowing it would "damage" the
institution of the family. They need to prove it. To date, they
haven't even tried, and this article doesn't constitute a start.
NotPoliticallyCorrect
The Bible says no men fucking men in the ass. They will die either of
AIDS's or in hell
one or the other
BUSH'S NIGHTMARE
"NotPoliticallyCorrect" <thatst...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5EiWe.13812$XZ1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Someone didn't get that Memo:
http://online.logcabin.org/
Rudy Canoza
I flush the Bible down the toilet.
Brick Hardmeat
generally formed by those who have hate crimes commited against them.
Homosexuals generally want to be left alone, but also want to enjoy the
same rights as everyone else.
Most people who fear rights for homosexuals have never come to terms with
the ugly truth that they themselves are probably homosexuals.
--
The backbone of the US economy in the 21st Century is the Casino.
The Watch Dog
How's the violent crime rate? How often do rapes occur? How many people
don't have health insurance? Are there many unwanted, neglected, or
abused children? What's their homeless rate? How does their domestic
violence rate compare to ours?
If you look at those numbers, I think you'll find they're doing pretty
well. Studies in the U.S. about children raised in "intact" homes have
no relevance to the Netherlands. They take care of their children,
their families, and each other somewhat better than citizens of the
U.S. Statistically speaking.
There's a lot to be said for people making considered choices about
what's best for themselves and their children. People (gay or straight)
who want to get married, get married. People who don't want to get
married, don't. People have children because they choose to have
children, not because they don't have access to contraception or
because they "got unlucky" or because everyone expects them to have
children. As long as the children are wanted and cared for, that's
good.
Are children in the Netherlands doing worse than children in the U.S.?
Are there a lot of school shootings?
You say you care about the children, but you don't really mean it. You
just want to maintain your legal supremacy against gays, your scapegoat
for everything.
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:56:00 GMT, Brick Hardmeat
> <brickhard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've found that homosexuals in general have no agenda. Agendas are
> >generally formed by those who have hate crimes commited against them.
> >
> >Homosexuals generally want to be left alone, but also want to enjoy the
> >same rights as everyone else.
> >
> >Most people who fear rights for homosexuals have never come to terms with
> >the ugly truth that they themselves are probably homosexuals.
>
> For it is always your first line of defense to say THOSE WHO FIND
> HOMOSEXUALITY DISGUSTING MUST BE HOMOSEXUALS. You'll learn
> as time goes by not to make such amateur mistakes (or pay the price
> for doing so.)
It's not true that everybody who finds homosexuality disgusting is
homosexual.
But I think there is some truth to the idea that people who find
homoseuxlaity disgusting AND SPEND LOTS OF TIME THINKING ABOUT IT may
be homosexual, or have some other personal issues they haven't dealt
with.
Because a normal person would say, "Yeah, *I* find it disgusting, but
so what? Different people like different things." And then would go on
to find something they enjoy more to think about.
There are lots of sexual practices, among gays and straights, that many
people would find disgusting. As long as no unwilling partner is being
harmed or exploited, it's not anybody else's business, as has no
bearing on the legal rights of the people involved. Equality under the
law is what's involved here.
The Watch Dog
def...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2005 14:25:46 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So how's the Netherlands doing?
> >
> >How's the violent crime rate? How often do rapes occur? How many people
> >don't have health insurance? Are there many unwanted, neglected, or
> >abused children? What's their homeless rate? How does their domestic
> >violence rate compare to ours?
>
> attention from their unreasonable demand for society to disown on of
> it's most important institutions - THE FAMILY. Your slight of hand
> (or perhaps, mouth), Didn't work, doesn't work, won't work. Live with
> it.
Well, like others, I could point out that the original post was
objectively invalid, using the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. And
that's true. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that allowing gays to
marry makes it less likely for heterosexuals to get married. ZERO. The
trends towards fewer people marrying predate gay marriage by DECADES,
and can also be seen in countries where gays can't get married. There
is absolutely no evidence for the original claim.
No red herring, no sleight of hand. Just the truth.
But I also find it strange that anti-gays think that a measure of the
health of society is "number of people getting married, and staying
married, whether they want to or not," rather than actually looking at
the health of the people in the society. Of course, they only think
that when they can use it to attack gays. The heroes of the
conservative movement - Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bob Barr - are
often divorced, breaking up their families and homes, leaving their
children with an absentee parent. Where is your criticism of them? The
red states have a far higher rate of divorce and single-mother families
than the blue states. Where is your criticism of THEM?
The original point was dishonest, and you are dishonest. You don't care
much about families breaking up UNTIL YOU CAN BLAME IT ON THE GAYS.
If you want to prove me wrong, please respond to my entire post, and
don't take any of it out of context.
> ****
>
> "The official position of the American Psychoanalytic Association is
> indicated by its definitions of homosexuality which appear in A
> Glossary of Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts, edited by B.E. Moore,
> M.D. and B.D. Fine, M.D. This glossary states:
>
> In the male homosexual there is, as a rule, an overly strong
> attachment to the mother up to and including the Oedipal phase, which
> is not resolved by identification with the father but rather by
> partial identification with the mother. Object choice is narcissistic
> in type, i.e., the loved person must be like the self, and sexual
> excitation is experienced in regard to men instead of women. Due to
> strong castration fears, the homosexual man cannot tolerate a sexual
> partner without the tremendously valued male organ. Another common
> motive for homosexual object choice is the avoidance of rivalry with
> fathers and brothers.
>
> In female homosexuality (lesbianism), the woman retains a strong
> original pre-Oedipal attachment to the mother, which is displaced onto
> the homosexual partner. As a result of an unsatisfactory outcome of
> Oedipal conflicts, her identification with the mother is incomplete
> and she holds onto mother as an object of love."
These defintions, and the analysis that goes with it, are as outdated
as treating depression with lobotomies. If you're actually going to
quote the American Psychoanalytic Association, wouldn't it be more
honest to quote something current, or at least to indicate that you're
using old outdate information?
Brick Hardmeat
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:56:00 GMT, Brick Hardmeat
> <brickhard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've found that homosexuals in general have no agenda. Agendas are
>>generally formed by those who have hate crimes commited against them.
>>
>>Homosexuals generally want to be left alone, but also want to enjoy the
>>same rights as everyone else.
>>
>>Most people who fear rights for homosexuals have never come to terms with
>>the ugly truth that they themselves are probably homosexuals.
>
> Your saying that clearly identifies you as a fledgling homosexual.
> For it is always your first line of defense to say THOSE WHO FIND
> HOMOSEXUALITY DISGUSTING MUST BE HOMOSEXUALS. You'll learn
> as time goes by not to make such amateur mistakes (or pay the price
> for doing so.)
Hit a nerve, did I?
--
The backbone of the U.S. economy in the 21st Century is the Casino.
---Inspired by the second wittiest TV show in history. 'Futurama'---
DCI
>On 15 Sep 2005 17:40:54 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Equality under the law is what's involved here.
>
>What's involved is the demand of homosexuals that society tolerate
>their behavior (sexual perversion) and to equate it with
>heterosexuality. That is NOT a demand for equality (you already have
>every right that every heterosexual has) that is a demand for special
>rights and privileges. If homosexuality where to vanish in the next
>instant it would have no effect on the scheme of mankind...The same
>cannot be said of heterosexuality.
The homo sapiens is the only living organism that will document its
own demise.
DCI
Lethalfind
The same "breakdown of marriage" that you speak of in the Netherlands is
happening here. How can you deny it when the divorce rate is over 50%?
I for one will not walk down that aisle to hell again. I would be
better off if you put a ball and chain around my ankle and threw me off
the end of the peir.
I will never give that kind of control over my life, finances and
belongings to anyone again. There are alot more of us out there as
well. I also think its bullshit to say that the point of marriage is
procreation, be serious.
Can there really be people that are that old fashion anymore? Really
if a marriage worked then the main thing it would be to me is a regular
fuck (I'm a female by the way, I know that sounded very male...) and
someone to mow the lawn for free.
--
Lethalfind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lethalfind's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=883
View this thread: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/showthread.php?t=57935
Posted via Forum to Usenet Gateway at http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com
builder
Lethalfind Wrote:
> The same "breakdown of marriage" that you speak of in the Netherlands is
> happening here. How can you deny it when the divorce rate is over 50%?
> I for one will not walk down that aisle to hell again. I would be
> better off if you put a ball and chain around my ankle and threw me off
> the end of the peir.
> I will never give that kind of control over my life, finances and
> belongings to anyone again. There are alot more of us out there as
> well. I also think its bullshit to say that the point of marriage is
> procreation, be serious.
> Can there really be people that are that old fashion anymore? Really
> if a marriage worked then the main thing it would be to me is a regular
> fuck (I'm a female by the way, I know that sounded very male...) and
> someone to mow the lawn for free.
I'm with you. Marriage is called an "institution" for good reasons.
I also believe that our respective govs are not at all concerned with
the "breakdown" of marriage and family values. Much better to have two
separate households spending twice the money to raise the same number
of kids.
As for the "regular fuck" issue, the surest way to end a satisfying sex
life is to put rings on eachother's fingers, and contractual
arrangements on your feelings. What an outdated concept. No wonder it
fails more often than not.
--
builder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
builder's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=752
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2005 17:53:44 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But I also find it strange that anti-gays think that a measure of the
> >health of society is "number of people getting married, and staying
> >married, whether they want to or not,"
>
> Remember, "We can survive as a species without
> homosexuality." You contribute nothing in the
> scheme of mankind.
Red herring. Sleight of hand. Changing the subject. Good on you!
Nobody's talking about getting rid of heterosexuality. Even in
countries where the marriage rate has dropped (regardless of whether it
has anything to do with gays, which it doesn't), heterosxuuality
continues unabated. Even when gays are given equal marriage rights
under the law, the vast majority of people continues to have
heterosexual sex.
So your comment is not an answer to my question, and, in addition, is
meaningless. But a good distraction.
Also
> "We can survive as a species without
> homosexuality." You contribute nothing in the
> scheme of mankind.
is a non sequiter. Consider: we can survive as a species without
priests. We can survive as a species without novelists. We can survive
as a species without physicists (did, for thousands of years). We can
survive as a species without musicians.
Does this mean that priests, novelists, physicists, and musicians
"contribute nothing in the scheme of mankind"? Of course not. The same
is true of gays.
And, of course, gays are quite capable of having children. They do it
every day. A homosexual is not defined as "a person incapable of having
sex with someone of the opposite sex," but rather "a person who is
primarily attracted to, and falls in love with, people of the same
sex." Gays can conceve children in the ordinary biological way. Even
if they don't, there's always artificial insemination and the like.
If every person in the world woke up with a homosexual orientation
tomorrow, I guarantee the species would continue.
The Watch Dog
def...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 10:22:41 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >c...@easynews.com wrote:
> >> On 15 Sep 2005 17:53:44 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >But I also find it strange that anti-gays think that a measure of the
> >> >health of society is "number of people getting married, and staying
> >> >married, whether they want to or not,"
> >>
> >> Is that why you call heterosexuals, "Breeders?"
> >> Remember, "We can survive as a species without
> >> homosexuality." You contribute nothing in the
> >> scheme of mankind.
> >
> >Red herring. Sleight of hand. Changing the subject. Good on you!
> >
> >Nobody's talking about getting rid of heterosexuality. Even in
> >countries where the marriage rate has dropped (regardless of whether it
> >has anything to do with gays, which it doesn't), heterosxuuality
> >continues unabated. Even when gays are given equal marriage rights
> >under the law, the vast majority of people continues to have
> >heterosexual sex.
> >
> >So your comment is not an answer to my question, and, in addition, is
> >meaningless. But a good distraction.
>
> uselessness of homosexuality in the scheme of mankind.
>
>
> >
> >Also
> >
> >> "We can survive as a species without
> >> homosexuality." You contribute nothing in the
> >> scheme of mankind.
> >
> >is a non sequiter. Consider: we can survive as a species without
> >priests. We can survive as a species without novelists. We can survive
> >as a species without physicists (did, for thousands of years). We can
> >survive as a species without musicians.
>
> >Does this mean that priests, novelists, physicists, and musicians
> >"contribute nothing in the scheme of mankind"? Of course not. The same
> >is true of gays.
>
> comparison and totally useless as an argument in favor of
> homosexuality.
Do you understand what a "comparison" is? Truly? The terms in a
comparison are not going to be the same as the terms in the original.
That's why none of the comparisons were based on sexual orientation.
They're comparisons using other things. That's how comparisons work.
What I was demonstrating, quite clearly, is that the statement "We can
survive as a species without X. Therefore X contributes nothing in the
scheme of mankind." is FALSE. It's false when X is priests, novelists,
physicists, and musicians. Therefore we have no reason to believe it's
true when X is anything else, like homosexuals, unless additional
evidence is provided. You provided none. Your statement is FALSE.
>
> >And, of course, gays are quite capable of having children. They do it
> >every day. A homosexual is not defined as "a person incapable of having
> >sex with someone of the opposite sex," but rather "a person who is
> >primarily attracted to, and falls in love with, people of the same
> >sex." Gays can conceve children in the ordinary biological way. Even
> >if they don't, there's always artificial insemination and the like.
>
> You would want to live in a society that depends on bisexual behavior
> or mechanical means to exist? You really do love your adopted sexual
> orientation, don't you.
Red herring, sleight of hand, change of subject. Good work.
I don't have an adopted sexual orientation. And I don't have any
particular interest in changing society so that most people are bi or
gay. I'm perfectly happy living in a society where the vast majority of
people are straight, as long as they treat gays with respect.
What I was saying was your statement that society would end if we
didn't have heterosexuals is FALSE. Such a society would continue just
fine, because homosexuals can have and raise children just fine. I'm
not suggesting we create such or society, and I don't see any way - or
reason - to do so. Giving gays equal rights won't create a society of
all gays (although, for some reason, some anti-gay bigots seem to think
it would - they must not have much faith in heterosexuality).
However, as I demoonstrated, your statement is FALSE.
You really do love your false claims, don't you? They're the only way
you can go on bashing gays.
Lethalfind
I'm with you Builder, it is like being locked up in a straight jacket,
just like when your institutionalized.
NO THANKS. I've done my time.
If I wanted another child I would have one on my own with a sperm
donor. I don't have a problem with that kind of thing. Thank god I'm
over that part of my life. My daughter is 8 years old and I don't feel
the need to have another.
--
Lethalfind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lethalfind's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=883
builder
Lethalfind Wrote:
> I'm with you Builder, it is like being locked up in a straight jacket,
> just like when your institutionalized.
> NO THANKS. I've done my time.
> If I wanted another child I would have one on my own with a sperm
> donor. I don't have a problem with that kind of thing. Thank god I'm
> over that part of my life. My daughter is 8 years old and I don't feel
> the need to have another.
Funny you should mention sperm donors. Many of my friends, both sexes,
are single parents, sharing custody. The women jokingly call their exes
sperm donors, and the blokes call their exes their incubators.
What a messed up world. The above is always said tongue-in-cheek, BTW.
--
builder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
builder's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=752
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 15:00:13 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You really do love your false claims, don't you? They're the only way
> >you can go on bashing gays.
>
> false claims and accuse me of "gay bashing" -- how hypocritical of
> you.
Oh, no. No. I don't call them false because they disagree with me. I
call them false because they are false. For example, you said that if
there were no heterosexuals, mankind would end. This is, quite simply,
false. When I pointed it out, you launched into "do you really want to
live in a society where...?!?" A red herring, a sleight of hand, a
distraction that has nothing to do with the fact that your statement
was false. (As I freely pointed out, no, that' not particuarly the
society I want to live in, nor did I ever say it was.) You couldn't
respond to what I actually said, because you would have to admit you
were wrong.
And I think using false statements to malign gay people comes under the
general heading of "gay-bashing," so I'm comfortable with that, too.
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 15:00:13 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't have an adopted sexual orientation.
>
>
> alone.
Ummm... do you know what the word "adopted" means? You used it, so I
assumed that you did. I have a sexual orientation, but I've never
"adopted" one. Did you?
A dictionary might be of help to you here.
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 15:00:13 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What I was demonstrating, quite clearly, is that the statement "We can
> >survive as a species without X. Therefore X contributes nothing in the
> >scheme of mankind." is FALSE. It's false when X is priests, novelists,
> >physicists, and musicians. Therefore we have no reason to believe it's
> >true when X is anything else, like homosexuals, unless additional
> >evidence is provided. You provided none. Your statement is FALSE.
>
> the unjustifiable. Homosexuality contributes nothing, nada, zilch to
> the scheme of mankind. If it were to vanish in the next instant the
> world would never miss it. The same cannot be said of heterosexuality.
I don't know if the world would miss it. Gay people would miss it,
though; it's part of their intrinsic nature.
Meanwhile, where would you get your hairdressers? Your interior
decorators? Your broadway musicals? The statue of David, that so many
millions of people have appreciated? Gays have contributed enormously
to this world, and you have no way of knowing whether their being gay
hasn't influenced their contributions. If you want homosexulaity to
vanish, then be willing to give up all the contributions of
homosexuality. Believe me, the world would miss those.
Alan Turing was a mathematician who was instrumental in deciphering the
Nazi Enigma code during WW II. Without him we might never have defeated
Germany. He was also the founder of modern computer science. One day,
after the war, he reported to the police that his house had been
robbed, and that he thought the criminal was a friend of a man Turing
knew. Questioned, he admitted that the man he knew was a sexual partner
of his. Turing was arrested for homosexuality. He lost his secuirty
clearance, his job, and his reputation. He was treated with female
hormones, which affected him terribly. A year later he committed
suicide.
If he had lived, he would have made more important contributions to the
field of computer science. On the other hand, if he ha been arrested
before the war, we might all be speaking German.
This is one of the people you would have perferred never existed.
Congratulatins. What have YOU contributed to society?
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 15:00:13 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't have an adopted sexual orientation. And I don't have any
> >particular interest in changing society so that most people are bi or
> >gay. I'm perfectly happy living in a society where the vast majority of
> >people are straight, as long as they treat gays with respect.
>
> respect. After all theirs is a sexual orientation too.
I see that you don't know anything about my logic. Nor have you asked.
My position is this: if people do not harm unwilling partners or
exploit the helpless, then treat them with respect. Pedophiles exploit
the helpless. Lock them up and throw away the key.
If you can't tell the difference between a pedophile abusing a child
and two adults - gay, straight, or otherwise - who love each other,
then you are not using the eyes, brain, and heart God gave you.
Bert Byfield
> are single parents, sharing custody. The women jokingly call their exes
> sperm donors, and the blokes call their exes their incubators.
> What a messed up world. The above is always said tongue-in-cheek, BTW.
No, the term is not humorous. It comes from Dr Laura and it means males who
create children but then abandon them.
Brick Hardmeat
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:00:33 GMT, Brick Hardmeat
> <brickhard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:53:31 GMT, c...@easynews.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:56:00 GMT, Brick Hardmeat
>>> <brickhard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've found that homosexuals in general have no agenda. Agendas are
>>>>generally formed by those who have hate crimes commited against them.
>>>>
>>>>Homosexuals generally want to be left alone, but also want to enjoy the
>>>>same rights as everyone else.
>>>>
>>>>Most people who fear rights for homosexuals have never come to terms with
>>>>the ugly truth that they themselves are probably homosexuals.
>>>
>>> Your saying that clearly identifies you as a fledgling homosexual.
>>> For it is always your first line of defense to say THOSE WHO FIND
>>> HOMOSEXUALITY DISGUSTING MUST BE HOMOSEXUALS. You'll learn
>>> as time goes by not to make such amateur mistakes (or pay the price
>>> for doing so.)
>>
>>Hit a nerve, did I?
>
> No, you opened the closet door and we saw you in there.
Definitely hit a nerve.
jayson
...just look at the republicans and the administration to qualify this
statement;;
jeff gannon jeff gannon jeff gannon.
Remember the Franklin Credit Union Scandal? Let me refresh...
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/boystown/
jayson
>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:24:08 GMT, jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> jeff gannon jeff gannon jeff gannon.
>>
>>Remember the Franklin Credit Union Scandal? Let me refresh...
>
>Going to the powder room huh, sweetie.
>
>BTW -- Are you a certified and signified homosexual (historian.)
...why, do you want me to fuck you in the ass?
jayson
>Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for multiple
>sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including human immunodeficiency
>virus (HIV) infection/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS),
>syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis B and hepatitis A. Numerous
>reports document high rates of STDs among MSM that appear to be
>associated with a resurgence in unsafe sexual practices. For example,
>in a survey of young MSM (aged 15 – 22 years) conducted in seven
>metropolitan areas between 1994 and 1998, 7% had already acquired HIV
>infection and 11% had acquired hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.
>Among young black MSM, 16% were already infected with HIV and 93% were
>unaware of their infection; those who were unaware of their infection
>were more likely to have had unprotected anal sex.
>
>In addition, syphilis rates are increasing nationwide among MSM. CDC
>has estimated that over 40% of all cases of primary and secondary
>syphilis in 2002 were among MSM. In San Francisco, where the number of
>cases of early syphilis increased 10-fold between 1998 and 2002, 88%
>of all cases in 2002 were among MSM, two-thirds of whom were
>co-infected with HIV.
>
>The continued high rates of multiple STDs among MSM underscore the
>importance and need for the delivery of comprehensive STD prevention
>services in both public and private sectors. However, clinical and
>preventive services for MSM often do not provide integrated services
>to prevent all of the STDs affecting this population. In addition,
>despite recommendations to vaccinate MSM to prevent hepatitis A and
>hepatitis B, vaccination coverage in this population is low.
>
>CDC’s 2002 STD Treatment Guidelines provide specific recommendations
>for STD prevention services that should be provided for all sexually
>active MSM. These services include: 1) testing for HIV, syphilis,
>gonorrhea and chlamydia, at least annually; and 2) vaccination against
>hepatitis A and hepatitis B. Ensuring that MSM receive these
>recommended services will require a multidisciplinary response.
>Clinicians are encouraged to routinely identify sexually-active MSM
>and to consistently provide all of the recommended STD prevention
>services. HIV and STD prevention program managers offering behavioral
>and/or clinical interventions to MSM should look for ways to structure
>service delivery to address all STDs. Wherever they access clinical or
>preventive services, MSM should receive or be referred for all of the
>recommended STD prevention services. Public health officials, medical
>societies, HIV community planning groups and other community
>stakeholders should promote full implementation of the recommended
>services. In addition, community groups that have been successful in
>disseminating HIV prevention messages can help by raising awareness
>and informing MSM of the need to obtain these essential services.
>
>We encourage all of our partners at the federal, state and local level
>to promote and implement comprehensive interventions we know to be
>effective in preventing STDs among MSM. Additional information and
>educational materials on STD prevention among MSM are available at
>www.cdc.gov/hepatitis, www.cdc.gov/std and www.cdc.gov/hiv;
>information on adult vaccination is available at www.cdc.gov/nip.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Harold Margolis, MD, Director
>Division of Viral Hepatitis
>National Center for Infectious Diseases
>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>John Douglas, MD, Director
>Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
>National Center for STD, HIV, and TB Prevention
>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>Lance Rodewald, MD, Director
>Division of Immunization Services
>National Immunization Program Prevention
>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>Robert Janssen, MD, Director
>Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention
>National Center for STD, HIV, and TB Prevention
>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>
> ***
>
>Be careful out there Bruce.
So which disease do you have Conney?
The Watch Dog
c...@easynews.com wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 00:28:45 -0700, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Alan Turing was a mathematician who was instrumental in deciphering the
> >Nazi Enigma code during WW II. Without him we might never have defeated
> >Congratulatins.
>
> What an ignorant conclusion; 'that his expertise was based on his
> desire to suck dicks.'
>
> >What have YOU contributed to society?
>
> US that has been the No.1 vector of AIDS for the last 20+ years
> (almost 50% of all new AIDS cases every year coming from the
> promiscuous behavior of less than 2% of the population.) That's
> certainly noteworthy.
And yet you're a member of that part of the population that is
responsible for virtually 100% of unwanted children and abortions.
Congrats.
If the only contribution to society you can name is NOT being a member
of some OTHER group of people you despise, then you're not doing much.
Gooserider
jayson
>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:07:31 GMT, jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So which disease do you have Conney?
>
>That you have so many of the diseases associated with being a
>homosexual male, to discus my hypertension would be elementary.
>Care to tell us as "one who has done that", about the ravages of AIDS?
>Or how syphilis destroyed your ability to think logically?
Yeah, you've got hypertension- hypertension of the ass. You get all
nervous when you don't get your butt pumped.
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention
>Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention
>
>HIV/AIDS among Women
>
>Early in the epidemic, HIV infection and AIDS were diagnosed for
>relatively few women. Today, the HIV/AIDS epidemic represents a
>growing and persistent health threat to women in the United States,
>especially young women and women of color. In 2001, HIV infection was
>the leading cause of death for African American women aged 25–34 years
>and was among the four leading causes of death for African American
>women aged 20-24 and 35–44 years, as well as Hispanic women aged 35–44
>years [1]. Overall, in the same year, HIV infection was the 6th
>leading cause of death among all women aged 25-34 years and the 4th
>leading cause of death among all women aged 35–44 years.
>
Juanita, Moisha I guess I'll not be coming around tonight.
>STATISTICS
>
>Cumulative Effects of HIV Infection and AIDS (through 2003)
>
> * Through 2003, 170,679 women were given a diagnosis of AIDS, a
>number that represents about one fifth of the total 929,985 AIDS
>diagnoses [2].
>
> * An estimated 81,864 women with AIDS died. These women account
>for 16% of the 524,060 deaths of persons with AIDS [2].
>
> * Women with AIDS made up an increasing part of the epidemic. In
>1992, women accounted for an estimated 14% of adults and adolescents
>living with AIDS [3]. By the end of 2003, this percentage had grown to
>22% [2].
>
> * From 1999 through 2003, the annual number of estimated AIDS
>diagnoses increased 15% among women and increased 1% among men [2].
>
> * According to a recent CDC study of more than 19,500 patients in
>10 US cities, HIV-infected women were 12% less likely than infected
>men to receive prescriptions for the most effective treatments for HIV
>infection [4].
>
>AIDS in 2003
>
> * An estimated 11,498 women had a diagnosis of AIDS, a number that
>represents 27% of the 43,171 AIDS diagnoses [2].
>
> * The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American women
>(50.2/100,000 women) was approximately 25 times the rate for white
>women (2.0/100,000) and 4 times the rate for Hispanic women
>(12.4/100,000) [2].
>
> * African American and Hispanic women together represented about
>25% of all US women [5], yet they account for 83% of AIDS diagnoses
>reported in 2003 [2].
>
> * An estimated 88,815 women were living with AIDS, representing
>22% of the estimated 405,926 people living with AIDS [2].
>
> * An estimated 4,736 women with AIDS died, representing 26% of the
>18,017 deaths of persons with AIDS [2].
>
>Diagnoses of AIDS in women, by race/ethnicity, 2003
>
>Diagnoses of AIDS in women, by race/ethnicity, 2003
>Note. Excludes women from U.S. dependencies, possessions, and
>associated nations.
>
>HIV/AIDS in 2003
>
> * Data from 33 areas (32 states and the US Virgin Islands) with
>confidential name-based HIV reporting indicate that an estimated 8,733
>women were given a diagnosis of HIV infection [2].
>
> * Heterosexual contact was the source of almost 80% of these HIV
>infections [2].
>
> * Women accounted for 27% of the estimated 32,048 diagnoses of HIV
>infection [2].
>
> * The number of estimated HIV diagnoses for women remained stable
>during 2000–2003 [2].
>
>Diagnoses of HIV Infection in women, by risk, 2003
>Diagnoses of HIV Infection in women, by risk, 2003
>Note. Based on 33 areas with confidential name-based HIV reporting.
>
>RISK FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO PREVENTION
>
>Young Age
>
>According to a 1998 CDC study of Job Corps entrants aged 16–21 years,
>HIV prevalence among young women (2.8 per 1,000) was higher than among
>young men (2.0 per 1,000). African American women in the study were 7
>times as likely as white women and 8 times as likely as Hispanic women
>to be HIV-positive [6]. Another study found that even though overall
>HIV diagnoses among women decreased slightly from 1984 through 1998,
>as the youngest group of women (aged 15–19) reached the age at which
>they initiated risk behaviors, the number of HIV cases caused by
>injection drug use increased, and the number acquired through
>heterosexual contact more than doubled [7].
>
>Lack of Recognition of Partners’ Risk
>
>Some women may be unaware of their male partners’ risk for HIV
>infection (such as unprotected sex with multiple partners, sex with
>men, or injection drug use) [8]. Men who engage in sex both with men
>and women can acquire HIV from a male partner and can then transmit
>the virus to female partners. In a recent study of HIV-infected people
>(5,156 men and 3,139 women), 34% of African American men who have sex
>with men (MSM), 26% of Hispanic MSM, and 13% of white MSM reported
>having had sex with women. However, their female partners may not know
>of their bisexual activity: only 14% of white women, 6% of African
>American women, and 6% of Hispanic women in this study acknowledged
>having a bisexual partner [9]. In a recent CDC survey, 65% of the men
>who have ever had sex with men also had sex with women [10].
>
>Sexual Inequality in Relationships with Men
>
>Some women may not insist on condom use out of fear that their
>partners will physically abuse them or leave them [11]. Sexual
>inequality is a major issue in relationships between teenaged girls
>and older men. In one CDC study of urban high schools, more than one
>third of African American and Hispanic female teenagers had their
>first sexual encounter with an older man [12]. These teenagers,
>compared with teenagers whose partners were also teenagers, were
>younger at first sexual intercourse, were less likely to have used a
>condom during first and most recently reported intercourse, or were
>less likely to have used condoms consistently.
>
>Biologic Vulnerability and Sexually Transmitted Diseases
>
>A woman is approximately twice as likely as a man to contract HIV
>infection during vaginal intercourse [13]. Additionally, the presence
>of a sexually transmitted disease greatly increases the likelihood of
>acquiring or transmitting HIV infection [14]. The rates of gonorrhea
>and syphilis are higher among women of color than among white women.
>These higher rates are especially marked in the younger age groups
>(15–24 years) [15].
>
>Substance Abuse
>
>An estimated 1 in 5 new HIV diagnoses for women is related to
>injection drug use [2]. Sharing injection equipment contaminated with
>HIV is not the only risk associated with substance use. Women who
>smoke or snort crack cocaine or other noninjection drugs may also be
>at high risk for sexual transmission of HIV if they sell or trade sex
>for drugs [16]. Also, both casual and chronic substance users are more
>likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as unprotected sex, when
>they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol [17].
>
>
>
>REFERENCES
>
>1 * Anderson RN, Smith BL. Deaths: leading causes for 2001.
>National Vital Statistics Reports 2003;52(9):32–33,53–54. Available at
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_09.pdfLink
>Leaves the DHAP Internet Site. Accessed November 9, 2004.
>
>2 * CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 2003; (Vol. 15). Atlanta: US
>Department of Health and Human Services, CDC. In press.
>
>3 * CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1998;10(No. 2):1–43. Also
>available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrlink.htm. Accessed
>August 26, 2004.
>
>4 * McNaghten AD, Hanson DL, Aponte Z, Sullivan P, Wolfe MI. Gender
>disparity in HIV treatment and AIDS opportunistic illnesses (OI). XV
>International Conference on AIDS; July 2004; Bangkok, Thailand.
>Abstract MoOrC1032.
>
>5 * US Census Bureau. Census Brief: Women in the United States: a
>profi le. March 2000. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/
>2000pubs/cenbr001.pdfLink Leaves the DHAP Internet Site. Accessed
>August 27, 2004.
>
>6 * Valleroy L, MacKellar D, Karon J, et al. HIV infection in
>disadvantaged out-ofschool youth: prevalence for U.S. Job Corps
>entrants, 1990 through 1996. Journal of Acquired Immune Defi ciency
>Syndromes 1998;19:67–73.
>
>7 * Lee LM, Fleming PL. Trends in human immunodefi ciency virus
>diagnoses among women in the United States, 1994–1998. Journal of the
>American Medical Women’s Association 2001;56(3):94–99.
>
>8 * Hader S, Smith DK, Moore JS, Holmberg SD. HIV infection in women
>in the United States: status at the millennium. JAMA 2001;
>285:1186–1192.
>
>9 * Montgomery JP, Mokotoff ED, Gentry AC, Blair JM. The extent of
>bisexual behaviour in HIV-infected men and implications for
>transmission to their female partners. AIDS Care 2003;15:829–837.
>
>10 * Valleroy LA, MacKellar DA, Behel SK, et al. The bridge for HIV
>transmission to women from 23- to 29-year-old men who have sex with
>men in 6 U.S. cities. National HIV Prevention Conference; July 2003;
>Atlanta, Georgia. Abstract M2-B0902.
>
>11 * Suarez-Al-Adam M, Raffealli M, O’Leary A. influence of abuse
>and partner hyper- masculinity on the sexual behavior of Latinas. AIDS
>Education and Prevention 2000;12: 263–274.
>
>12 * Miller KS, Clark LF, Moore JS. Sexual initiation with older
>male partners and subsequent HIV risk behavior among female
>adolescents. Family Planning Perspectives 1997;29: 212–214.
>
>13 * European Study Group. Comparison of female to male and male to
>female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples. British Medical
>Journal 1992;304:809–813.
>
>14 * Fleming D, Wasserheit J. From epidemiological synergy to
>public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually
>transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sexually
>Transmitted Infections 1999;75:3–17.
>
>15 * CDC. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance, 2003. Atlanta:
>US Department of Health and Human Services, September 2004. Also
>available at http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/toc2003.htmLink Leaves the
>DHAP Internet Site. Accessed November 30, 2004.
>
>16 * Edlin BR, Irwin KL, Faruque S, et al. Intersecting
>epidemics—crack cocaine use and HIV infection among inner-city young
>adults. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331: 1422–1427.
>
>17 * Leigh B, Stall R. Substance use and risky sexual behavior for
>exposure to HIV: issues in methodology, interpretation and prevention.
>American Psychologist 1993;48:1035–1045.
>
>18 * US Census Bureau. Poverty: 1999. Census 2000 Brief. Issued May
>2003. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/
>c2kbr-19.pdfLink Leaves the DHAP Internet Site. Accessed September 16,
>2004.
>
>19 * Diaz T, Chu S, Buehler J, et al. Socioeconomic differences
>among people with AIDS: results from a multistate surveillance
>project. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1994;10:217–222.
>
>20 * Shapiro MF, Morton SC, McCaffrey DF, et al. Variations in the
>care of HIV-infected adults in the United States: results from the HIV
>cost and utilization study. JAMA 1999;281: 2305–2315.
>
>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.htm
--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Gooserider
<Cam...@bay.org> wrote in message
news:1micj1t37ocv0ms4s...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:50:00 GMT, "Gooserider"
> <goose...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
>>Female to male HIV transmission is so rare as to almost not exist.
>
The evidence suggests other transmission methods are to blame there. Men who
claim to have contracted HIV from women are lying. The most efficient way to
contract HIV is to be the receptive partner during anal sex. HIV researchers
have a joke---"What do you call a man who claims he got HIV from his
girlfriend? A liar.".
jayson
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:54:08 GMT, jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 06:54:51 GMT, c...@easynews.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:07:31 GMT,
>
>jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>>>wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I got hypertension too - hypertension of the ass. I get all
>>nervous when I don't get my butt pumped.
>
>Yeah, sounds about right for a homosexual male. Quite candid of you to
>say so publicly too.
What, that you're a cum dispenser for the neighborhood butt fuckers?
jayson
>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:52:17 GMT, jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:57:16 GMT, c...@easynews.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:54:08 GMT, jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 06:54:51 GMT, c...@easynews.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:07:31 GMT,
>>>
>>>jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, sounds about right for a homosexual male. Quite candid of you to
>>>say so publicly too.
>>
>>What, that you're a cum dispenser for the neighborhood butt fuckers?
>
>Damn, boy, you post, "Yeah, I got hypertension too - hypertension of
>the ass. I get all nervous when I don't get my butt pumped." and then
>accuse a me, a het-male of being queer. You have an identity problem,
>Bruce.
You've got amnesia of the rectum fuck face; you said you had
hypertension of the ass. I agreed with you. Now get back to sucking
that dick, Nancy bitch.
jayson
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:08:59 GMT, jayson <robj...@hotsnail.com>
>Sorry, girlyboy but this quote
>
>>>Damn, boy, you post, "Yeah, I got hypertension too - hypertension of
>>>the ass. I get all nervous when I don't get my butt pumped." and then
>>>accuse a me, a het-male of being queer. You have an identity problem,
>>>Bruce.
>
>is YOURS! <SNIGGER>
>
>You may leave now, I'm through toying with you.
Your through toying with your hypertensive asshole, how nice.