Search This Blog

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Debbie Defends Marriage and Heterosexuality (Radar introduces our dogs)



Jack the Pointweiler says to be good to Debbie or share the same fate as the pillow!



Three out of every three dogs recommend Debbie. Pictured with Debbie are Chloe, the Bloodhound/German Shepard puppy and Faith, the Alaskan Husky. You can see the corner of Boggart's bird cage in the upper left of the photo.

Debbie is my wife, my best friend and lately also my co-blogger. We share many interests, including a love of people and a love of nature and a love of God. Probably much of the love we have for others flows from the love of God. Fortunately for me, Debbie has an inquisitive mind and is not satisfied with leaving difficult problems on the "back burner." Therefore she and I never find ourselves bored. There is always something to research, a book to read, a question to consider.

Debbie is a loving wife and mother/stepmother to six children (three boys, three girls), three of whom live at home going to college and one still at home attending high school. She is grandmother to three (two boys, one girl)
and responsible for the care and feeding of Radar.

Debbie formerly worked for Project Reality, as did 2003 Miss America Erika Harold.




Debbie has been a champion of the right of children and teenagers to have access to responsible rather than slanted sex education information and the right of a child to be born rather than murdered while still in the womb. Debbie works with the the Prime Time youth group while having a full-time job as a household engineer caring for five other humans, three dogs, two fish tanks and a bird.
Erika Harold Biography

Guest blogger Debbie, who as an NFL football fan knows that the best defense is a good offense:


Somehow on the thread that spun from the Debbie Disputes Deluded Dawkins blogpost the subject of homosexual marriage came up from the discussion of Dawkin's idea of the Zeitgeist. I guess the commenters preferred to talk about that rather than Dawkin's lame explanation of spider’s threads.


How dare I stand up for heterosexual marriage! How dare I say premarital sex is wrong! How dare I say that single women and lesbians should not be allowed to bring children into the world with artificial insemination! How dare I say homosexuality is an unnatural sexual obsession! How dare I believe in the Word of God! A tolerant Zeitgeist society is appalled at my insolence!


To the unbiased the harm the misuse of sex has caused on human society should be obvious. And homosexuality is one of the misuses of sex that is harmful, that is why God disapproves of it.


It is not hard to find statistics to show physical harm. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) has loads of them. Here are a few dealing with homosexual men as an example:


(MSM means men that have sex with men)

Gonorrhea

Between 1999 and 2007 the number of gonorrhea tests for all anatomic sites combined increased in all eight cities. The trend in the number of positive gonorrhea tests for all anatomic sites varied by city. For all cities, the number of positive gonorrhea tests in symptomatic men accounted for the majority of the overall positive tests (Figure X).


In 2007, 79% (range: 58-90%) of MSM were tested for urethral gonorrhea, 37% (range: 5-51%) were tested for rectal gonorrhea, and 58% (range: 5-83%) were tested for pharyngeal gonorrhea.

In 2007, median clinic urethral gonorrhea positivity in MSM was 8% (range: 5-15%), median rectal gonorrhea positivity was 7% (range: 3-11%), and median pharyngeal gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 1-13%).

Chlamydia

In 2007, a median of 79% (range: 59-90%) of MSM visiting participating STD clinics were tested for urethral Chlamydia, compared to 65% (range: 57-68%) in 1999. In 2007, the median urethral Chlamydia positivity was 7% (range: 5-9%).

Syphilis

In 2007, 79% (range: 60-96%) of MSM visiting participating STD clinics had a nontreponemal serologic test for syphilis (RPR or VDRL) performed, compared with 69% (range: 53-93%) in 1999 (Figure Y).


Overall, median seroreactivity among MSM tested for syphilis increased from 4% (range: 3-13%) in 1999 to 8% (range: 4-18%) in 2007.

Syphilis seroreactivity is used as a proxy for syphilis prevalence and has been correlated with prevalence of P&S syphilis in this population.14

HIV Infection

Overall, the percent of MSM tested for HIV in STD clinics increased between 1999 and 2007. In 2007, a median of 70% (range: 38-87%) of MSM visiting STD clinics who were not previously known to be HIV-positive were tested for HIV, while 44% (range: 23-55%) were tested in 1999. In 2007, median HIV positivity in MSM was 4% (range: 2-5%) (Figure Z).


In 2007, median HIV prevalence among MSM, including persons previously known to be HIV-positive and persons testing HIV-positive at their current visit, was 13% (range: 7-15%).

HIV/STDs by Race/Ethnicity

HIV positivity among persons tested for HIV during 2007 varied by race/ethnicity, but was highest in black MSM. HIV positivity was 2% (range: 2-3%) in whites, 8% (range: 2-10%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 2-7%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).


HIV positivity was 9% (range: 6-15%) in whites, 17% (range: 15-24%) in blacks, and 14% (range: 6-16%) in Hispanics.


In 2007, urethral gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 5-14%) in whites, 15% (range: 7-27) in blacks, and 6% (range: 4-14%) in Hispanics. Rectal gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 2-10%) in whites, 7% (range: 2-11%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 1-7%) in Hispanics. Pharyngeal gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 1-15%) in whites, 6% (range: 1-13%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 1-10%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).


Urethral Chlamydia positivity was 6% (range: 3-8%) in whites; 8% (range: 5-10%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 3-13%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).


Median syphilis seroreactivity was 7% (range: 4-12%) in whites; 14% (range: 8-30%) in blacks, and 11% (range: 3-22%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).

STDs by HIV Status, STD Clinics

In 2007, urethral gonorrhea positivity was 11% (range: 8-16%) in HIV-positive MSM and 7% (range: 5-15%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status; rectal gonorrhea positivity was 10% (range: 4-14%) in HIV-positive MSM and 4% (range: 3-10%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status; pharyngeal gonorrhea positivity was 4% (range: 2-12%) in HIV-positive MSM and 5% (range: 1-13%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status.


Median urethral Chlamydia positivity was 6% (range: 3-12%) in HIV-positive MSM and 7% (range: 4-9%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status.


Median syphilis seroreactivity was 32% (range: 19-42%) in HIV-positive MSM and 6% (range: 3-13%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status.

Nationally Notifiable Syphilis Surveillance Data

P&S syphilis increased in the United States between 2003 and 2007, with a 64.0% increase in the number of P&S syphilis cases among men and a 39.0% increase in the number of cases among women (Tables 26 and 27). In 2007, the rate of reported P&S syphilis among men (6.6 cases per 100,000 males) was 6.0 times greater than the rate among women (1.1 case per 100,000 females) (Tables 26 and 27). Higher rates in men are observed for all racial and ethnic groups.

In 2007, MSM accounted for 65% of P&S syphilis cases in the United States. MSM account for more cases than heterosexual men or women for all racial and ethnic groups. (Figure 38) Additional information on syphilis can be found in the Syphilis section (National Profile).

Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP)

GISP is a national sentinel surveillance system designed to monitor trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities of strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States.15,16

GISP also reports the percentage of N. gonorrhoeae isolates obtained from MSM. Overall, the proportion of isolates from MSM in selected STD clinics from GISP sentinel sites have increased steadily from 4% in 1988 to 22.4% in 2007 (Figure BB). Additionally, the proportion of isolates coming from MSM varies geographically with the largest percentage from the West Coast (Figure CC).

Additional information on GISP may be found in the Gonorrhea section (National Profile).


(all pictures and tables and graphs noted can be accessed at the original website, not posted here at the blog)


How can anyone pretend that this sexual activity is not harmful and we should have GLBT Pride month and encourage this activity? If you didn’t know, the President proclaimed, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.”
(Oops, I was mistaken, he had the L before the G). Should I worry about the government putting me on a “watch list”?


By the way, how come nobody says anything about bisexual marriage? They are always put together with gays and lesbians. If they aren’t sexually obsessed, who is? Maybe they should marry the transsexuals and all be happy?


I’m thinking that there is no evidence I could present that would satisfy those whose god is the Zeitgeist.


Debbie.

~~~~~~~

Could it be that biases are demonstrated by people who ignore or mislead the public about studies that have been done on these subjects? Here is a link and an excerpt from one of the many sources easily available to anyone who really wants to know if homosexuality and other non-heterosexual behaviors have any negative effect on humanity.


From the Family Research Institute


Pro-Gay Bias In Study of Pedophilia

Homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage. Anyone actually in contact with the phenomenon has to acknowledge this fact, perhaps most strongly explicated by the chairman of FRI in 1985.1 While homosexual spokesmen have disputed his conclusion, in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys…. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles” (p. 464). These figures are quite similar to those we at FRI have used since the early 1980s — figures that for which gay activists have roundly criticized us. So how do Blanchard, et al., most of whom are from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, handle this fact that seems so damaging to the homosexual cause? By telling people not to notice, or if they do, not to draw the obvious conclusions.

Here’s how they ended their article:

“Implications for Societal Attitudes

A few closing comments are necessary to preclude any misunderstanding or misuse of this study. First, the statistical association of homosexuality and pedophilia concerns development events in utero or in early childhood. Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls. Second, the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant to whether it should be considered a psychopathology. That question has already been decided in the negative, on the grounds that homosexuality does not inherently cause distress to the individual or any disability in functioning as a productive member of society (Friedman, 1988; Spitzer, 1981).” (p. 476)

Really? “developmental events in utero or early childhood” — what is the evidence for this apparent attempt to exculpate those who engage in this behavior? Consider also “does not inherently cause distress to the individual.” Both citations are relatively ‘ancient’ in that the cited authors could not have availed themselves of the research in the 1990s — when a number of large, relatively unbiased studies on nonvolunteers were published. In 1994, the University of Chicago sex survey12 reported that homosexuals — both men and women — less frequently claimed to be happy and more frequently claimed to be unhappy than heterosexuals. More frequent mental disturbance by homosexuals of both sexes has been reported in every large, random-sample study on the issue published in the 1990s! (e.g., the Christchurch study; the NHANES study; the large military twins-registry study; the 1996 NHSDA). And in 2001, in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a large representative sample of the Dutch population3 yielded the same finding, with gays twice and lesbians two or three times more apt to have one or more disorders in either the past 12 months or lifetime .So even from the rather narrow perspective of “distress to the individual” the statement is, as near as can now be determined, decidedly false.

Likewise “any disability in functioning as a productive member of society.” Where have these scholars been living? AIDS has devastated homosexual men, and disproportionately affected homosexual women. A host of self-inflicted problems (e.g., higher rates of suicide, substance abuse) as well has higher rates of physical disease, mental disturbance, murder, and accidents contribute to a sharply reduced lifespan.4 And if as a class you die young, and you are disproportionately involved in substance abuse and corruption of youth, you cannot contribute as much to society as those who live normal lifespans and do not endanger their neighbors with their drug-use or their neighbors’ children with their sexual predilections....

Feel free to read the rest of the article available at the link. The sources are listed at the end of the article at that website.

Aberrant sexual behavior is dangerous for the individual and those who come in contact with the individual. It is a primary factor in the higher incidences of drug use, depression and disease among those who veer off the heterosexual path. Juveniles are endangered by the predatory sexual nature of adult homosexuals which has been statistically demonstrated.

As Debbie's post demonstrates, heterosexuality is better for society in terms of health and therefore a basis for a stronger, healthier nation.

It is not simply a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.



27 comments:

radar said...

Before the cries even begin, let's be clear. Debbie and I are not against homosexuals, we are against homosexuality. Every person has intrinsic value. Aberrant sexual activities hurt people. We do not condemn people, we condemn actions, so no one can say that we hate homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

A few quick thoughts on this blog post:

How is any of this an argument against gay marriage? Evidence of higher incidence of disease is not an argument against gay marriage, but an argument for better sex education, something that I imagine isn't easy to come by for non-heterosexuals.

Conflation with pedophilia, promiscuity and the like are likewise irrelevant and unhelpful when you're actually talking about two adults who want to commit to each other for life. To throw such arguments in their face is a profound lack of respect to fellow human beings who only seek happiness and aren't hurting anyone else.

As for homosexuals being less happy than heterosexuals... has it really not occurred to either of you that homosexuals don't exactly have an easy time of it, not least due to the kind of intolerance that you support and promote?

And if you're so worried about the institution of marriage being threatened, how about lobbying for the abolition of divorce? Divorce has annihilated and will annihilate more marriages than gay marriage could in a million years.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar,

So as long as homosexuals stop being homosexuals, you have no beef with them. How big of you. But if they pursue happiness in the only way they know how (and being happy as a heterosexual simply isn't an option for them, no more than being happy as a homosexual is an option for you - maybe this is something the two of you just don't get), then they are sinners and will go to hell and so on.

BTW, was the debate on Debbie's other post really that extreme? Did anyone tell Debbie to shut up because she's a woman (which you seemed to imply in your post right before this one)? It seemed like a pretty normal debate to me - with a few arguments left unfinished.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

This comment moved over from Debbie's previous post, since it's more fitting with this post:

"How is it a good thing for two lesbians to live together and have children by a sperm donor like former VP Cheney's daughter?".

It's a good thing because it is potentially a happy home for a child, the same as any other. It's not just about the act of procreation, but about the raising of the child afterwards, as is shown by the fact that we have such a thing as adoption.

The converse question needs to be asked, of course: how is it a bad thing?.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

About that headline: do marriage and especially heterosexuality really need defending? Strange.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

creeper, how do you propose to educate homosexuals on the danger of their sexual activity? Let us say that homosexual marriage is accepted everywhere. Then we would teach them to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and then be faithful in that marriage. That would solve the disease problem for the most part, however you would still have some problems with those who have anal sex (the rectum was not made for that kind of thing).

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html

Here's that link again. The sex ed instructors actually say that to tell homosexual kids to use condoms is difficult because it makes those who don't use condoms feel bad. And it may be hard for them to ask an older partner to use a condom!!!!

That mighty condom is the ONLY DEFENSE against the ravages of all those diseases!! Do you believe it would ever cross the minds of those homosexual sex educators to tell kids to abstain from sexual activity until marriage if they won't even tell them to use condoms?

The argument is not about marriage it about the miss use of sex. Homosexuals are defined by their behavior like bisexuals and transsexuals, they are included in the 'pride month'. Who should they marry?

So you think men and women are interchangeable? A child who's father was a sperm donor isn't missing anything? Lets say that child was a male. And he grows up and marries a woman and they have a child, do you think he would see himself as a sperm donor? Lets say he decides to leave his wife for another woman or man. Will he feel responsible for the child he left behind because he was just a sperm donor? He really didn't want the kid his wife did so he did his part.

The more you mess with the God given man and woman in faithful marriage, the more destruction there is in society. Debbie

Anonymous said...

Debbie said:

Let us say that homosexual marriage is accepted everywhere. Then we would teach them to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and then be faithful in that marriage. That would solve the disease problem for the most part, however you would still have some problems with those who have anal sex (the rectum was not made for that kind of thing).

Do you think only homosexual couples have anal sex?
Debbie, as I've stated earlier: by your own statements you have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously regarding the issue of homosexuality. My advice (feel free to ignore it, though): refrain from discussing homosexuality.

Anonymous said...

Also, Debbie:

What is it with this obsession of yours with gay people's sexual activities anyway? Has it ever occured to you that homosexual couples might actually love each other (Shock! Horror!), in the same way you and Radar love each other?

Also, regarding pre-marital sex: so what you're actually say is:
- couple dates for two years, has pre-marital sex, then marries = BAD
- couples dates for three weeks, has no pre-marital sex, then marries = GOOD

Did I get that right? Or are there more rules to follow?

Anonymous said...

"creeper, how do you propose to educate homosexuals on the danger of their sexual activity?".

How about the same way we educate heterosexuals on the danger of their sexual activity? Make sure you use condoms, educate them on the kinds of sexual diseases and how they are transmitted etc.

"Let us say that homosexual marriage is accepted everywhere. Then we would teach them to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and then be faithful in that marriage.".

Really. Is that what we would teach them? Is abstinence-only what we are teaching heterosexual kids now?

And if so, is it effective?

See here: http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html

"That would solve the disease problem for the most part, however you would still have some problems with those who have anal sex (the rectum was not made for that kind of thing).".

This is pretty incoherent, Debbie.

First of all, simply telling people to abstain from sex until they are married doesn't make them abstain from sex until they are married, so this wouldn't "solve the disease problem".

Second, being married isn't some magical shield against disease, so this wouldn't "solve the disease problem" either.

Third, the anus wasn't "made" for sexual activity, but neither were mouth, hand, breasts etc. - that doesn't mean these can't be used sexually to quite pleasurable effect among consenting adults.

"Here's that link again. The sex ed instructors actually say that to tell homosexual kids to use condoms is difficult because it makes those who don't use condoms feel bad. And it may be hard for them to ask an older partner to use a condom!!!!".

That doesn't appear to be in the link you posted. Perhaps I missed it.

Regardless, people obviously need to be educated about the benefits of condoms, and they should be made easily available.

As for the content of that link, it constantly refers to the audience as "children", even though just about every person whose age is identified was said to be 16 years old (and one 15 or 16 years old). I wouldn't classify a 16-year-old as a child, but rather as a teenager or adolescent, and given that the average age of loss of virginity is around 16, what better time to have some frank explanations of sex?

I can't say the idea of fisting appeals to me personally, but it isn't limited to homosexuals. Heterosexuals can do it just the same.

"That mighty condom is the ONLY DEFENSE against the ravages of all those diseases!!".

So let's hear it for comprehensive sex education and easy access to condoms.

"Do you believe it would ever cross the minds of those homosexual sex educators to tell kids to abstain from sexual activity until marriage if they won't even tell them to use condoms?".

Umm... how can they tell homosexual kids to abstain from sex until marriage when there is no gay marriage?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"The argument is not about marriage it about the miss use of sex.".

If sex is only for reproduction, then I'm afraid there's a lot more sex being "misused" than you could ever hope to stop.

But you said in the title of your post (or perhaps that was Radar) that you're defending marriage and heterosexuality. Why do they need defending exactly? Looks like they're not going anywhere, and they certainly aren't under threat from either gay marriage or homosexuality.

"Homosexuals are defined by their behavior like bisexuals and transsexuals, they are included in the 'pride month'. Who should they marry?".

Who should bisexuals and transsexuals marry, is that the question? Is it a trick question? The person they're in love with and want to spend the rest of their life with of course, if they are lucky enough to find them - same as with heterosexuals.

"So you think men and women are interchangeable?".

No, they obviously have certain characteristics, and there is a range of characteristics among men and women as well. All families are different.

If you're trying to assert that man and woman are irreplacable in a family context, then that is true only as far as actual reproduction goes. In terms of a family living together and raising children, there are plenty of alternative family types that also work in their own way, for better or worse - and I'm not just talking about same-sex couples, but also patchwork families, single mothers etc.

"A child who's father was a sperm donor isn't missing anything? Lets say that child was a male. And he grows up and marries a woman and they have a child, do you think he would see himself as a sperm donor?".

Why would he see himself as a sperm donor? If he grows up, marries a woman and they have a child, I would think he'd see himself as a father, pure and simple.

Is there any evidence you would like to present that this man would see himself as a sperm donor, or are you just speculating?

"Lets say he decides to leave his wife for another woman or man. Will he feel responsible for the child he left behind because he was just a sperm donor? He really didn't want the kid his wife did so he did his part.".

Um... "he really didn't want the kid his wife did so he did his part" - exactly what scenario are you describing here, Debbie? Are you saying that men raised by gay couples really don't want children, but have them anyway and then walk off?

Could you back this up with anything, anything at all, or is this a purely speculative scenario of your own making?

"The more you mess with the God given man and woman in faithful marriage, the more destruction there is in society. Debbie".

Seems to me that with divorce rates as high as they are among heterosexal couples, there's plenty of destruction in society with man and woman as it is.

Did someone (Radar or you, Debbie, perhaps) say that you teach sex education? If so, what qualifications did you have to get, and where do you teach?

And is it just me, or does anyone else here find something deeply repellent about the way Debbie displays a way of thinking about homosexuals as some kind of subhuman, utterly incapable of affection and emotion? Debbie, have you really never had any friends who were homosexual? If so, did you think they were complete sociopaths?

To close off, here's an interesting video to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw

-- creeper

scohen said...

"And is it just me, or does anyone else here find something deeply repellent about the way Debbie displays a way of thinking about homosexuals as some kind of subhuman, utterly incapable of affection and emotion?"

Yes, reading some of her posts make my toes curl. Especially troubling is that she doesn't realize what she's doing.

Yet, there's something oddly familiar about her methods. This whole back and forth between you and her is very similar to the back and forth she and I had in the last post. Even our answers were the same, yet she asked the same questions again.

"Debbie and I are not against homosexuals, we are against homosexuality"

That's like saying that they're not against Jews, they're against Judaism (substitute any group of people and something they practice for the above).

Debbie,
How is being the child of a sperm donor any different than being adopted? Better still; hypothetically if I was sterile, would having my wife artificially inseminated result in a child who just thought he was a sperm donor?

Anonymous said...

Debbie asked: "How is it a good thing for two lesbians to live together and have children by a sperm donor like former VP Cheney's daughter?".

Reduced instances of mental illness?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

OK, creeper, here is what you missed:

[ Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex... We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth."

Margot Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few "campaigns" that have been used to demonstrate to queer youth how to best "be safe" while still enjoying homosexual sex.

The campaign, "Respect yourself, protect yourself," was thought to be good in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn't protect themselves feel bad, it ultimately was a poor message. Michael Gaucher pointed out that children "with an older partner that they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don't respect themselves?"

The campaign, "No sex, no problem," was ridiculed, as the campaign assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, the campaign made those children who had already had sex feel bad or think they had a problem, since they had had sex.

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Margot Abels described the project she works on. The "Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project" goes to five different schools each year conducting up to eight "HIV prevention sessions" in that school's gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for "fisting" were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct the same workshops for their students. ]

I was not a sex ed teacher, I worked for an organization that produced sex ed curriculum and taught teacher training. I did sit in many teacher trainings. I have read all kinds of sex ed curricula. I have seen all approaches to disease prevention.

We tell young people not to smoke, not to take drugs, not to drink alcohol and drive, so of course we tell them not to have premarital sex. Of course marriage cannot solve the problem of disease. But it is possible for a heterosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other. Is it possible for a homosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other? If so then I would be OK with homosexual marriage. Have you ever known a homosexual virgin?

Debbie

Anonymous said...

This "fisting" debate is a curious one. I don't think you can deny that the term is "out there". (The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.) And given that, would you think it's better that there is also info about how it actually works? Or should that be kept a secret? Think about it. The term implies you use a clenched fist and insert it in a vagina or anus. Can you imagine the serious injuries that could be caused if a curious teenager tried to practice this on his or her respective sexual partner?

Why exactly is it wrong to provide this information?

"We tell young people not to smoke, not to take drugs, not to drink alcohol and drive, so of course we tell them not to have premarital sex.".

Sure, it's fine to tell them that. And we know how effective that is, too.

"Of course marriage cannot solve the problem of disease."

Nope.

"But it is possible for a heterosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other."

Possible in theory, sure. But how often does that happen? And should the ones who don't abstain be allowed to marry?

"Is it possible for a homosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other?".

In theory, sure.

"If so then I would be OK with homosexual marriage. Have you ever known a homosexual virgin?".

Have I ever known a homosexual virgin? Um, I don't think from college age on at the latest I've known any virgins at all. I knew one girl who saved herself until she was married. The relationship didn't have a happy ending. She discovered her sexuality somewhat belatedly - with a vengeance, leading to quite a promiscuous phase.

But as for homosexual virgins, I suspect (but don't know) that they may stay virgins longer than heterosexuals since the process of coming out is often a gradual one. Your question seems to presuppose that homosexuals get down to business as soon as humanly possible, and given your views of homosexuals as complete sociopaths, I'll take that perspective with a good helping of salt.

On gay marriage, however, your argument here is quite a different one from Radar's "homosexuality is a sin etc." argument. You're saying that it's pre-marital sex first and foremost that bothers you, and if homosexuals could only stay virgins until they're married, then you'd be okay with gay marriage.

It's a strangely hypocritical stance. The logical conclusion of your position would be that marriage would be reserved only for virgins, regardless of sexual orientation. Seems to me that such a principle would eliminate the institution of marriage reeeal quick.

-- creeper

Chaos Engineer said...

Is it possible for a homosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other?

Well, yes, of course it's possible. Now, this is getting rarer among heterosexuals nowadays and I wouldn't expect it to be much more common among homosexuals. But in a country with 300 million people, there are probably lots of couples who fit the description.

If so then I would be OK with homosexual marriage.

Yay!

Have you ever known a homosexual virgin?

All homosexuals are virgins when they're born, so, yes, I've met a lot of them. The only thing is that I'm not sure who they are. (I suppose I could ask, but I almost feel like it's none of my business.)


As to the sex education discussion...I've got to take your quotes with a grain of salt; the massresistance.org site has an obvious political agenda and I don't think they're going to portray their opponents fairly.

That said, I think we can find some middle ground.

Let's agree that all of the following are bad sex education: (1) Saying that people should have sex even if they don't feel ready for it. (2) Deliberately withholding information about birth control and prophylaxis in hopes of discouraging people from having sex. (3) Ignoring or trivializing the risks of having protected sex. (4) Telling GLBT people that they should marry a person of the opposite sex and pray a lot and that any problems will get solved somehow. (5) Being involved in any way, shape, or form with a *shudder* "Purity Ball".

The appropriate Biblical punishment for these transgressions is to tie a millstone around the offender's neck and cast him into the sea. But since we're living in a secular society I guess we'll have to settle for a restraining order prohibiting the offender from coming within 5 miles of any child anywhere.

Is everyone else with me on this?

Anonymous said...

"Is everyone else with me on this?".

Yep, works for me.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Is it possible for a homosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other? If so then I would be OK with homosexual marriage. Have you ever known a homosexual virgin? .

Wow. So here are some of the implications of your statement Debbie- let me know which ones are correct.

1. Homosexuals cannot abstain from sex.
2. You are not OK with heterosexual marriage where one or both partners have had premarital sex.
3. The only reason you are against homosexual marriage is because they cannot remain faithful to one person.
4. There are no homosexual virgins. Heterosexual is the default and homosexuals become so upon their first homosexual act.
5. If it is possible for one homosexual couple to abstain until marriage, you'd be OK with all homosexual marriage. Or is there a certain percentage of couples we are looking for?


lava

Anonymous said...

I'm saying that premarital sex leads to all sorts of problems, so ideally it is best not to encourage it. I'm not saying that non-virgins should not marry, they should be faithful in marriage.

I was sexually active as a teen which brought on self destructive behavior and depression. I came to Christ at 21 and remained abstinent until I married at 29. My husband was 30 and a virgin. Of course I would have married him if he wasn't a virgin because if he wasn't he would have repented of past sexual activity when he became a Christian like I did. (He died in 2002, Radar is my second husband).

I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural and leads to all kinds of self destructive activity. Many homosexuals also repent of their past sexual activity when they turn to Christ and marry the opposite sex and stay faithful. People can change and have a fulfilling life.

Homosexual marriage is just a smoke screen there is no reality there. People can live with whoever they want.

My mother is a widow, my dad died when I was nine. She was 34 and never remarried or even dated. She got into breeding and showing dogs (samoyeds). I lived with her until I got married. Then she and another widow moved in together, they've been very successful with the dogs. They are not lesbians, they are on each others wills and share all their property. They have been together since 1984.

There is nothing that says you have to be married to share property or insurance or power of attorney.

What homosexuals really want is to be affirmed in their lifestyle and silence all opposition. It's starting to happen in schools already.

Oh yes creeper, that mental illness link very instructive.

Debbie

Anonymous said...

"Homosexual marriage is just a smoke screen there is no reality there. People can live with whoever they want.

[...]

There is nothing that says you have to be married to share property or insurance or power of attorney. "
.

Perhaps you're the one with the smoke screen. I don't think anyone was disputing that same-sex partners can live together, but do your mother and her partner have the following rights?

Following is a non-comprehensive summary of practical legal benefits that are denied to same sex couples when they are banned from the institution of marriage.

Employment

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Health

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Consumer

* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Tax

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning

* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits when otherwise qualifying.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.


(Source: Wikipedia)

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"I'm saying that premarital sex leads to all sorts of problems, so ideally it is best not to encourage it. I'm not saying that non-virgins should not marry, they should be faithful in marriage.".

Earlier you said: "But it is possible for a heterosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other. Is it possible for a homosexual couple to abstain from sex, marry and then be faithful to each other? If so then I would be OK with homosexual marriage." So you have no opposition to gay marriage then, as long as they are faithful in marriage?

Or are you imposing a double standard now, that it's okay for heterosexuals to have pre-marital sex and get married, but it's not okay for homosexuals to do the same, even if they are faithful once they're married?

And if that is the case, what problem do you have with a homosexual couple that is faithful to each other in marriage?

"I was sexually active as a teen which brought on self destructive behavior and depression. I came to Christ at 21 and remained abstinent until I married at 29. My husband was 30 and a virgin. Of course I would have married him if he wasn't a virgin because if he wasn't he would have repented of past sexual activity when he became a Christian like I did. (He died in 2002, Radar is my second husband).".

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, Debbie, but I'm glad you found happiness afterwards.

I'm still trying to understand your overall argument though. It sounds like you're not even okay with the idea of non-born again Christians who have had pre-marital sex getting married.

And all of that in turn seems to be based on you having experienced self-destructive and depressive tendencies when you were young, which went hand in hand with sexual activity. You seem to see a cause and effect here of the sexual activity causing the self-destructive tendencies and depression. But what if they go hand in hand?

And what if it is possible for people to experience loving sex before marriage?

What if it's possible to experience loving sex with someone whom you don't eventually marry?

You seem to have decided that your own recipe (pre-marital sex didn't work; then found Jesus and happiness) must automatically apply to everyone and must be the only solution - but there are other ways to pursue happiness.

"I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural and leads to all kinds of self destructive activity. Many homosexuals also repent of their past sexual activity when they turn to Christ and marry the opposite sex and stay faithful. People can change and have a fulfilling life.".

Yes, they can, and I have heard of homosexuals doing exactly that. Having a fulfilling life, that is. And it didn't involve doing something that goes against their grain about as much as it would for you to become a lesbian.

You seem to think that it's an easy choice. Why do you think some people risk a heck of a lot in their lives (for example, think of Larry Craig) to pursue their homosexuality? Do you think it's because they're actually straight but think that homosexual acts will give them a bigger kick?

"What homosexuals really want is to be affirmed in their lifestyle and silence all opposition. It's starting to happen in schools already.".

Of course they want their lifestyle to be recognized. What's wrong with that?

"Oh yes creeper, that mental illness link very instructive.".

Glad you found it instructive - did it answer your question?

-- creeper

scohen said...

Debbie,

"I was sexually active as a teen which brought on self destructive behavior and depression."

Is it possible that there was an underlying cause for both your promiscuity and your depression? Certainly you're not saying that pre-marital sex always leads to depression. Remember, when deciding on policy, it's rarely a good idea to base it upon outliers. Most of my friends were sexually active when they were teens, and have suffered no ill effects.

Also, while it *might* be possible to do enough legal legwork to grant some of the rights of marriage (good luck on the visiting in the hospital thing), marriage does this quickly and all at once (and cheaply, to boot).
Immediately after we signed our marriage license, my wife and I were entitled to everything that creeper pointed out to above. How many hours with lawyers would it take to get even a fraction of those rights?

Anonymous said...

My mother's partner is a para-legal and has been working for lawyers all her adult life, she is 67 years old. My mother is 78 years old. I know that Joice, who has been living with my mother since 1984 knows all the legal options available to them. My mother was not employed since she and Joice and Joice's aunt moved in together. Joice's aunt worked a couple of years as a bookkeeper after they all moved in together and then retired. The aunt died 8 years later. She had no children. I don't know if Joice and my mom got the aunt's SSI. I don't think so, but whatever Joice's aunt had she left to Joice with no problem.

I think that the only thing that you can't inherit unless you are married to the deceased is SSI. When my mom dies if she dies before Joice, Joice will inherit everything my mother owns. I don't believe my mother's SSI death benefits will go to me as her only living child, or go to Joice, since my mother got SSI when my father died. I don't believe she has been getting SSI from his death in 1964? I really don't know. I got SSI payments for my husband until I married. I got SSI for my kids until they turned 18.

As far as the hospital. My mom and Joice have both been hospitalized. They have had no problems with hospitals. There is nothing "marriage" would do to benefit my mother and Joice except maybe SSI payments.

And the way things are going now no one will be able to depend on on SSI anymore. Now that more people are being payed then are paying in.

So homosexual marriage is unnecessary. If homosexuals marry then they will divorce and demand all the legal resources as heterosexuals. And it would be even more complicated if children are involved. Divorce is often more destructive to the the family unit than death. My daddy had an accident and died. He did not leave us for another woman.

When you put homosexuality into family break-up it is even more complex.

Faithful homosexual relationships are the exception and not the rule. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Debbie

Anonymous said...

"So homosexual marriage is unnecessary."

Debbie, please have a look at what you wrote in your comment above this conclusion and ask yourself in what way it contradicts the rather lengthy list I posted above of legal options not available to same-sex couples.

I'll give you a hint: it doesn't come close to contradicting them and so doesn't allow you to draw the conclusion you make here, that homosexual marriage is unnecessary.

"If homosexuals marry then they will divorce and demand all the legal resources as heterosexuals. And it would be even more complicated if children are involved. Divorce is often more destructive to the the family unit than death."

Divorce is destructive, yes. Whether it is more destructive than death I can't judge. But if divorce is so destructive, then why have marriage at all... unless marriage is a positive that outweighs the potential negative of divorce?

And if that's the case, then the specter of divorce is not an argument against marriage of any kind.

"Faithful homosexual relationships are the exception and not the rule. I dare you to prove otherwise."

Why should that need to be proven?

Surely the subset in any group that want to get married are the ones who are more or most likely to be faithful, regardless of sexual orientation. Why would you argue against them getting married by referencing more promiscuous people?

Your beef seems to be more with the sexually unfaithful than with homosexuals. So why have divorce at all, if marriage is not intended for the unfaithful?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

What's the connection between religion and homophobia?

Religion and losing virginity - no relationship among Scottish teens

Anonymous said...

http://www.geocities.com/patrick_farley/gayMarriageChart-large.png

Here's the Coles notes for the content this thread, in case you aren't a big fan of reading.

- Canucklehead

David said...

Dear Radar.
As a brother in Christ, I appeal to you to stop the "witness" you are currently presenting. It is not a witness for Christ, it is a witness for your own prejudice and ignorance.

By the way, you do realise that you've argued yourself into a corner on some topics? Like your statement about entropy, that no amount of sunshine will persuade a stack of bricks and wood to become a house. I guess you (and everyone else) shouldn't be alive then. Hmmm? If you use entropy to argue against evolution, you are arguing against the existence of life also.

Look buddy, God creates. Present tense. He is real and active, and awesome beyond our comprehension. The little box that creationists want to push Him into is nigh blasphemous.

Stop it.

radar said...

David,

Let's see, do I believe God's Word or a guy named David? Not a tough choice. A "Christian" who denies the words of God in Genesis? So who is your final authority? Darwin? Dawkins?

Read the first chapter of Genesis and the first chapter of John then come back and tell me why when I repeat the narrative of God I am wrong?