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.
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?
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
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.