Monday, December 10, 2007

The Downside As I See It

This post is in response to a request of sorts by Les who insisted that I prove to him that a downside exists to the pro-homosexuality movement. Most of what I'll write here is personal opinion, of course, but it's based on things I've read from various sources. Some of those sources include, but are not limited to, Americans for Truth, Concerned Women for America and articles from Conservapedia.com, as well as various columns, articles and interviews to which I've been exposed over the course of time. Though some of the sources may be faith based, I would hope that supporters of the movement would suspend outrage and focus on the points presented. But to that point I would like to say that I believe totally in the ability of faith to promote incredible degrees of change within a person, whether that person has faith in a deity or only his own self, as long as that faith is strong. An important point to remember.
At the outset, I want to emphasize that I in no way, shape or form condone harrassment or attacks on anyone simply for their being a homosexual. They are still people, of course, and are equally deserving of kindness and respect like anyone else. It serves no noble cause to point them out, ridicule or physically assault them.
Next, I feel strongly the need to declare that the concept of homophobia is a big, steaming pile of crap. I reject any accusations to that affect, so spare yourselves the keystrokes.

When Les and I were discussing like mature adults this topic, I left off with what I called the first evidence of the downside. We find ourselves in our current situation as a result of what has gone before, namely, the sexual liberation movement of the 50's and 60's. What is going on now could never have begun without it. Thus, this is a natural progression of the bigger picture problem of promiscuity, a tangent which has become its own distinct negative on our society. As this snowball has been working its way downhill, we are seeing a push from polygamists for consideration using the same arguments of the homosexuals. (This is apart from the dude recently put in jail for polygamy, some radical and abusive Mormon rejected by the larger organization.) And in the last year, a film was given some props at a festival, I believe it was Sundance, on the topic of bestiality. But Rick Santorum was just a homophobic boob. Sure, these are not on the scale of the homosexual movement. Give it time, especially if all goals are met by the movement. So support for the homosexual movement is like pushing that snowball faster down the hill of the moral degradation that began fifty years ago and continues to this day.

The obvious downside is in the realm of public health. I read where one medical person stated that homosexual sex is ideal for the transmission of disease. As in, custom made for it. In an earlier discussion, Les was quick to point out that many of the sexual practices of homosexuals are engaged in by heterosexual couples. This is true. But the frequency of of outbreaks of STDs is highest among homosexuals. One source stated that as much as 80% of new AIDS cases still come from the homosexual community, roughly 2-5% of the population. The same holds true for many other diseases, such as syphillis. This is due to the fact that, just as using tools for purposes not intended by their design damages them, so too with the human anatomy. Right from the start, the physical expressions of homosexual lust are harmful. Not so the primary physical expression of hetero lust. To support the homosexual agenda is to invite problems that could overburden our health care system and without a doubt, health care insurance. It would be akin to being forced to insure stunt people or rather, insuring everyone against the possibility that they would engage in dangerous stunts. Things will get more expensive. And this would be true keeping in mind the 2-5% aspect.

I'm going to end it here as I have serious reservations regarding the space limitations of a single post.

8 comments:

Les said...

"The obvious downside is in the realm of public health."

If that's your chief concern, then why not also target the legality of sex outside the marital bond altogether? Sounds to me like the danger of sexually transmitted disease is being used as a cover to single out gay sex. Again, don't you think a gay couple committed and faithful to each other is leaps and bounds more publicly-health conscious than, say, Magic Johnson?

Here's a better solution - how about instead of banning something, we direct our attention to educating people about safe sexual practices? News flash - there is NO sexual conduct, hetero or homo, that's 100% safe when multiple partners are in play.

Another thing to consider is the notion that sex isn't always the primary motivation for marriage. What if two people just love each other and want to make an officially recognized declaration as such, just like their hetero counterparts? Where's the harm in that?

Marshall Art said...

"...why not also target the legality of sex outside the marital bond..."

The legality of homosex is not in question. Lawrence v Texas took care of that. We're looking to protect the traditional marriage arrangement. Out of wedlock marriage of anykind would not receive state sanctioning or benefits. As to monogomous gay couples, the data seems to indicate that this is more rare than with heteros, but more importantly, the health concerns are not lessened through monogamy if the sex practices themselves are harmful.

Once again, not banning. But, what safe sexual practices are there for them? Kiss and a handshake? Again, the practices in which they engage, beyond kissing and handshakes, are harmful. And again, the harm isn't lessened through monogamy, only by not doing it.

"Another thing to consider is the notion that sex isn't always the primary motivation for marriage."

I've gotten protestations for this one, so I have to say it more plainly (not for you, per se): It is rare, if it happens at all, that ANY human isn't compelled to lifelong commitments without the sexual urges being a primary motivation. The next closest thing is "roommates". I don't think that's what you're talking about. And if sex isn't a part of it, that's all it is and what set of roommates cares about making a formal announcement about their "union"? Once again, if this is allowed by law, or forced on us by the courts, what arrangement, pairing, grouping, etc., of people could ever be denied? No harm to the institution?

Les said...

"The legality of homosex is not in question."

I know it's not. Your playing of the "public health" card is. And we've been down this "dangerous sex practices" road before. Go back and reread our conversation for my take on the absurdity of the "costs related to 'dangerous' activities" argument. I'm so over this.

"Out of wedlock marriage..."

Huh?

Mark said...

Over at my place, I wondered (in text) why High School students don't take showers in Gym class anymore. I am thinking it's because since school administrators have to allow the propagation of the homosexual lifestyle, straight students have taken the issue into their own hands to prevent any homosexual students from ogling them when they are naked.

See, the primary problem with the Libs promoting the homosexual lifestyle as normal behavior, is that straight people don't really buy it, and neither do homosexuals.

We know they aren't normal and so do the homosexuals. Homosexuals know it better than we do. But who wants to admit they are mentally ill?

As for the rest of us, most people learn early that if we want to get along with people, we must go along.

Thus, we pretend homosexuality isn't a disgusting degenerate perversion, even though we know in our hearts it most certainly is.

Marshall Art said...

Oh shit! I meant "out of wedlock SEX".

The public health card is an appropriate card to play here since the sources I use maintain that this small percentage of people have done the lion's share of keeping the STDs going strong. Part of it has to do with the damage they are doing to their own bodies which make it easier for the body to be infected. Again, the notion of safe sex for these people is basically a lie unless it means limiting themselves to the least passionate activities, like handshakes. And really, Les. They've been "teaching" safe sex for years in their publications and such. But the techniques can't get around the fact of what the body parts are for. The only truly safe sex for them is no sex.

Les said...

"The only truly safe sex for them is no sex."

And again, if that's the route you want to take, you might as well start the campaign to outlaw all but vaginal sex. Why single out gay anal sex for criticism here? Shouldn't hetero blowjobs and butt sex also be targeted by that very rationale?

Marshall Art said...

"And again, if that's the route you want to take, you might as well start the campaign to outlaw all but vaginal sex."

The issue isn't outlawing the sexual behaviors, it's about downsides of the gay agenda and/or marriage. This is merely one of many reasons that constitute downsides. And once again, despite the fact that others engage in the same sexual behaviors, my point is regarding what constitutes the primary sexual practices and in the case of homosexuals, their's is inherently harmful.

Marshall Art said...

I'd like to direct you to CultureCampaign.blogspot.com and scroll down to the link that speaks of the health risks of homosexuality. There you'll find more regarding just how distinctly dangerous and unhealthy it is. Further, I think it points out something that I've believed for a long time, that the mental health establishment had thrown in the towel on these lost souls and left them for dead. I think it's pretty clear from the heavily footnoted piece here and other sources I've offered, just how confused and mentally ill these people truly are. Allowing them to meet the goals of their agenda is not doing them any favors.