Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law, page 10

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM

link

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi

You are wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!

Your allegations are inflamed, unsubstantiated, and just plain WRONG!!!

"73% of Homosexuals had sex with people under 19"?????

Aermacchi....you are truly being deluded by hate-filled propanda sites.

The one above, the '73%' comment, is the only one I can remember. It is FALSE!!!! Unless, 73% of Gay kids aged 18-19 are having sex with kids aged 18-19....THEN it makes sense.

Of course, heterosexual kids NEVER have sex, outside of 'marriage', right?

Ermmmm....Hello, bristol palin, up there in that thar Alaska????

I don't condone Bristol Palins behavior either weed but check them out yourself or have a good read

Most FBI agents spend little if any time doing undercover work. Bob Hamer, the author of The Last Undercover, was an exception to the rule. He spent the bulk of his 24 years as an undercover FBI agent, participating in over 20 such operations during his career.

In the course of his work he acted the part of a drug dealer, contract killer, residential burglar, degenerate gambler, international weapons dealer, racehorse fixer, and white-collar criminal. But the vast majority of this book is given over to the telling of his six-year undercover operation as an aging pedophile.

The assignment that he took with great reluctance and personal repugnance was to infiltrate the North American Man/Boy Love Association commonly known as NAMBLA. This hideously distasteful organization purports to fight for the rights of men who believe that the love between a man and a boy is natural and should be legal. They protect themselves by publicly advocating that their members do not and should not participate in any illegal activity.

The FBI was quite certain however that the membership was rife with practicing pedophiles and attempted to lure, yet not entrap, members into participating in "interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct." The specific ploy that was developed by the FBI was to plan and commence a trip to Mexico where sexual activities with young boys was a guaranteed part of the program.

Hamer's focusing on this final and personally most satisfying undercover operation, gives an elaborately detailed history of this multi-year sting. For those who enjoy an immersion in particulars of criminal activities, this story will be quite satisfying. Unfortunately, many of the other undercover assignments are given rather short shrift. This may be due to the fact that the entire book had to be vetted by the FBI before being published.

However, if you are not put off by the topic in general, this book is an interesting and provocative look at a very small but repulsive subculture of our society.
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225314073&sr=1-1

skeptic1

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM

link

reply to post by Aermacchi

What in the world does that have to do with gay marriage and/or civil unions for everyone?

:shk:

weedwhacker

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:47 PM

link

reply to post by Aermacchi

NAMBLA is disgusting, I agree.

However, I would venture that MOST pedophiles are straight men (and women) who prey on children.

Pedophilia is, indeed, repulsive. I won't argue with that. AND, I have no sympathy for those caught in such vile acts.

BUT....NAMBLA does NOT represent the vast majority of gay men, no more than S&M websites that cater to Men/Women represent the vast majority of straight people.

there is always a segment of sick individuals, in a society...see Nero, from Roman times....

BTW, not to diminish how sick NAMBLA is....a 'South Park' episode used that same acronym to imply it meant the 'Nat'l Assoc. of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes'

I think, regardless of ACLU representation, ANY sex act by an adult, imposed on a child, regardless of gender, should be prosecuted.

Having said that....there is no reason that a caring parent cannot teach his/her child not to be ashamed of his/her body, because society has pressured these 'shameful' memes.

As to the 'indoctrination' at the high scool level you allege....why not look up the number of teen suicides?

The idea of feeling included, and not feeling shameful and 'dirty', that is what those programs are about.

Think of it as a support program, imagine it is similar to 'AA', or some such.

the ability to find like-minded people, for support, when you feel alone.....

skeptic1

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:50 PM

link

reply to post by weedwhacker

However, I would venture that MOST pedophiles are straight men (and women) who prey on children.

You would be right.....

95% of known Pedophiles are heterosexual

Source

But, I still have to wonder what that has to do with gay marriage or civil unions for all couples??

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM

link

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Aermacchi

Link that info, please, because it is too laughable for words.

And, for the record, we are talking about homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals under the law where marriage is concerned. Not some whacked out "study" that someone pulled out from their hind-quarters.

:shk:

Most of those I have linked already but the rest you can get from the most liberal Dept Of Health and Human services Boston MASS

The rest are from the Book I linked to weeds post. Interesting Book too

weedwhacker

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:55 PM

link

reply to post by skeptic1

skeptic1,

I know, I know....

ATS member 'aermacchi' has brought this up....I realize it's important not to allow oneself to be baited, but when you consider the extent of his/her posts, it is impossible not to respond to verifiably false information.

As I've said before (on topic) this thread is interesting, because it actually focuses attention to the passage of 'Prop 8', in California.

For those who may not know, it was promoted by people who felt that 'Gay marriage' somehow was a threat to heterosexual marriages...and passed, due mostly, in my opinion, because of better organization by the proponents.

It was truly a 'slap in the face' to free-thinking individuals.

Guessing here, the two college students (both straight men) who proposed the elimination of 'marriage' from California law were....either working on a thesis, or just making a point. Equality matters........

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:04 PM

link

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi

NAMBLA is disgusting, I agree.

However, I would venture that MOST pedophiles are straight men (and women) who prey on children.

Pedophilia is, indeed, repulsive. I won't argue with that. AND, I have no sympathy for those caught in such vile acts.

BUT....NAMBLA does NOT represent the vast majority of gay men, no more than S&M websites that cater to Men/Women represent the vast majority of straight people.

there is always a segment of sick individuals, in a society...see Nero, from Roman times....

BTW, not to diminish how sick NAMBLA is....a 'South Park' episode used that same acronym to imply it meant the 'Nat'l Assoc. of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes'

I think, regardless of ACLU representation, ANY sex act by an adult, imposed on a child, regardless of gender, should be prosecuted.

Having said that....there is no reason that a caring parent cannot teach his/her child not to be ashamed of his/her body, because society has pressured these 'shameful' memes.

As to the 'indoctrination' at the high scool level you allege....why not look up the number of teen suicides?

The idea of feeling included, and not feeling shameful and 'dirty', that is what those programs are about.

Think of it as a support program, imagine it is similar to 'AA', or some such.

the ability to find like-minded people, for support, when you feel alone.....

Well we agree on something weed!

ha ha yeah I am not worried about gays becoming pedophiles but if you follow my posts central message ( Redneck and I not withstanding) you see what I am saying is that from a legal standpoint it has no legs to stand on. The reason I say it isn't right in connection with NAMBLA because Nambla will use the same argument and will have a CASE!

The equal argument is FLAT and not just for religious reasons but for ANY logical reason! That is what YOU people don't get. You may not agree with it but this is where it is flat out wrong if you argu it under laws pertaining to equal rights

This “born that way” argument is NOT good argument

I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.

First, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because they don’t reproduce.

Second, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something more obvious— they were also born with a specific gender. This raises the question: Why are you following your desires but not your gender? After all, we’re not sure if your desires were designed or the result of your upbringing, but we are certain that your anatomy has a distinction we can base a class distinction on.

So why not follow your anatomy rather than your desires?

Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal. If someone honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires, he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that he is not, thenwhat you are claiming is that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable and open for legalese with the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.

being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be.

Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires!

We all have desires we ought not act on and all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify acting them out or their behaviors.

If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If you are not a believer then does it mean it's OK to get drunk and are not responsible when you crash into another car?

If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean it's ok to a be a pedophile? (According to pedophiles it does!) What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? I could just as easily say all you here calling me hater are wrong I am just born that way and can't help my behavior. This is not true for any of this including what weed is suggesting but I won't deny him his delusions.

I have already given logical arguments why the Government does not want to recognize Gay marriages because legally equating the two types of relationships breaks the link between marriage and childbearing which leads to higher illegitimacy and a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy. It also will result in homosexuality being imposed against the will of the people in our schools, businesses, and charities as it has in Massachusetts

whatever their source, do not jutify behaviors. In fact, there’s a word we use to describe the disciplined self control of destructive behaviors when it is asked of societies and it’s called civilization.

For any civilization to survive, the Government does what is best foro the future of its Governed not what feels good and not what is fair for all.

skeptic1

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:09 PM

link

reply to post by Aermacchi

So, it is ok for the government to treat one group of law-abiding, tax paying citizens one way and another group of law-abiding, tax paying citizens another way? I mean, everything is equal with them except who they sleep with, right? We aren't talking criminals, here.

Equality under the law is not needed?

And, it is ok for one group to force their beliefs and lifestyle on another group but turn-about is not fair play?

I have gay family and friends, and as a straight woman, I see no threat that gay marriage or gays being viewed as "equal under the law" where marriage is concerned would pose to me, my family, my lifestyle, my future, or my well-being.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by skeptic1]

xmotex

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:11 PM

link

Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal. If someone honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires, he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that he is not, thenwhat you are claiming is that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable and open for legalese with the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.

Faulty moral reasoning.

Those sexual crimes are crimes because they all involve the abuse of others, the deprivation of their freedom to choose, etc. Not because they're on some arbitrary list of 'bad' things, but because they all involve harm to others.

Homosexual behavior between consenting adults doesn't.

There is simply no rational comparison or similarity.

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:13 PM

link

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by weedwhacker

However, I would venture that MOST pedophiles are straight men (and women) who prey on children.

You would be right.....

95% of known Pedophiles are heterosexual
Source

But, I still have to wonder what that has to do with gay marriage or civil unions for all couples??

I explained all this in the thread, oh and that statistic is correct and so are mine. You are taking a statistic from a much broader base of the population and is why when I take mine from a smaller sample of the 2 % of the gay population looks like 1 in 20 whereas your stats is one in four hundred heterosexuals but those caught are going to show 95% hetero when you consider they make up the bulk of the population. If you like we can try ratios?

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:17 PM

link

Originally posted by xmotex

Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal. If someone honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires, he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that he is not, thenwhat you are claiming is that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable and open for legalese with the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.

Faulty moral reasoning.

Those sexual crimes are crimes because they all involve the abuse of others, the deprivation of their freedom to choose, etc. Not because they're on some arbitrary list of 'bad' things, but because they all involve harm to others.

Homosexual behavior between consenting adults doesn't.

There is simply no rational comparison or similarity.

You are confusing the context of two entirely different premises. You know what you are doing and confusing my analogy to equate controling behaviors with crimes and punishment is clever but it only works on those who don't catch it.

Sorry,, you're busted

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

drwizardphd

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:21 PM

link

reply to post by Aermacchi

You seem to be pretty actively fighting against gay marriage. In every one of your posts you offer paragraphs of negative opinions towards homosexuals.

Now I have to ask you, what is your problem with gay people? Are you possibly, *gasp* gay yourself?

The reason I ask is, as a straight man, I have never had any issue at all with gay people. I don't care if they hit on me (and its happened), I don't care if I see two guys holding hands or being out on a date. I wouldn't mind if I had gay neighbors who were married under the exact same laws I would be married.

The only reason I could possibly imagine someone would have a problem with any of that, is if they were in fact gay themselves, but repressing it due to social/religious standards set by their family or peers. Being a repressed homosexual, seeing other homosexuals happily enjoying their lives causes you discomfort because it is the life you truly seek, yet cannot because you are afraid to accept for yourself that you are in fact a homosexual as well. Therefore, you attempt to repress their behavior in the same way you repress your own, because you feel that everyone should be as unhappy as you are, in your faux-heterosexual lifestyle.

Did I strike any chords there? I'm not the first person to express these ideas, they are well maintained in the field of psychology. If you want further reading you can go here: Homophobia ( I know its wikipedia but if you follow the source links there is usually good and balanced information in there.)

I sincerely hope that someday you can come to grips with your own sexuality, or at least examine why you have such unnatural feelings about other people's love for each other. If I have helped you along some personal growth in your relationship with yourself, all I can say is your welcome, I try my best to help whenever I can.

Best Wishes,

Wizard

weedwhacker

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:22 PM

link

reply to post by Aermacchi

'ignoring one's desires...'

macchi, it isn't like that at all!!!!

You indicated, in that truncated 'quote' I wrote above, that it is 'fatal' by engaging in one's 'desires'....I am paraphrasing, of course....but, by your implication, I assume you are referring to AIDS.

Well....if you read the news, you would understand that Heterosexual transmission of HIV is rampant everywhere.

It was during the onset of the virus, the late 1980s, that it was denoted as a 'Gay' problem. It is not...it is a Human problem, as is seen in rural parts of Africa right now.

Frankly, I'm more worried about Herpes, than HIV....because I know people with HIV who are living normal lives, with meds.

Herpes has no medication to control it, it has no cure. Sure, it's not fatal, but in the Western World, HIV is becoming less fatal. It's nearly chronic, in a sense.

Of course, that is the Western World....in poor regions, it IS fatal....

BUT, I went astray....hunger is also a factor....

OOps, did it again....topic is: Well, really it is about Human rights, in a nutshell. Read the OP headline again. I still consider it a little tongue-in-cheek, but if you look deeply, you see it is about compassion and equality.

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:30 PM

link

Originally posted by skeptic1

So, it is ok for the government to treat one group of law-abiding, tax paying citizens one way and another group of law-abiding, tax paying citizens another way? I mean, everything is equal with them except who they sleep with, right? We aren't talking criminals, here.

Equality under the law is not needed?

Their is nothing in the constitution saying anyone has the right to marry anyone they choose. If that were the case Polygamy wouold be legalized and marrying your sister or yourself for that matter

No one is forcing anyone to do anything but we are insisting laws are observed and the rule of law is respected. Where do you get this idea that if Gays don't get married they can't sleep together, love one another or have sex with eachother?? No one is saying that. It makes for a lousy strawman but I guess that is always going to come up in this debate

I have gay family and friends, and as a straight woman, I see no threat that gay marriage or gays being viewed as "equal under the law" where marriage is concerned would pose to me, my family, my lifestyle, my future, or my well-being.

Gays can get married and that is why this won't be about equal rights you keep confusing Equal rights to mean Equal Access under the same authority and until gays can make themselves an argument for class distinction they haven't a leg to stand on for who we have sex with is NOT what defines a class distinction and is why when gays equate this with civil rights and race it is ludicrous.

The fact is NOT everyone CAN get married and we all have to follow the same rules the way Marriage was defined.

Gay wants to get married they can if they know someone who is an adult and opposite sex not blood related

JUST LIKE THE REST OF US

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

xmotex

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You are confusing the context of two entirely different premises. You know what you are doing and confusing my analogy to equate controling behaviors with crimes and punishment is clever but it only works on those who don't catch it.

Sorry,, you're busted

I think I was pointing out that that was what you were doing.

Busted indeed

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:48 PM

link

Originally posted by drwizardphd

You seem to be pretty actively fighting against gay marriage. In every one of your posts you offer paragraphs of negative opinions towards homosexuals.

Yeah I was there when I posted them and I don't condone gay sex but that's up to you and your lifes choices. I am against same sex marriage their is no doubt yes. I am not against civil union contracts, life partnerships and any other thing gays want to use as power of attorney for estate planning and all that.

Now I have to ask you, what is your problem with gay people? Are you possibly, *gasp* gay yourself?

No, I have worked with hundreds of gays and have spoken to thousands all across the country by their invitation.

The reason I ask is, as a straight man, I have never had any issue at all with gay people. I don't care if they hit on me (and its happened), I don't care if I see two guys holding hands or being out on a date. I wouldn't mind if I had gay neighbors who were married under the exact same laws I would be married.

Perhaps you should re-examine how laws are made and what they actually protect because it isn't their right to have sex that is in jeopardy it is something more complicated but less important to them it seems

The only reason I could possibly imagine someone would have a problem with any of that, is if they were in fact gay themselves, but repressing it due to social/religious standards set by their family or peers. Being a repressed homosexual, seeing other homosexuals happily enjoying their lives causes you discomfort because it is the life you truly seek, yet cannot because you are afraid to accept for yourself that you are in fact a homosexual as well. Therefore, you attempt to repress their behavior in the same way you repress your own, because you feel that everyone should be as unhappy as you are, in your faux-heterosexual lifestyle.

LOL I understand, there was a time in my youth where I can say with certainty that I have probably been in more sexual situations doing things I would rather not say regret and am not proud of but at that time, having gays sex?? Naah wouldn't have scared me from trying it a time or two. I have been to conventions as a speaker where I was invited to party's that were wall to wall naked people having sex with who ever was next to them at the time and rails of coke fifteen feet long. Many were colleagues but I am not gay and if I was I still wouldn't impose my own defintion of marriage on one already established by heterosexuals wanting to keep their thing just the way they want it and have said so when they voted on it anymore than I would say this it is right for heteros to do it in the state of Mass.

Did I strike any chords there? I'm not the first person to express these ideas, they are well maintained in the field of psychology. If you want further reading you can go here: Homophobia ( I know its wikipedia but if you follow the source links there is usually good and balanced information in there.)

No chords struck and the psychology lesson appreciated but been there done that.

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link

Originally posted by xmotex

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You are confusing the context of two entirely different premises. You know what you are doing and confusing my analogy to equate controling behaviors with crimes and punishment is clever but it only works on those who don't catch it.

Sorry,, you're busted

I think I was pointing out that that was what you were doing.

Busted indeed

Sorry you feel that way but it wasn't and I stand corrected if yours was not the same intent as you thought it was for mine.

What I'm saying is, if the argument is that this behavior (sexual desire) is uncontrollable from a genetic standpoint, then it can legally be defended as such and a person not accountable for their uncontrollable deeds INCUDING those that would happen to fall prey to sexual predators.

THAT is not only morally wrong it is logically sound from a case law position. Thus the sexual behavior argument cannot be defined as a "class distinction" else we have to for everyone as a case by case basis for everyone under equal protections act. This genetic idea is about what we are not about what we do or who we have sex with. That does not define a people nor should it ever! It would give a defensible argument for rape and incest and is a line I think something like the ACLU would venture to cross

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Aermacchi

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link

reply to post by weedwhacker

Well no thats not true either weed, it is Rampant among gays and among hispanics in the State of Mass rates have risen sharply but I think you are merging two sets of statistcs.

I think when you are talking about "worldwide" you are including Africas aids rates with ours and Africas is off the charts with both hetero men gay men and woman yeah.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

americandingbat

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by americandingbat
Do you have any good reason to believe that the ACLU supports pedophilia?

Why would you defend the free speech of anyone using free speech as a means to communicate a message for any right no matter how absurd no matter how heinous a crime when it is simply OUT of the question Period!

Well The ACLU has defended such an argument. I don't see how anyone would have the heart to give that evil a voice but then again, the ACLU is heartless like that

1) because free speech is free speech even when you find it abhorrent. As long as it's not inciting people to crime, or violating one of the other exceptions to the constitutional protection of free speech, I will defend the right to say it.

2) this is in no way a response to the question I asked, which was "Do you have any good reason to believe that the ACLU supports pedophilia?" I will rephrase the question though, because the ACLU (and I) support people's right to talk about pedophilia in appropriate situations. Neither the ACLU nor I support people's right to practice pedophilia: that is, it doesn't support the right to molest children. Do you have any good reason to believe that the ACLU supports the act of child molestation?

This whole "if you accept homosexuality, you will accept pedophilia" thing is the biggest load of crap in the entire anti-gay agenda. And that says a lot, because there's not too much in there that isn't crap

Google it and tell me what part of this isn't true?

Of homosexuals questioned in Government reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

One study done in SanFrancisco reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

None of my business or the state's. Hey, who knows, maybe the prospect of going through an expensive divorce proceeding would decrease promiscuity?

* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting.

Ditto many heterosexual sexual encounters. Still not my business or the state's, except in cases involving deliberately taking advantage of someone's intoxication to rape them.

* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

Many humans don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles
McDonalds, anyone? How about a smoke?

* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years.

And it was about time.

* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.

I question the 1-2% statistic; everyone knows that those are incredibly hard to get an accurate statistic on. It depends on how the interviews are conducted, how homosexuality is defined (behavior or inclination), too many factors to go through here. You obviously know this territory, I'm sure you're aware of how unreliable this particular figure is known to be. I also question the hospitalization admissions (other than for STD's? Huh?).

But again: not my business, nor the government's.

* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus.

I highly question this. Historically the bulk of TB cases have been among gays? How the heck would you know?

Plus: not my business, nor the government's.

*the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals".

Linky please? And how many children were the victims of heterosexuals?

* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us

The "promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals" has nothing to do with skyrocketing medical insurance rates. It's a complicated question involving litigation rates, growing use of technology in care, high medication costs, etcetera.

* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.

I'm just going to address the NYC stats here, since I know the area better than the others. Of those hepatitis cases, how many are contracted on Riker's Island or in other penal facilities? And are we counting men who are raped in prison as gay now?

* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism.

Absolutely none of my business or the state's.

* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.

This is getting redundant. Not my business. I'm not convinced that your stats are at all reliable, but even if they were, they're beside the point. Men having anonymous sex in bathhouses are not looking to marry each other.

I'm curious what percent of straight men has had some form of anonymous sexual encounter, whether in a "massage parlor" or a one-night-stand.

* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

This I'm really questioning; if the stats are at all accurate, it's only because young men are so much more likely to be out of the closet than gays ever have historically.

* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor.

Does this mean that 33% of child molestations are male on male or female on female, or does this mean that 33% of child molestations are done by people who identify as homosexual? Because it's quite common I believe for a man who abuses boys to have heterosexual adult relationships, insofar as it's possible for a pedophile to have adult relationships.

* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age.

Give me a stat on under-15s and I'll be interested. Boys under 19 are very often sexually active whether they're gay or straight.

Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality".

Many heterosexuals are pedophiles. Most homosexuals are not.

Even the bashing they blame redneck for or macho straights, is not entirely true either, you see gays lie about that too

* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals)

Maybe that's because there's so little support directed at gay victims of domestic violence, so they call the one hotline available to gay targets of violence?

None of this has anything to do with gay marriage. Almost none of it is anyone's business but the person engaging in the behavior. Some of it might well be alleviated by further moves to regularize and institutionalize committed relationships among gays.

xmotex

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link

Most of Aermacchi's cooked statistics come from Paul Cameron, a guy that is a well-known anti-gay activist who uses flawed methodologies to come up with the kind of results he wants. He's an activist, not a scientist.

They're also passed around by the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the weirdos that protest at soldier's funerals?) under a title that would probably be a TOS violation here on ATS.

[edit on 3/18/09 by xmotex]