Talk:Homosexuality/archive3

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Tone of the Page

This whole page seems extremely negatively cast. I think we could use a major rewrite to make this entry more neutral. I'd be glad to suggest specific changes and citations if someone with actual edit priviliges will work with me.

Can you identify yourself?
No. This page is one of our best. I personally feel it could use some more organization (IMO), and maybe the length cut dramatically and have much more in-depth branch pages for the various sections. But a change in tone isn't necessary or desirable. JacobB 23:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I assume the page on Communism is also negatively cast. Homosexuality is negative, being abundantly evidenced to be deleterious to both individual and country, and the promotion or widespread of it is concomitant with moral degeneration and the demise of a nation. Even on medical grounds alone, if the consensual act of taking part in the Lord's supper was primarily implicated in the death of over one half a million Americans, homosexuality is in death by AIDS, Christianity would be maligned and the practice, as integral as it is, would be outlawed or severely regulated. This wiki is not WP, where most any popular interpretation of the Bible can be considered viable if it can be is referenced, but CP treats the Bible as an authoritative source on morality. Daniel1212 14:59, 21 February 2010 (EST)

I agree, the tone is very negative. Begin anti-gay isn't necessary a conservative position. After all, Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, and he is supportive of gay rights.

Learn to sign your posts, first of all. Second, claiming that the gay lifestyle is conservative is just silly and absurd. Dick Cheney supports his daughter because he is a family man - are you trying to claim that the gay lifestyle supports family values? Because then you would be clearly confused, gay values and family values are precise opposites. Learn to post logical, intelligent arguments, or don't post at all. JacobB 22:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)
"gay values and family values are precise opposites. Learn to post logical, intelligent arguments, or don't post at all" Gays have families. You are making an unfounded assertion and would do well to heed your own advice regarding a "logical, intelligent" argument. That you believe something to be true does not make it so.--Song 18:26, 15 December 2009 (EST)
"That you believe something to be true does not make it so." Maybe you should remember that before posting inane liberal lies on this site. Gays thoroughly attack family values. This is a fact. Now stop wasting our time and contribute something useful to the site. DouglasA 18:30, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Firstly no one claimed gay lifestyle is conservative. Second of all, who determines exactly what family values are? And who are you to make claims that the gay lifestyle is contradictory to these values? Hopefully one day conservatives can learn to comprehend the concept of pragmatism. That instead of holding on to ridiculous morals and having a skewed perception of many things in life, accepting that you will never win the fight against most things you are opposed to.


PatrickBateman
PatrickBateman 11:59, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Cheney aside,

1. Homosexuality cannot promote conservatism, even as regards fiscally and traditional constitutional interpretation, much less morally, as the former in the long term relies upon the latter, as long as they sanction or promote homosexuality. "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798</ref>

2. The homosexuality movement relies upon deceit and its psychological tactics (see homosexual agenda, and works toward censure of all opposition, and the intolerance of GOPride, which just booed off a real conservative who opposed them at a CPAC convention, is just a precursor of a larger work.

3. More critically, war against the God of the scriptures is suicidal, and America is already paying part of a much greater price for so doing, and homosexuality certainly part of that rebellion. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html


Isn't it interesting that in a Bible of thousands and thousandds of chapters and verses, there are only a handful that condemn homosexuality and that Jesus said nothing about it? Hmmm, something to think about...

Wow, how do you know that Jesus said nothing about it??? Oh, how illogic permeates every liberal ideology.--Andy Schlafly 14:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Bad Link

I was astounded at how violent homosexuals are, according to this entry, but when I went to the link, the report concluded that the statistical difference between homosexual and heterosexual "Overkill" is negligible. Is there a study that can actually demonstrate how violent they are?

Again, why the mystery as to whose is asking? The answer is yes. See Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence

Probably not, because there has never been a study that has shown conclusively that there is any difference between the rate of aggression of homosexuals vs heterosexuals.

The Solution

Not sure is this mention somewhere in the series, but is there any mention of the solution to this disgusting blight upon humanity? I speak, of course, of accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as one's Saviour. If one does so, then He will show them the truth and the light, and they will be cured.

The above was written by a vandal, who engages in asking her own rhetorical question to which she gives a wrong answer. See http://exodusbooks.org/Books/index.php?main_page=index&manufacturers_id=5
Or... you know... just not being gay is a solution to not being gay. If people choose to be, there's not much others can do to change that.--MaryBell 18:32, 15 December 2009 (EST)
The response is that homosexuality is not a choice, which argument is supposed to justify their acting it out. However, this is a spurious polemic, as we are all born with a proclivity to sin, and yet that cannot justify our acting it out. God gives grace to resist it, (Gen. 4:7) and to find salvation. (Titus 2:13)

Homosexuality in animals myth

This subtitle is confusing. According to this page's definition on homosexuality - "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex" - it is clear that there exists homosexuality in animals, it is not a myth. While there might be other definitions of homosexuality, it is confusing to use a different one here, and that should be explicitly stated anyway. The question is how relevant the observed homosexuality in animals is - not its existence. The subtitle should be renamed "Homosexuality in animals", or there should be included a clear definition and a rationale for calling it a "myth".Crucialwood 01:19, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Crucialwood, are you a animal mind reader? The reason I asked this question is how I was wondering how you differentiate merely acts of dominance among animals vs. acts that are more sexual in nature? conservative 09:34, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Suggested resource

R. V. Young; The Gay Invention http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-fDaniel1212 11:28, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

New Stats

Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups. Male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 53% (28,700) of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. CDC’s historical trend analysis indicates that HIV incidence has been increasing steadily among gay and bisexual men since the early 1990s, confirming a trend suggested by other data showing increases in risk behavior, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and HIV diagnoses in this population.

High-risk heterosexual contact accounted for 31% (16,800) of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. The historical analysis suggests that the number of new infections in this population fluctuated somewhat throughout the 1990s and has declined in recent years.

Injection drug use (IDU) accounted for 12% (6,600) of estimated new HIV infections. CDC’s historical trend analysis indicates that new infections have declined dramatically in this population; between 1988-90 and 2003-06, HIV infections among injection drug users declined 80%.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/incidence.htm http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

[These more accurate figures are the result of] new technology developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can be used to distinguish recent from long-standing HIV infections. CDC has applied this advanced technology to develop the first national surveillance system of its kind that is based on direct measurement of new HIV infections. This new system represents a major advance in HIV surveillance and allows for more precise estimates of HIV incidence (the annual number of new infections) than ever before possible.

CDC’s first estimates from this system reveal that the HIV epidemic is—and has been—worse than previously known. Results indicate that approximately 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006 (95% CI: 48,200–64,500). This figure is roughly 40% higher than CDC’s former estimate of 40,000 infections per year, which was based on limited data and less precise methods AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.

“We are at a turning point as a country. Either we choose to get used to HIV/AIDS … to accept that it is a permanent feature of society … to be satisfied with lengthening lives instead of saving them, or we decide to double our efforts and start bringing the number of new infections down,” said U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on Monday.

On Monday (Aug. 24, 2009) U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said President Obama has called "on us to focus our efforts to reducing HIV incidence, getting people living with HIV into care and working to reduce HIV-related disparities,” Steps are being taken by the Obama administration to target these specific populations which continue to be hardest hit by HIV in the U.S. (From Wash. Blade report) The Obama-Biden national health plan will ensure that people living with HIV have access to lifesaving treatment and care. Obama is also a cosponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would help provide Medicaid coverage to more low-income, HIV-positive Americans. http://change.gov/pages/the_obama_biden_plan_to_combat_global_hiv_aids/

The overall cost of treating AIDS in the United States was $16 billion in 2002. http://www.redribbon.net/what-is-hiv-aids.htm

The lifetime cost of treating an AIDS patient in the United States was $102,000. in 1992. Dr. Fred J. Hellinger, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, an arm of the Public Health Service.The New York Times, July 23, 1992

The average patient diagnosed with HIV today can expect to live 24.2 more years, more than triple the life span of those diagnosed with the AIDS-causing virus in the early 1990s, according to a new study.

But with HIV/AIDS patients living longer and taking more sophisticated drug regimens, a lifetime of treatment could cost more than $600,000 per patient, straining the federal government’s ability to provide for those in need. http://www.bloggernews.net/11972

The monthly medical cost now (Nov 2006) for people with HIV from diagnosis until death is averages to be $2,100. The lifetime (now 24.2 years avg.) HIV care cost per person in optimal HIV care is now $618,900 per person.Nov. 6, 2006 NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center Schackman, Freedberg, MGH;, Gebo Moore Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and BU School of Public Health.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55870.php

The above is sobering, and by no means does my posting it denote a lack of compassion for those suffering with it, and after my last bout with a severe toothache, i do not want anyone to suffer needlessly. But prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the laws of God work towards our benefit when obeyed, and our detriment (and that of those we influence) when neglected. With 1 out of 4 college students infected with at least one STD, and over a half a million Americans dead of AIDS, the War against God is costing America plenty in souls as well as in money. (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html) That it is such a war is manifest, and it is incongruous that little actions are taken to prevent these needless afflictions and deaths, while if taking part in the Lord's Supper resulted in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, there is no doubt this consensual practice would be severely restricted, rather than celebrated.Daniel1212 21:28, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

The lifetime cost of treating an AIDS patient in the United States was $102,000. in 1992. Dr. Fred J. Hellinger, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, an arm of the Public Health Service. The New York Times, July 23, 1992 The average patient diagnosed with HIV today can expect to live 24.2 more years, more than triple the life span of those diagnosed with the AIDS-causing virus in the early 1990s, according to a new study. But with HIV/AIDS patients living longer and taking more sophisticated drug regimens, a lifetime of treatment could cost more than $600,000 per patient, straining the federal government’s ability to provide for those in need. http://www.bloggernews.net/11972
Are you saying that people who have AIDS should not get any medication or that only homosexual people should not get any medication? I can't find the moral in it. I just can't understand which kind of arguments you use to come to such an idea. And what do you mean with: 'those in need'. Are people which are doomed to die not in need? And that those people don't have the right of die in dignity or should just homosexual people not have the right of die in dignity ? (Considering that euthanasia is not an option, and I would in no case agree with it..)
I also differ about gays should not have the same right as the so called 'normal' people and that 'normal' people who think that homosexuality is not a disease should have the same rights as the homosexual. And the fact of being gay or lesbian does NOT increase the possibility of getting AIDS get off that idea please. Ever heard about Homophobia? You guys should be familiar.

Sign your posts. I am sorry for you misunderstanding, and i reworded some if it. "Those in need" was from the source, not me, and means the extra money needed to treat AIDS patients makes it harder to care for all the sick and infirm. And i think i conveyed that my posting this does not mean i favor just letting AIDS patients die, but you cannot cry victim if you brought such upon yourself, and that STDs could be completely eliminated, if we obeyed God's laws.

In addition, your statement that "being gay or lesbian does NOT increase the possibility of getting AIDS" is pure ignorance or delusion, as for males at least it most certainly does. Read the article, and see here:[[1]] May you respond to God's grace and turn to Christ for salvation. Daniel1212 14:59, 21 February 2010 (EST)

The argument of "we are just expressing our affection"

  • Although they may choose such acts as means of experiencing personal intimacy, the resulting experience cannot be the experience of any real unity between them.
  • ... [[[sodomy]]] is hardly an appropriate way to express friendship.On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage - William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America
I'm not sure if that sort of language belongs on Conservapedia. Students read these articles and talk pages. DouglasA 11:42, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I'll use a euphemism. --Ed Poor Talk 12:11, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

A few minor things that need fixing.

In the Further Reading section, there is a wikilink to Homosexual, which redirects back to Homosexuality; this should be delinked.

In the subsection Forensic Journal Articles on Homosexual Murders and Overkill, there is a wikilink to Lesbian, which redirects back to Homosexuality. There are also wikilinks to Lesbian under the sub-subsection Dr. William Eckert on Homosexual Homicides and Overkill and the section Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot. These three should probably either be delinked or directed to Lesbianism instead. -CSGuy 13:18, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. It's fixed now. conservative 03:16, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Request fix

The lead sentence is worded incorrectly. It should begin with Homosexuality is the "sexual desire... Etude 11:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

University of California, San Francisco study

Infections Associated with AIDS Daniel1212 14:59, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Page is wrong

Why are there two sections ABOVE the table of contents? I've never seen something so odd! Ctown200 15:24, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

You are some of the worse people on earth. Seriously, how could you not respect a person just beacuse he's different? The causes of homosexuality doesn't exist, an homosexual isn't gay just because e wants it, it's in humans nature, how can you not understand this? Why do you think that Bible is God's word? How do you know that the people who write the Bible was right? Who told you that everithing that is wrote on that is right? You are a bunch of faggots.--Uncyclopediauser 10:59, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

An open letter

I have read many an article about the homosexual menace on Conservapedia, and I am sorry that this must be my first edit. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that America has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in America for generations. I am heart and soul an American, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Americans."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. For those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing, what ever happened to the idea of striving to be better human beings than we are? --SUnderwood 14:38, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

SUnderwood, your screed is perhaps heartfelt, but logic is missing. Not surprising, coming as you do from the secular/atheist United Kingdom. At least according to your editing IP. God has nothing to do with hatred. God is love, and if you were a Christian you would know that. Anyone can change, and to reject that belief is to deny God who gave us free will. Denial is one of the principle lessons of the Bible....man denied Jesus Christ many times.
A true Christian doesn't hate your son, and neither does Conservapedia. We hate the things he (and enablers like yourself) is doing to himself , turning his back to God, for we know the terrible price he will eventually pay. And yet even in doing that he has our love, and God's love....Jesus Christ gave his own life because of that love!
My prayers tonight will be for you. That you will open your mind and set yourself free from the prison of hate and recrimination you voluntarily reside in. Godspeed! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:15, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
My prayers are still with whoever posted the fake above, ten years old, from the Internet. It shows very clearly the deceit that liberals have in their hearts, always justifying their means. The screed comes from here. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:31, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
Personal tools