Sorry, Yelli, I'm not buying a lot of that.  Albywan is right--gays aren't the only ones who have been promiscious (though to deny that they are strictly monogamous is also a lie).  I don't see gay marriage to be the downfall of Western civilization--I think we have more to fear from radical Islam there.  Most gays that I have personally known are tepid towards marriage, don't make a career out of being gay, and certainly don't prey on straights or children.

 

I have known exactly the kind of radical lesbians you talk about, though.  Two of them burned their own home and claimed it was the work of anti-gay activists who opposed their stance on gay marriage (they were suing the state of Montana for the right to marry at the time).  Caused a big stink and a lot of breast-beating in the community I lived in...until the local police found some aberrations in their story and no evidence of a break-in, not to mention certain accelerants in the home that would make a fire burn very well.  They were never charged with false official statement, but they slunk out of the state only a month after the police started raising eyebrows.

 

I don't condone gay behavior, and I do think that a proper marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, I also don't think that, as long as these people are not making a profession of being gay, or having sex in the street, that I'm qualified to judge them.  Two of my close friends are gay.  They've never come on to me nor made me feel uncomfortable.  I think it's best to take them as individuals, not as some Gay Monolith, and leave it to God--and the states--to judge.

www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082609.html

 

Scientific proof that homosexual behavior is about 2 orders more promiscuous than strict heterosexual people:

 

[quote]

 

[unquote]

 

Fact beats political correctness.

 

That website is also very conservative, Yelli.  We wouldn't count Daily Kos as an accurate representation of facts (much less reality), so using a vehemently conservative site to support a conservative viewpoint doesn't count as hard fact.  Even if I personally agree with said site.

 

 

That's a dodge. 

 

"An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population.  Dr. Amy Lansky revealed this statistic during a plenary session at the 2009 HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta."

 

Is she who she is claimed to be, and did she say what she is claimed to have said?  Game over until a countervailing argument is made.

 

The sad truth is that certain truth can only be found on very opinionated, often intolerant, groups, and buried by MFM for "against certain agenda." FBI publishes crime statistics every year, and you know who read the report each year and draw very offensive conclusion from that. Being offensive doesn't mean crime statistics is wrong. You can click the link in the website to CDC statistics. Last time I check, CDC is still not "Conservative Disease Control." That also coincides with AIDS infection statistics that I have read world wide. Homosexual male is the single group of highest HIV-infected rate, that include prostitute.

 

And, when you correlate statistics with syphilis, hepatitis (A, B and C type), gonorrhea and other STD, you get the idea. You gotta be a very boring graduate student who spend a lot of waiting for data taking via computer, or a staunch conservative, in order to have enough time (and willingly) to go through these very boring facts. Unlike crime rate of certain people in the US, which is only a few times higher than other people, STD infection rate among homosexual is magnitudes, in plural, higher than heterosexual. Things are more sinister than general public is led to believe. There are indeed certain groups kept pushing the agenda, and they have Hollywood and liberal media backing them. There is no scientific evidence of "born gay" hypothesis, and documented gays made their switching of sexuality, both back and forth, which debunking "born gay" hypothesis. The stereotypical homosexual look and behavior is nothing more than media fabrication. The gay movement, as I learned from an old guy, an old, traditional liberal, is an identity-forming movement, a life style, and, thus, a personal choice, but he didn't see the hidden agenda of this, even though he feels disgust.

 

So, should I believe TV, Hollywood, movies and music industry? Or should I believe my own boring data compiling?

 

As for what the hidden agenda is, I bet you that a lot of people in the movement have no idea what that is about. They are so duped and drunk with this identity politics that they can't see otherwise. All I can say is that ancient homosexual behavior is very different from the one that the movement want we to believe, and the ones who created this movement do like the ancient model. This is no coincidence that ACLU chose to defend a particular association and are very interested in homosexual-related cases.

You can hardly believe this partly because you are a wise and intelligent man. Until that happens, I can't persuade you to believe otherwise. In the meantime, certain designated homophobe has been shouted down during his lecture in a college. Some people apparently don't want an honest discussion on the movement, especially on historical ground. So far, they have achieved the unthinkable. We all see whether they can push even further.

Sorry, Yelli, I didn't make my case clear enough.  Can you post a link to the actual CDC statement?  I just want confirmation of this from more than a conservative website.

 

The reason why is I'm trying to be fair (for all the good it'll do me, I know).  I'm constantly yelling at DA to prove his statements of being the Wise Old Man on all foriegn policy subjects, and I'll yell at Nan to prove that evangelicals are frothing lunatics who will fatwa Roland Emmerich's ass if he shows a Wal-Mart being eaten by Godzilla in his next movie.  I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, which I feel I will if I just nod and say, "Oh, absolutely, those gays can't keep it in their pants, and that's why AIDS is an epidemic."

 

You don't have to post the link if you don't wanna.  I'm also admitting I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't feel like finding it myself.

 

www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

 

The point is not to hate gays or denounce the action at face value. The point is, they are who they are. There is no need to denigrate or whitewash homosexual behavior, but somebody is apparently lying in order to achieve certain agenda. Just like you don't make yourself a racist by openly disagreeing with Al Sharpton, you aren't a homophobe, or gay-hater, or whatever, for pointing out the obvious.

sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/80/6/509

 

Reports on Syphilis outbreak among homosexual men in east London in early 2000s.

 

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016243.htm

 

Reports on increase in Hepatitis A among homosexual men in Australia in early 1990s.

 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3007890

 

Another government publication (NIH) on the same issue.

 

www.springerlink.com/content/m78532n1116l4549/    <= Academic report published in 2005.

 

Gonorrhea becomes drug-resistance first among homosexual men, then spread to heterosexual

www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1234105820070413

 And, last, this seems to be the case as early as 1980

aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/6/836