Raving Conservative: The Fruits of Gay Marriage

Thursday, January 05, 2006

The Fruits of Gay Marriage

I am opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexual civil unions, and every other form of government sponsorship of this aberrant behavior. I, like many who are opposed to homosexual marriage, have been saying how allowing homosexuals to marry will legitimize every other lunatic who wants to marry into an unnatural or unethical relationship.

The first proof of this is a man in the Netherlands who married two women at the same time. While polygamy is accepted in some cultures, and even encouraged in others, this next situation is almost universally condemned.

A British woman has just married a female dolphin.

What the (expletive deleted)?

I had a debate few months ago on the liberal website “A Beginner’s Mind”, which you will find linked under the Worthy Opponents section of my sidebar. In it I claimed that allowing homosexual marriage would allow people to marry into any bizarre and unnatural relationship they wanted, to include bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, and possibly even marriage to inanimate objects. The first proof that my assertions were correct came in the form of the polygamous marriage in the Netherlands. Now the next step in unnatural aberration has been taken and someone has married an animal. And not just any animal, but one of the same sex as well. This is a homosexual bestiality marriage. All I can say is “wow”.

Homosexual marriage has been legal in England for, what, two months, maybe less? Even more bizarre marriages are already popping up, as this insane marriage between woman and dolphin has proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Can anyone in his or her right mind, including the most rabid liberals, call this a good thing that we should condone?

In my debate over at A Beginner’s Mind the liberals I was debating said flat-out that it was not possible that we would go so far as to allow unnatural marriages between humans and anything that could not reasonably be expected to give proper consent. I told them to keep their eyes and ears open and just see what would happen in the places where homosexual mariage was legalized. This case has proven them all terribly wrong, and it is my hope that it would serve as a wake-up call to the entire liberal community that legitimizing ANY aberrant relationship is a gateway to legitimizing ALL aberrant relationships. If this won’t convince them then I am convinced that they are deluded beyond the point of reason.

The thing that really stabs me to the core is that the dolphin is in an Israeli aquarium. I don’t know everything about international law, but is this bizarre marriage even legal under international law? Is the dolphin considered an Israeli citizen for the purposes of this marriage, or is it a citizen of no nation, or even, due the fact that is not human, a citizen of whatever nation desires to claim it? The international quality of this aberration adds so much more strangeness to the mix that it boggles the mind. Is it possible that someone could marry this same dolphin? What happens in the event of a divorce? If the Israelis breed this dolphin is it considered adultery? Is the woman who married this dolphin entitled to a sexual relationship with the dolphin? Is the woman who married the dolphin entitled to move the creature to England so she can be with her wife? What happens if the Israelis release the dolphin back into the wild?

I repeat, what the (expletive deleted)?

Stay tuned folks. It’s only a matter of time before some thirty-year-old marries a nine-year-old or two somewhere in the civilized world. Don’t think it won’t happen. If a woman can enter a homosexual trans-species marriage, someone else can enter a polygamous pedophiliac marriage.

41 Comments:

"On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing..."

How is this the responsibility of gays?

By Dan Trabue, at 3:45 AM
"A British woman has just married a female dolphin."

What the (expletive deleted)! Just like you said!!!! It's unbelievable. I will mention this on my next post on Let Our Voices Be Heard....Laughing (although this is no laughing matter) neither is most of the stuff I post there! I will leave a link to your blog.

And the first question seems to be: "How is this the responsibility of gays?" Daniel never said it was the responsibility of gays. What he said was (but not in these words) that by allowing "unnatural" liasons to be accepted into society as legal marriage sanctioned by the government, even more bizarre liasons would take place. The sanctioning of gay marriage is the first step to all sorts of weirdess and this dolphin thing proves his point. It also proves my point because I have said the same thing. It also proves Rush Limbaugh's point because he has said the same thing, many times.

Daniel never said it was "the responsibility of gays. Obviously gays didn't force this woman to marry a dolphin. Sanctioning gay marriage simply opened the door.

Excellent and truthful post, Daniel. Don't let them twist your words.

By Gayle, at 5:02 AM
I've fallen for flipper.

By Neo-Con Tastic, at 5:23 AM
Okay, I blogged you and left a link to your post on Let Our Voices Be Heard...Laughing.

By Gayle, at 6:17 AM
The Associated Press piece about this story, dated January 3, 2005, said the following:

"On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the 'wedding' had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection."

So the "marriage" was not a legal thing supported by any government and instead was more of a ceremonial thing to display her affection for the animal. Is that so horrible? It was merely a symbolic event. The piece went on to say that she might consider marriage to a man in the future.

And it also said that the dolphin was male, for whatever that is worth. So no need to worry yourself about homosexuality with this story.

By Anonymous, at 7:22 AM
It was reported on O'Reilley that the Dolphin was female. Which report is correct?

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:48 AM
I searched 'woman dolphin' in Fox News and found both the O'Reilly article and the Associated Press piece. In the O'Reilly one, he did say that it was a female. But in the Associated Press piece, it said that it was a male. The quotes in the AP story made it seem like the dolphin was definitely male. Either way, the sex of the dolphin seems insignificant, really.

The link for the Fox article is:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180478,00.html

By Anonymous, at 8:29 AM
Daniel: It was reported on O'Reilley that the Dolphin was female. Which report is correct?

Need you even ask?

If you Google for “woman marries dolphin”, you will find numerous reports on this story. Many of them point out that this marriage is symbolic and has no legal standing. Some also point out that while the dolphin’s name is Cindy, it happens to be a male; not that it matters one iota.

This is just a crazy British woman expressing here love for her ‘pet’. Other crazy people buy ‘marriage certificates’ from MarryYourPet.com. It just shows that there are plenty of crazy people in the world. It’s only the right wing homophobes such as O’ Reilly who are trying to make something of this.

By Anonymous, at 12:14 PM
Am I the only one who knows that homosexuality was considered a sexual disorder, just like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality until just a few short decades ago? Am I the only one here who done the research and found that the removal of homosexuality from the official listing of mental disorders actualy had nothing to do with science or medicine, but was actualy done under pressure from activists?

Am I the only one here who understands that it won't be allowed to stop there? Indeed, that efforts are already being made, modeled after the efforts of the homosexual activists to do just this?

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:41 PM
Look at this scale, Daniel.

love homosexuals --- indifferent --- hate homosexuals

Let's say it goes from -10 for love through 0 for indifferent to +10 for hate.

Where do you place yourself on that scale?

By Anonymous, at 12:56 PM
Daniel:

1) Bill O'Reilly is notorious for saying inflammatory-but-inaccurate things and then, when confronted, either claiming honest error or denying ever having said such-and-such (often hiding behind distinctions such as whether something was said on the radio or the TV show). This is why he's constantly going on about left-wingers trying to smear him.

2) The following groups are legally incapable of entering into a contract: Animals, children, and the deceased. They are incapable of marrying or giving legal consent to have sex. A bright line should certainly be drawn between those who can and can't get married, but let that line be drawn somewhere sensible, not at sexual preference. Allowing gays to marry doesn't approach that legal consent line, let alone erode it. If you're worried about legitimizing bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, you'd be better-served by going after mentally-handicapped marriage. No, I'm not advocating banning 'tard marriage, but the mentally disabled are much closer to the legal-consent line than homosexuals are.)

By catastrophile, at 1:17 PM
By the way, on the topic of B.O'Re, if you haven't seen this video, I recommend it. I laughed my butt off.

By catastrophile, at 2:04 PM
Okay, so this woman "marries" a dolphin. We could say it's the fault of those who'd advocate for gay marriage. Or we could say it's the fault of those who advocate straight marriage.

It's a fairly random assertion to blame supporters of gay marriage on this woman's eccentricities. Her actions have naught to do with either gay or straight marriage.

Her actions are not legal and the people of Israel (where it occurred) are entirely within their rights to deny interspecies marriage. Why? Well, for many reasons, but as it relates to this topic, because dolphins don't have rights as human beings do.

This is a bit of an absurd conversation, but to deny marriage to dolphins is not inappropriate, as dolphins don't have legal rights, because they are not penalized by not being married (tax breaks, etc).

However, to deny marriage to two humans when you grant marriage (and all its benefits) to two other humans is to deny basic human rights. Therein lay the difference.

Seems to me.

By Dan Trabue, at 2:43 PM
Ctastrophile,

I have seen this video, and yes it is hilarious I watch Jon Stewart myself as you may recall.

By Daniel Levesque, at 4:13 PM
CJB,

Nothing I am saying here has anything to do with hatred, and everythin gto do with what is right, natural, healthy, and sanctified. However, I will play your game. On the scale you have given I would place myself at a -9.

I harbor no hatred or ill will for homosexuals, and long for them all to realize the personal disaster of the life they have chosen and set themselves aright and back on a natural sexual path. It saddens me that some people think must be homosexuals, and it saddens me even more that rather than helping these people escape their entrapment and self-destruction, people are encouraging them and helping them to destroy themselves.

By Daniel Levesque, at 4:47 PM
Daniel: On the scale you have given I would place myself at a -9.

I’m glad to hear it, Daniel, but the answer I was really looking for was that you don't consider homosexuals to be a group and that you would treat each person on their own merits regardless of whether they are gay or not.

I’m curious, Daniel; do you have any gay friends? Could you ever have any gay friends? Have you had any friends who, when they revealed they were gay, you considered to be no longer your friend?

I’m trying to obtain an idea of where you stand here. I suspect that you cannot tolerate homosexuality because the Bible says it’s wrong and that’s all there is to it.

By Anonymous, at 6:11 PM
CJB,

I have had both male and female homosexual friends, and stayed friends with them after I found out they were gay. I have also befriended people I knew to be gay ahead of time. The same goes for bisexuals and drag queens. At the same time, they all knew that I did not approve of the lifestyle choice they were making. There is a difference between condemning a behavior and condemning a person. We can condemn behaviors, but only God may condemn a person.

Surely you realize that condemning abberrant behavior is not an indicator of hatred toward the people themselves?

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:23 AM
So let me get this straight. You condemn the behaviour, but you quite like the person exhibiting this behaviour? After all, they can’t be held responsible for the way they behave, can they?

Why do you condemn this behaviour? Is it because the Bible condemns it or would you think that way regardless of what the Bible says?

By Anonymous, at 2:28 AM
CJB,

Do you really not undesrtand that ALL people have intrinsic value that makes them wort whatever goodness we can give them? This does not mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, it's just a matter how they are held responible. To top it off, do people not respond better to love ad kindness than condemnation and hellfire?

Since you place no value on religion allow me to make a purely secular, and scientific argument in opposition to homosexuality.

In nature, the sole purpose of sex is reproduction. Since 2 animals of the same gender cannot reproduce it is a violation of the simle natural principle and design of the activity. ALso, assuming evolution to be true (since I AM taking a secularist viewpoint here) there is no evolutionary benefit to propagating homosexuality. It is actually a dead-end in evolutionary terms since homosexuals do not breed. This being true, homosexuality, if it were biological in any way, would have been bred out of the genome long ago.

Given that the above is true, it is a perversion of nature that anyone should be a homosexual. Last I knew, we as people were not particularly interested in propagating such perversions in our society, as proven your own words against pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality.

Would you call this a fair enough assessment?

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:49 AM
Daniel,

Your evolutionary argument against homosexuality is false. There are plenty of diseases that are hereditary (cystic fibrosis springs to mind) that kill people before they have a chance to reproduce; yet the disease continues to propagate. Recessive genes cause these diseases so both parents must carry the gene for the disease to be expressed in the child. Because people can be carriers without having the disease, the disease persists in the population. I’m not saying that recessive genes cause homosexuality, but if they do then there is no reason why it should have disappeared by now.

You seem unwilling to admit that your sole objection to homosexuality is due to religion.

By Anonymous, at 11:48 AM
CJB,

The recessive you mentioned frequently manifest well after reproductive age, therby allowing them to be passed on. Homosexuality is supposed to manifest at or before reproductive age, and therefore could not be passed on. My logic remains sound.

By Daniel Levesque, at 4:08 PM
Daniel,

Your logic is hopeless. Recessive genes are responsible for many traits that manifest themselves well before reproductive age. Recessive genes cause blue eyes, for God’s sake. Cystic fibrosis first presents in early childhood.

It may also interest you to know that 97% of males with cystic fibrosis are infertile due to a lack of vas deferens and females with cystic fibrosis also have difficulty conceiving. Other forms of male infertility have genetic causes. So your argument that these traits will die out because they prevent reproduction is utterly false.

So why doesn’t evolution remove something as lethal as cystic fibrosis, you may ask? Well, it turns out that the people who have one copy of the CF gene (the carriers) have some extra protection from cholera so there is actually an evolutionary advantage to being a carrier.

So your argument against a possible genetic cause for homosexuality holds no water. It is not necessarily a learned behaviour. You cannot use this as a way to justify your religious intolerance.

By Anonymous, at 5:24 PM
CJB,

You assume a lot in your argument. For example, with no proof of any kind you assert that there must be some benefit to carrying some homosexuality gene (the discovery of which has been thoroughly debunked by the way).

This reminds me of something you have said in a previous argument. Something along the lines of putting God in the gaps. You are puting some unknown benefit in the holes of human knowledge regarding homosexuality, and you are doing so with less proof than there is supporting the existence of God. Indeed, you are doing so with fewer less tangible indicators pointing toward this unkown benefit than there are pointing toward God. That is some blind faith you have there. Isn't that something you attribute to deluded religious folk?

Provide solid proof of a biological benefit to a homosexuality gene before you compare it to recessive genes that provide a survival benefit when they do not manifest.

This said, you have yet to do so much as poke one hole in my argument. You will never be able to with your current line of reasoning. Your line of reasoning requires blind faith in an unkown benefit, exactly of the type you deride when it is applied to religion.

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:58 PM
What the hell are you talking about, Daniel? Where did I say that homosexuality confers some sort of evolutionary advantage? As an aside, I mentioned that cystic fibrosis carries an evolutionary advantage. You seem to have inferred from that statement that all recessive phenotypes must carry an advantage for the genes to survive. This is most certainly not the case.

You made this argument:

Daniel: It is actually a dead-end in evolutionary terms since homosexuals do not breed. This being true, homosexuality, if it were biological in any way, would have been bred out of the genome long ago.

The fact that there are persistent genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis that renders people infertile and kills them in their twenties, Tay-Sachs disease that kills people before they are five and some forms of thalassæmia that kill people immediately after birth thoroughly refutes your claim. It is quite possible for genetic disorders that prevent people from breeding to remain in the gene pool.

I’m not saying that homosexuality is genetic in origin, but it is possible that it is because your evolutionary argument against that possibility is worthless.

I think it is clear by now to anyone reading this thread and its sequel that your personal condemnation of homosexuality is due to your religious intolerance, pure and simple.

By Anonymous, at 1:02 AM
CJB,

YOu defended homosexuality in evolutionary terms by comparing it to cystic fibrosis, whic is a coniditon that providees an evolutionary advantage. By doing so you are inferring that homosexuality carries an evolutionary advantage. If you were not then your comparison is 100% invalid and I suggest you find a better one.

On further analysis you might want to note the exceeding rarity ofsuch invidual gentic disorders. Almost all of them affect less than 1% of the global population. The rate of homosexuality is confirmed at 2-3.5%, and homosexuals would have us believe that it is as high as 10%. No genetic dead-end in the world has such a high rate of occurrence.

You claim that religious intolerance is the motivating factor behind my, and other Christian's opposition to homosexuality. Allow me to educae you about a few things.

Intolerance is that bunch of hateful hyppocrytes who protest outside of the funerals of AIDS victims and run that hateful website www.godhatesfags.com. These people suck. Loving rebuke and seeking redemption is the gay and ex-gay ministry which helps people to escape the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle and provides them with a support structure once they do overcome their unnatural addiction. Yes. addiction is howI have personally heard many a homosexual describe his or her attraction to the same sex. I have also listened to many homosexuals lament their inability to escape their behavior, and how they wished they could just put it all behind them and be sexually normal. Of course, you have never these people. If you had met this large segment of the homosexual population that is seeking escape from the bonds of homosexuality you might actually know better than to accuse people like me of religious intolerance and even hatred.

Two final points. One: You know full well that religion is not in any way neccessary for people to be hateful and intolerant. We proved this in a previous discussion. Get over it and expand your mind. Two: You also know full well that there are behaviors that should NOT be encouraged due the harm the cause to the individual comiiting them, and others that should not be tolerated at all due to the harm they cause everyone else. I won't bother citing examples for you because if you can't think of any on your own there is something psychologicically or morallly wrong with you.

Just a quick question. The book of Revelation predicts that thee will come a time under the Antichrist when the law of the world will be that all Christians shall be executed by beheading. When this time comes, assuming it happens in your lifetime, will you defend the christians as vigorously as you defend the homosexuals? I wonder because many of your arguments in regards to Christianity come across as positively dripping with hatred. This begs another question. what happened in your life to cause this strident distaste for religion? There is always a story behind such opposition, and it is usually very interesting and very sad.

By Daniel Levesque, at 10:12 AM
Daniel,

I’m not defending homosexuality in evolutionary terms. I’ve said all along that I’m not saying it is genetic in origin. I’m just saying that I think your argument that it is impossible for it to be genetic in origin is false. I don’t know the cause of homosexuality in humans and animals, but it seems to be innate in some percentage of the population rather than learned, which could explain some people’s despair at their inability to escape it. They want to escape it because of the stigma imposed on it by society, but they can’t because it is a part of their physiological or psychological makeup that they just can’t change.

You seem to be saying that it is an entirely learned behaviour, like religion. You give vague indications of why you think this. It may be because you blame people for their homosexuality or it may be that you hope to educate them out of their homosexuality. Either way, you believe it causes harm. Hey, all of those are also how I feel about religion. Maybe I’m intolerant of religion. Of course I’m intolerant of religion; it causes way more harm than homosexuality ever did.

Daniel: You claim that religious intolerance is the motivating factor behind my, and other Christian's opposition to homosexuality.

Yes I do. Do you claim that no Christians are intolerant of homosexuality because of their religion. The hateful hypocrites and godhatesfags web site would seem to refute your claim.

Daniel: One: You know full well that religion is not in any way neccessary for people to be hateful and intolerant.

I totally agree, but just because it isn’t necessary doesn’t mean it isn’t a cause. I could say that homosexuality is not in any way necessary for people to cause harm to others. Would you agree with that?

Daniel: Two: You also know full well that there are behaviors that should NOT be encouraged due the harm the cause to the individual comiiting them, and others that should not be tolerated at all due to the harm they cause everyone else.

I totally agree with this as well. Suicide bombings by Islamic extremists and the stifling of education by Christian fundamentalists come to mind as examples.

Daniel: When this time comes, assuming it happens in your lifetime, will you defend the christians as vigorously as you defend the homosexuals?

You mean if this time comes, which is as likely as the sun becoming a supernova in my lifetime.

Daniel: This begs another question. what happened in your life to cause this strident distaste for religion?

It does indeed beg the question. What happened in my life to cause my strident distaste for religion was that I grew up. I saw from a very early age that religion is nothing more than fairy tales and lies used by people to quell their fears. Their desperation to cling to these fairy tales causes them to fight or kill anyone who doesn’t believe in the same imaginary friend. In the case of Christians and Muslims, they are killing each other over merely the name of that imaginary friend. This way of thinking is sheer insanity and it needs to stop if we are ever to live in peace.

So there was no childhood trauma and I’m not rebelling against something in my childhood. My parents are atheists, all the relatives that I know are atheists, my work colleagues are atheists and even my neighbours are atheists. No religious person has directly caused me personal harm (except for those annoying fruitcakes that disturb my solace by knocking on my door). But when I look out into the world and see the harm religion is causing, it fills me with dismay and I feel that I have to do something to teach people that they just don’t need it. They can’t all be morons so if enough of those who are not too far gone already—perhaps the younger ones—can be shown that it is just fairy tales then maybe we can stop this insanity before it does too much harm.

By Anonymous, at 1:13 PM
CJB,

This will take some research, but I will point you to the studies that demonstrate the psychological reasons, typically trauma, that causes homosexuality. Once you know the reasons iit is impossible to hate homosexuals, rather, it makes one fell kinda bad for them.

By Daniel Levesque, at 10:32 PM
Daniel: It saddens me that some people think must be homosexuals, and it saddens me even more that rather than helping these people escape their entrapment and self-destruction, people are encouraging them and helping them to destroy themselves.

I was wondering what it is exactly about their behavior that is self-destructive? Were it not for the onerous social pressures put on them by our present culture, I believe that the average homosexual would be just as happy as the average heterosexual. Most of them are, regardless of this. In fact, they are more happy now then before they came out, which which for many was the point at which they became confident and comfortable with themselves. At that point they can engage in the relationships that they seek, and thus will more likely be happy, contributing members of society. How is this so terrible? Does it really matter that the only difference between the a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple is that they cannot conceive children? There are plenty of situations in which heterosexuals do not or cannot conceive. I guess I am simply failing to see the self-destruction, and instead only see the destruction brought on by our society. It is that very encouragement that you derided above that I see as helping them the most because it shows them at least some people would like to see them happy.

By Anonymous, at 7:21 AM
CJB,

The roblem with all of what you have stated in regards to the happiness of homosexuals and functional similarity of homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships is completely wrong. Actually, it is the opposite of the truth. I am not surprised thatyou believe though. There has been a massive misinformation campaign on the part of the extreme homosexual activists going on for decades now.

Have you looke dinto the statistics regardinghomosexual marriages in those countries that allow them yet? Have you seen the divorce rate? The adultery rate? The domestic abuse rate? What about the illness rate among homosexuals in general as compared to heterosexuals? What about the significant rise in colon cancer among homosexual men? what about the increased suicide rate amonghomosexuals, even in countries where theyare allowed to marry? What about the fact that a far greater percentage of homosexuals are on antidepressants than the heterosexual population worldwide? What about all of the strong indicatos that can only be honestly interpereted to say that homosexuality is both physically and mentally unhealthy? Are you truly comletelyignorant of all of these facts? Or do you just ignore them because you do not want to believe the sources of the information?

Homosexuals need our help to escape their self-destruction. They do not need us to help them continue to destroy themselves.

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:52 AM
Daniel,

I am not the only voice of dissent. The comment you responded to came from paul, not me. Though I guess you can be forgiven for the error. I have been a rather constant critic lately.

By Anonymous, at 1:56 PM
CJB,

Thanks for pointing that out. You two sounded so similar in tone and content that I got mixed up. I will try to be more careful in the future.

By Daniel Levesque, at 4:17 PM
I preemptively apologize for the very long post. There is a lot to address.

First of all, statistics of divorce rates for homosexual couples are not very prevalent given the relatively recent introduction of gay marriages. That being said, I looked into the two countries I first thought of when I considered gay marriage: Canada and Denmark. As I am sure you know, Canada is a relative newcomer. However, within the first two years in which homosexuals were allowed to marry, not a single male couple had a divorce! Thousands of couples were married during this time. Denmark has been supporting homosexual marriages for over a decade now, the divorce rate among gay couples is less than that of heterosexual couples. This information came from www.religioustolerance.org.

I didn't look into the adultery rates among homosexuals, imagine that I could predict how those would play out. The males are most likely more promiscuous than the females, as is the general trend even in heterosexual people. Males are more interested in sex, and the females are more interested in commitment. I don't really want to check this out, and I apologize for any gross stereotypes and generalizations, but I would guess that this is the way that it is.

The domestic abuse rate actually parallels this. In our culture, males are taught to be more "masculine," whatever that means, and this tends to lead men to solving problems with physical actions. In heterosexuals, 85% of those physically assualted in the home are women, and this violence come from the males. As expected, the domestic violence rates among males is higher than in heterosexual couples. Yet, interestingly, the domestic violence rates for female couples is lower than that of heterosexual couples. This data is from the American Medical Association.

The rise in colon cancer I found to be related to exposure to the sexually transmitted infection of HPV (http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;97/12/896). Unfortunately due to the nature of the homsexual community, there are few sexual partners available, and the sexual networks tend to be much more intertwined than in heterosexual sex networks. This is indeed a unfortunate scenario, but precautions can be taken. Fortunately due to the recent relative acceptance of the gay subculture, they have become more informed of these risks and understand better how to cope with this scenario. As we learn more about this situation, more can be done to help. This will hopefully lead to a day where homosexuals are as well informed as heterosexuals, and the rate of HPV infection will go down, and thus colon cancer. .

The depression and suicide rates parallel each other, to be sure. And these rates are due to many things, I am sure. Homosexual couples are still a relatively new thing in the main stream, and have no established role models or ideals to live up to. They are constantly struggling with deciding what is the best manner in which to live their lives, now that they have more or less established their sexuality. given time, this will improve as more homosexual couples are formed and an established, working form is made. I find it interesting how despite having an agreed upon form of how a gay couple should be, they still manage to have a lower divorce rate than established straight couples in Denmark and Canada both.

And let's not forget that their are still huge social pressures on homosexuals, even in countries where they are allowed to be married. In Denmark, for example, homosexual couples are still not allowed to adopt children that did not come into the couple previously from one of the partners. And let's not forget that Judeo-Christian doctrine certainly does not support them. That is a large percentage of the population, unfortunately, that also denies them equal status.

Then add to that that the how within the gay community, there is no distinguishable characteristics that show that one is gay. What I mean is that there is not an easy way for one homosexual person to identify another. This leads to gay persons feeling isolated beyond what they already would if they could recognize other members of the gay community. This lack of community and feeling of isolation leads to depression as well. More acceptance and understanding would ameliorate this situation.

I don't blame the homosexuals for being depressed. It is not necessarily their behavior that brings this depression, but instead the fact that the gay culture has only been out largely in the public for a short time, and that the welcome it has received has been less than friendly. I would be a little depressed as well. That being said, the suicide rates for homosexuals are horrifying, and certainly tell me that something has to be done other than what is being done now.

Sorry again that this is so long.

By Anonymous, at 4:35 PM
Paul. the website you referenced lied to you. All of your information is false.

Some true statistics.

The average homosexual lasts 18 months.

The average number of adulterous relationships each partner has in a homosexual marriage is 8 different partners per year.

Domestic abuse rates among married homosexual men range from 25-50% higher than among heterosexual couples.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Do try to find better sources than the websites of activist groups.

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:37 PM
Daniel,

I am not sure how my information is false. I just found another couple of sources indicating that my numbers for the Denmark marriage rates are correct.

The American Medical Association verfies my numbers about domestic abuse. Although if you look, I did say that the rates for domestic abuse among homosexual males is higher than that of heterosexual couples. I also said that the rates of abuse among lesbian couples was lower than for heterosexual couples. Any sociologist or psychologist could probably explain this phenomenon. Men are generally more physical in nature, and this is only bolstered by our culture. As a result, males tend to be more willing to use physical violence. And, given what I also said about the lack of precedents in homosexual couples, hopefully in time, as more homosexuals know what to expect in gay relationships, these rates might go down.

I just found some studies, albeit done in the 1990's, which suggest that the average number of partners that a gay male has in his lifetime is 4.2. This would make it hard for them to have 8 partners while in a marriage. A second shows this number to be 7.3 partners per lifetime for heterosexual men. The citation is as follows:

J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60

You can see why I am skeptical as well.

By Anonymous, at 5:17 AM
Whoever claimed that the average number of partners homosexuals have in is 4.2 is simply wrong or lying, especially if that is a lifetime claim. Admittedly, lesbians have fewer partners than male homosexuals. But one of th emost notable aspects of the male homosdexual lifestyle is the extreme promiscuity. I have watched this myself amonh friends of mine who were homosexuals. They averaged 1 new boyfriend every month, and, depending on th eindividual, cheated on their current boyfriend with 1-3 other men during that month. Frequently, the new boyfriend was someone the guy cheated on his old boyfriend with.

I'm not surprised you found such a study though. There are a great deal of very dishonest studies out there that have been done for the sole purpose of misinforming the public and legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle. Take any position in support of homosexuality and you will find a study that supports it. Then look deeper and you will find that that study has been thoroughly discredited by multiple prior and following studies. Other supposed "studies" that you will encounter, especially online, never happened at all, and have been proven as pure fabrications. All it takes is a little research. Try it. You will become educated.

By Daniel Levesque, at 6:19 AM
One side note I forgot to mention that proves your source to be full of lies.

Homosexual marriage has not ben legal anywhere for the last ten years. It was first legalized in the Netherlands just 3 years ago.

Get your facts straight.

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:11 PM
I believe that in 1989, Denmark began "registered partnerships," which essentially gave them the same rights as heterosexual couples (Act 372 of 7 June 1989). By 1997, the dominant Lutheran church began blessing these partnerships. I believe I have got that one under control.

I have not been around your blog for long enough to fully understand what your situation is in the Army, but I am sorry for the troubles that you have been put through. I wish you the best of luck in the future.

By Anonymous, at 1:55 PM
And prior to that homosexuals utilized a lesser known legal union called a "Cohabitation Contract" as a steping stone to civil unions, and eventually to marriage. Exactly the way the polygamists and polyamorists are doing right now. Can you guess what the next legal step will be?

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:09 AM
I've seen a number of conservative bloggers claim that Sharon Tendler's wedding proves that legalizing gay marriage will lead to a "slippery slope" that will end with legalizing marriage to animals (or worse). And you know what? It just ain't so. Please see my article Married Dolphins: The Next Right-Wing Bogeyman to learn why.

By Anonymous, at 2:57 PM
A woman marrying a dolphin?
Was it a lesbian dolphin?

Oh for God's sake, don't be so ridiculous! Cheap shots are just so boring and predictable.

People marrying animals is not legal nor anything like two consenting adults formalising their relationship in law.

By DanProject76, at 11:28 AM
"what about the increased suicide rate amonghomosexuals, even in countries where theyare allowed to marry? What about the fact that a far greater percentage of homosexuals are on antidepressants than the heterosexual population worldwide?"

Maybe this is because of all the vile hatred we have to deal with. Think about it. What if America had a huge Anti-Christian vibe and you grew up scared to admit even to yourself that Jesus was your imaginary friend? Wouldn't that cause you some issues?

And once again may I point out that sexuality is not a'choice.' And I had no big trauma, have never been abused, I was raised in a normal heterosexual family and my parents are still married.

But even if it was a choice, would this make discrimination and bigotry OK?

"Paul. the website you referenced lied to you. All of your information is false."

So you're going to give us some proper proven facts then?

"Some true statistics: The average homosexual lasts 18 months."

I am 32 years old. Why haven't I expired?

"The average number of adulterous relationships each partner has in a homosexual marriage is 8 different partners per year."

Are you on crack? Where did you get this figure from? Did your imaginary friend tell you to type it? This is insane. I don't think I can take you seriously any more, man.

By DanProject76, at 1:31 PM

Raving Conservative

Thursday, January 05, 2006

The Fruits of Gay Marriage

41 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous

Proud Member of the Alliance