1) RE-Establish Israel as the Jew's homeland 2)Israel is only at war b/c the lunatics surrounding them (it is undoubtedly the most hostile environment on Earth) refuse to let Israel exist in peace....as they would gladly and REPEATEDLY have tried to do 3)how could someone even suggest that Israel,Jordan and Lebanon become "one country".....ludicrous. Israel is the LONE DEMOCRATIC society in the region; has prospered and blossomed in what was a barren desert whereas Lebanon and Jordan are, for the most part much terrorist supporters and sympathizers bent on the destruction of both Israel and US.

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"

I am not one of those highly educated people who can quote from the great minds of today and yesterday, I have to actually think for a living. Try it, it can be illuminating.

Hack, you are welcome, and I welcome the more congenial tone. I admit to being testy at times, mainly at the interpretations some wrote into my comments.

But about the same sex marriage issue, we are on different sides there. The family unit, the nucleus of society, has for many years now taken a beating from the more permissive, relaxed morality the Social Revolution has brought down on us. All cultures have suffered from the “Accept/Appreciate/Tolerate” philosophy that has gone way beyond what I believe was hoped for. We now think we are to accept the unacceptable, appreciate what should be displeasing, and tolerate the intolerable.

Marriage should be “TILL DEATH DO WE PART.” for the sake of the partners, their children, their grand children, and for society. I know, that isn’t nor was it ever always possible or a good thing, but in today’s world with it’s new shallow norms of behavior that denigrates love and commitment amongst men and women, has people shacking up, sleeping together casually, being selfish, irresponsible, disloyal, and uncommitted ; the old adages of “Chose a date who would make a good mate”, and know the person’s and their family’s reputation well before dating them, archaic, and to many minds ... dumb.

The family Unit, producer of our most valued and necessary resource ... our next generation. A man and a woman join together in matrimony; blessed and sanctified in a society that honors that union, protects and supports that union, welcomes the union into it’s midst. At great risk to the health of the mother and potential for grief of one or both parents, children are born. Not only does the children bring on more expense, it brings 24/7/365/lifetime work and commitment. All along the way hazards abound as expenses grow, chances for heart break enormous, as is grief. The sacrifices made by parents can’t be measured, from conception till death, hopefully the parents first.

Society recognizes the demands placed on parents, the sacrifices and hard work, the love and commitment, the risks. Under the bonds of marriage, society accords the family with benefits, protections, tax breaks, SSI assistance, health and death insurance from work place for family,( gays have already destroyed much of that) educational facilities, etc. These benefits come no where near meeting the expenses in money, much less the priceless care, love, energy, and time given by the parents as they raise the children who will someday care for everyone now caring for them, be the society of tomorrow. Parents are loving heroes who put forth heroic effort for everyone.

The Gay and Lesbian League doesn’t see it that way. They insult parenthood and parents everywhere, especially their own. Gays want Same Sex Marriage, and all the benefits society stingily accords the family unit ... especially the social blessing and validity as a sexual orientation as legitimate as heterosexuals. Why they think they deserve it I have no idea, but what are they truly suggesting?

Same sex marriage means anyone can marry anyone regardless of sex ID or sexual Orientation ... everybody can marry everybody, and receive the benefits accorded the institutions of Marriage, producer of our children. Well, if everyone gets them, who pays for those benefits? Everyone, of course. What is there left to protect and help the family unit? Nothing! The word marriage, and institution of marriage, becomes meaningless.

Example ... Two young male or female solders living in the barracks because they can’t afford to live off base decide to get married for the housing allowance, food allowance, clothing allowance, and extra pay because they are now married. They take from the true family unit till there is nothing left for the families of servicemen and women.

Two guys, one works for the electric company, the other has a private business. They want a boat. Insurance cost for the self employed man is five hundred dollars a month. They get married, the self employed man is placed unto the health and life insurance of the man working for the electric company saving $500 a month. Other marriage benefits net them another five hundred a month. They both buy boats to take their girl friends on weekend sleepover’s on the lake. That steals from the true family unit. How long before family provided insurance from companies are totally dropped? Before the advent of AIDS, it was free, a benefit intended for families ... can’t afford it any longer.

The rapid forcing of all cultures together over the past fifty years with the hopes the best of each will rise to the top if tolerance is employed has had just the opposite effect ... the worst values and behaviors of each are what we have ... with the inevitable results. It is time to restore moral sanity. In the Black culture, over 80% of the children are illegitimate, each child usually with a different father they probably don’t know, seldom see if they do. It wasn’t like that fifty years ago. The White culture has taken just as dramatic a turn to the worse. Illegitimacy amongst Whites is now at 23%, and the stigma on mother and child is no longer the social disgrace it once was. (Thank Goodness, BUT)

Taboos and stigmas exist to enforce acceptable behavior. Right or wrong, it works. Shame a motivator for good behavior? I don’t even like to think about! On the other hand, if it keeps illegitimacy to say 6%, how much good does that do the 16% who now have both parents in a home blessed and sanctified by a society pledged to protect and support the family unit? I know, once upon a time a proposal of marriage was prefixed with “You Are What?”, but marriage did take place, and nice people didn’t count the months. I could argue this proposition both ways, how can a child be shamed for something that child didn’t do? Change in that respect was needed, and welcome.

While you are discussing successful propaganda, what about the term "tolerance"?

It seems the term has taken on a whole new meaning in an age of politically correct speech. If you make any comment, such as your comments above, are you making an observation, expressing an opinion, displaying intolerance, or engaging in hate speech? I'm sure there are posters on this site who will accuse you of all four.

Civil public discourse has been hijacked by those on both ends of the spectrum who use the polarization for their own benefit.

I disagree with your hypothesis, Dr. Muddle! (what a surprise, eh?)

I regard the word "homophobia" as a legitimate word and condition. My understanding is that a phobia is an irrational fear of something, which is an accurate description of many peoples' feeling about homosexuals.

I believe your observation about this Singer fellow is a bit of a canard, I suspect the vast majority of people would consider bestiality a "perversion" or a sign of "deviant behavior". It's a "social norm" to shun a zoophililiac (sp?). Likewise incest and sex between adults and those not of legal age are considered deviant behavior.

I think the "social norm" is much more muddled (excuse the pun) when you consider homosexual behavior. We've essentially decriminalized consensual sex between consenting unmarried heterosexual adults in this day and age....should that decriminalization not extend to consenting unmarried heterosexual adults as well? What is the moral basis for discriminating against one "class" of adult sexual relations?

I think we have a good basis for a lively discussion here, and look forward to your response!

My mother lives alone in a beach condo in Florida. I often worry about her as she is not getting any younger.

Thankfully, I have a good friend who also lives in the condo who looks out for her. Larry literally would do anything to help my mom, and has already gone out of his way many times to do just that. He's always friendly to my wife and me when we visit, is always interesting to talk to as he is a very bright and educated college professor. He's witty and multi-talented. He even thinks I'm a pretty good guitar player! Overall, he's just really a good guy.

He's also gay. He and his partner share the penthouse.

I genuinely like this fellow. He and I were diagnosed with cancer at almost exactly the same time--melanoma in his case; prostate cancer in mine. We stayed in touch as we went through treatments, and prayed for one another. (So far so good in both our cases.) He's made it clear that his family does not approve of his lifestyle, and it is also pretty clear that he is disturbed by that fact.

Whatever conclusion I reach about the morality of homosexuality must be compatible with my appreciation and respect for this very good friend.

For one thing, regardless of one's attitude on the morality of that lifestyle, I think it is simply a mistake to allow sexual orientation to define the whole person. People tend to be complex. Our appreciation for one another probably should also be complex. A favorite author of mine wrote that when we perceive shadows within a person's soul, often it is due to light shining elsewhere within it. I hope that's true of me, because I have shadows that you likely have not seen.

And, thinking in the other direction, my general appreciation for the person should not dictate what I think about the gay lifestyle. I know of no sound argument that proceeds from Jones is a homosexual to Therefore, homosexuality is morally valid.

I agree sexual orientation doesn't define the person, but the sex drive is THE dominant drive of our personalities ... created/evolved that way to insure we reproduce, and that we bond so the children, hopefully, have two parents. Love and sex drive, powerful combination!

However, the condition known as homosexuality, at least the practice of it, causes problems to the homosexual and to society. You think it doesn't cost you? Checked out the cost of medical insurance these days? I know, the cost of bearing children is high, but that is an essential expense. but it is the cost of treating diseases rampant amongst the Gay culture has that the medical community on the ropes, insurance out of sight ... not to mention the risk to the health of society at large.

in the moral factors of this issue, I would like to note the following abstract from JAMA:

Results The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

Conclusions These analyses show that smoking remains the leading cause of mortality. However, poor diet and physical inactivity may soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death. These findings, along with escalating health care costs and aging population, argue persuasively that the need to establish a more preventive orientation in the US health care and public health systems has become more urgent.

JAMA

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Homosexuality was cured in 1973

Gays, the Gay culture (the only culture and would be sex which can’t reproduce itself) jumped big time on the Social Revolution wagon of the sixties.

1973 APA Convention, a new version of the DSM listing and describing mental illnesses was composed. The old description of mental illness was changed, and the mental illness known as homosexuality was cured. After years of intense lobbying, coercion, bribes, and at least twice being voted down, a small but strong and energetic, fanatical even, contingent of the voting membership of the American Psychological Association as well as being members of The gay and lesbian League from whom all of the pressure was being financed and exerted, managed to cure the mental illness of homosexuality. How? They voted it cured! They not only voted it cured, they voted it sane, natural, and normal. It was close; even with 2/3 the voting members abstaining it barely passed, but pass it did, and homosexuality was suddenly a third sexual orientation ... soon to be third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and how many other sexual orientations needed, all of them perfectly natural and normal ... to hell with biology.

None of the other mental illnesses involving deviant sexual behavior sexual phillias, fetishes, perversions were involved at that time. One step at a time was the motto. Now lesbians and homosexuals could stand shoulder to shoulder with heterosexual as part of Nature and Gods designs. Soon a segment of the gay and Lesbian League ... the National Association of men and Boys Love Association (NAMBLA) started lobbying for their rights, as well as getting all laws off the books concerning sodomy. Active Gays attacked the Boy Scouts wanting full rights to be Scout and Troop Leaders. Others assaulted bans against being teachers, priest, day care workers, military personnel, etc., etc., etc. They started clubs and sensitivity classes in our schools dedicated to the gay agenda, encouraging experimentation with same sex partners and working to eliminate any and all aversions to same sex activities ... acceptance and toleration the by words.

Enlightened fools championed their cause, even when they attacked the family unit, demanding those same benefits society wisely afforded parents having and raising our most important resource at great personal cost, love, and energy 24/7/365/lifetime.
Some idiots couldn’t see allowing anyone of any sex to marry anyone of any sex and receive those benefits set aside to help parents and their children completely destroyed those benefits and the institution of marriage. Anybody to marry anybody at any time regardless of sex ID or orientation means marriage isn’t a word anymore, meaningless. The only reason gays wanted marriage rights was because they are constantly looking for something to validate themselves and their deviancy.

A lot of folk have swallowed their crap hook, line, and what ever else they can get down their throat, or vice versa. Those people say “What Gays do is their own business, it doesn’t effect me” Looked at your cost of medical insurance lately? Turned on your TV lately? I get the grand kids out of the room when I turn the TV on to make sure two guys aren’t locked in some open mouthed passionate kiss, it scares them to see a guys head turned around backwards. I am sick of seeing Ellen D. straddle hunch a coffee table as she wiggles her way to the end. Heck! Even the TV channel has some effeminate girly boy annoy you with his views of design and fashion while you watch to see what is on.

People on TV don’t kiss anymore, they copulate, and with any sex ID. I watch Andy of Mayberry, Little house on the Prairie, Gun smoke, Bonanza, History channel, sports, and news.

It is reported a million Americans have died from AIDS, 600,000 with full blown cases with 50,000 of the dying each year, and growing again, probably a couple million HIV infected. That is what is reported, you can bet it is triple that in all three cases. AIDS is still out there, still incurable, still growing ... and still majority in the gay community. It is expensive to treat AIDS, and we treat them longer as they infect even more. Because of political influence from the gay community, AIDS is still a protected disease, you can’t even warn an infected person’s lover. AIDS still isn’t listed as an STD.

Hepatitis C is now considered a gay prevalent disease, and is epidemic. All STD’s and many more diseases not considered STD’s but can be transferred sexually (like Hep C) are two to three time the norm infection rate in the promiscuous gay communities. Suicide and mental illness far higher amongst Gays. What gays do doesn’t impact on you? BULL!

1993, 80,000 people died from AIDS; At least that many more died from AIDS but not attributed to AIDS. In 2005 that number was artificially lowered to 45,000. Add that to you’re “Death’s by STD’s”, probably only syphilis counted with three times that number masked. What sub-culture leads in every category of STDs? What sub-culture far and away the vast majority of AIDS victims? What sub-culture far and away most cases of Hep C? What sub-culture highest in suicide and emotional illness?

Please cite your sources.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The AIDS numbers go up and down all the time based on what dieases are chosen to fall under its umbrella. For insance, several years age if you a woman died of cervical cancer in the presence of the HIV virus, she died of cervical cancer. Now if a woman dies of cervical cancer in the presence of the HIV virus, she died of AIDS. Get it? It doesn't matter if you don't like them or are afraid of them or afraid of becoming one of them. And i'm sorry but, What? Medical insurance in high because of homosexuality? Not obesity and its cousin diabetes, or cancer, or alcohol, or no exercise, or mal-practice, or just plain out right greed. How could I be so blind? And if your sick of watching Ellen then watch your Andy Griffith (Gomer was gay, by the way). As to the notion of two sexes, i would be hard pressed to argue against the two sex theory. Some a-sexual species, or gender changing species not with standing, for us to continue on this planet, the whole man-woman thing seems to be the safest bet. But ours is not a perfect world and there are times when genes get expressed in ways that don't fit the norm. (i, personally, don't accept the 'designed' or 'intended' portion of your argument but that is a whole other thread.) But the point is this: They are still human beings deserving of the rights and priviledges afford all else. Not any more and not any less. If they want to get married, fine by me.

All the merry little elves can go hang themselves!

I didn't start this forum/topic, I responded. I am not certain this is the place, and it is clear some of you are not the people, I care to discuss it at or with. Nothing I say, no proofs however powerful, will change anyone like you.

I become angry and frustrated when my family, community, nation is placed at risk due to people refusing to think, to open their eyes to truth. I include everyone ... Gay, straight, asexual, whatever.

Last I heard all the causes of homosexuality, or sexual deviances in general, was still a mystery. That it is illogical can't be disputed. For sure and undisputed, early sexual experiences impact strongly on the rapidly developing sex drives orientation and health, as well as overall emotional health of the adolescent then and for life.

Your quote:

"For sure and undisputed, early sexual experiences impact strongly on the rapidly developing sex drives orientation and health, as well as overall emotional health of the adolescent then and for life."

What do you think Dick and Lynn Cheney allowed to happen to their daughter in her "early" development? How about Alan Keyes, Rev Ted Haggard's parents, or Senator Craig's folks? What did these parents allow to happen that turned their kids gay? And why can't gay people enjoy the experience of divorce like over 50% of heterosexual married couples get to experience? How does your marraige or any one else's directly effect me? Honestly. How?

Kevin "Hack" King

touchy ps here: Do you think we should pass laws only allowing sexual relations as nature intended them between married heterosexuals (thereby avoiding adultry/fornication and "unnatural" acts)?

Mr. AF 10

If you read my post you know I believe all the causes of a person being Gay is still being researched. It would have had a lot more funding and research had the gay and lesbian League not had it decalred as normal and logical sexual orientation is heterosexual ... but. I believe it involves both Nature and Nurture, can be singularly or combined.

I do stand by what the majority of people in the field of study say, introduction of a child or adolescent to homosexual activity, especially when done by someone respected and admired, an authority figure able to bestow affection, acceptance, and praise; can wreak havoc on the development of that child/adolescent's sexual orientation. How is it that people can so readily agree that a child/adolescent abused by a pedophile, especially for a long period of time, stands a good chance of becoming a pedophile themselves; yet totally disagrees it can happen if the perpetrator is homosexual? Both crimes involve a perversion of the sexual orientation.

I suspect Dick Cheney was heart sick with worry and concern for his daughter. I am certain left wing liberals and the Gay and Lesbian League was elated, but Cheney couldn’t have cared less about that. His daughter did nothing wrong. I am certain he wasn‘t angry, nor his love for his daughter shaken a bit, nor will it be. He is her dad; his pride still abounding, his job as protector still assured. I have no doubt the daughter is every bit as deserving of that unconditional love, compassion, protection as ever, Gay or Straight is not an issue there. Nor is it an issue amongst individual friendships with straights and gays. It only becomes an issue when PAC’s formed by a sub-culture of Gays and Lesbians assault society and the family unit with reckless behavior and political demands harmful to everyone, Gays too.

This is such a tuff subject, but I want to take the time to say thank you for your open and honest debating on this. I'm not the wacky left winger some may think I am. I like ideas flowing freely without the anger that has pretty much dominated the majority of political debates since I can remember. You hit a key point with this:

" I have no doubt the daughter is every bit as deserving of that unconditional love, compassion, protection as ever, Gay or Straight is not an issue there. Nor is it an issue amongst individual friendships with straights and gays. It only becomes an issue when PAC’s formed by a sub-culture of Gays and Lesbians assault society and the family unit with reckless behavior and political demands harmful to everyone, Gays too."

I think you nailed it. Gays are just people; deserving of love and fulfillment and compassion. MAry Cheney wanted badly to be a mother. She wanted a plutonic soul mate. She has both child and partner, and I would not feel threatened at all if Mary and mate were pronounced wife and wife. I would have no problem with them adopting as many children as they could care for, assuming they passed a home study. We have an adopted son, and he would be better off being raised by two women than the crack addict who gave him nothing but birth.

Anyway, thanks for the openness. I'm like Fred Thompson. I have no problem with people passing laws I don't agree with. I'll just keep trying to encourage them to see another point of view.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

First of all, gays are not the reason my health insurance costs are soaring. Do a little research on high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, commercial feed lots, and the rest of the frankenfood industry and get back to me on your thoughts about health in America. Obesity, smoking, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer are making us sick in America - not homosexuals!

And where do you get your stats on suicide? Multiple sources that I found said that the highest suicide rate in America is in the males over-65 group, and I don't think it's because they are all gay!

And seriously, are you living in the 1980s? AIDS is not a "gay disease". Unfortunately the gay community was where it first rapidly spread here in America, but have you looked at the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa at all? Do you know what populations have been wiped out in Africa because of HIV? It is primarily a heterosexual disease in Africa, and it has literally wiped out entire towns/villages, especially what would be considered the "working middle class" of those villages (my sister is a professor of African studies, and she tells horror stories from her trips to Africa of ruined communities because of AIDS). Children, too, are dying of AIDS in Africa, because they got it from their HIV-positive mothers. It isn't a "gay" disease - it is a virus that is spread through direct contact of bodily fluids. And let's get back to America and look in what populations HIV/AIDS is spreading: 50% of all new HIV infections are in the African-American population (and NOT just gay African-Americans, so AIDS is no longer the "gay white man's disease" - you don't have to be gay or white to be infected with HIV!), and 30% of all new infections are in women (75% of those new infections are in HETEROSEXUAL women!).

Finally, just for the record - homosexual behavior has been documented in animals, too. Science is slowly beginning to unravel the physiology behind homosexuality, but you can continue to live in your uneducated cave and believe that it is a "deviant behavior" that "bad" people choose. If one of your children or grandchildren ever comes out of the closet, I pity them, because it sounds like they won't be able to count on your understanding and support.

Hmmmmmm - and maybe, just maybe the APA knew what it was doing when it took homosexuality out of the DSM? I challenge you to find one, just one, gay/lesbian person who says he or she chose to become homosexual because they saw two guys kissing on TV or took a "sensitivity training" course on homosexuality or had a gay math teacher in high school and thought to themselves, "Hey - that looks like a great lifestyle for me!" What a ridiculous idea that any of those things could make someone gay! Talk to a homosexual person, and they'll tell you that they knew from their earliest memory that they were "different" and attracted to the same sex.

Ignorance and intolerance really gets under my skin.

First, ain't it a hoot that, as this discussion goes on, The Citizen has a big ad for a "gay fitness" place--complete with a large photo of a barely clad, presumably gay guy?

OK.

ATLtoPTC wrote the following:

Science is slowly beginning to unravel the physiology behind homosexuality, but you can continue to live in your uneducated cave and believe that it is a "deviant behavior" that "bad" people choose.

So the move is apparently from the assertion that homosexuality has a physiological basis to the conclusion that, therefore, one cannot rightly regard it as bad or deviant (the implication of the "scare quotes").

I'm still waiting for that evidence. But let's suppose that it exists. Does the conclusion really follow?

Sociobiologists, Thornhill, Palmer, et al published a book a few years ago titled A Natural History of Rape. They argue that the phenomenon of rape may be observed among non-human animals, and that a propensity for it among human males is readily explained by appeal to natural selection. One can well imagine how the Darwinian just-so story here goes. Natural selection favors behaviors that confer a reproductive advantage. There is a reproductive advantage in impregnating as many females as possible. And so rape may be seen as a natural phenomenon.

But we think that rape is immoral.

Thye same basic sociobiological argument has been given regarding infidelity. TIME magazine had a cover story on the "infidelity gene" a number of years ago. Why do women want a caring relationship of commitment, but men have a tendency to stray and to be non-committal? The answer, once again, is given by appeal to the mechanism of natural selection.

But we think that men ought to commit and that infidelity is immoral.

Interspecific sexual relations occur among animals. I even witness/prevented this once. Years ago, we had a large rabbit in a cage. We also had a cat. We thought it would be "cute" to put the cat in with the rabbit so that they could become acquainted. The rabbit, however, simply thought the cat was "cute" and was determined to show her just how cute he thought she was.

Does anything follow about who the proper objects of our amorous affections are?

It is said that there is a genetic basis for alcoholism. But it is, at the same time, regarded by some as a sign of moral weakness and by others as a disease. But gay rights advocates who want to claim a physiological basis for homosexuality say that it is neither. Why the exception?

Suppose it is discovered that "homophobia" has a physiological basis. (Not so very unlikely from an evolutionary standpoint. From a Darwinian perspective, homosexuality is freaking weird as a propensity for homosexual and anal sex is of absolutely no reproductive advantage, and is a waste of resources.) Would we then, on that basis alone, have to toss up the "scare quotes" whenever we spoke of how "bad" it is to "hate queers"?

There is a missing premise in your argument, and I am not quite sure that I know of a plausible candidate to fill it in.

I hesitate to complement you on your post, all your post in general, for fear of some people wanting to rub some of their manure on you they have pilled up for me. But Thank you for being logical, putting one complete thought before another and arriving at a conclusion based in some thought.

Not to say I agree, and it can be a clever way of manipulating others into agreeing with you on something totally wrong, but I enjoy the post, and perhaps the puzzle. (Beware the Sophist, whose clever tongue ...)

I truly appreciate your logic, intelligence, and compassion. You are another Citizen blogger I enjoy reading. You could also probably kick my tail in a philosophical debate. So I'll just leave you with a few of my beliefs....

First of all, I do not feel like *I* have the authority to pass judgment on things that come down to a religious foundation. My reference to homosexual behavior being "bad" and "deviant" came from the perspective that other people label it as so because "the Bible says so". Don't most people claim a religious reason for homosexuality being immoral/wrong? Well, I just can't bring myself to cast that judgment - anyway, that's G-d's job, not mine.

Secondly, what consenting adults do behind the closed doors of their bedrooms is their business, not mine (notice I say adults and consenting - no minors or things done against someone's will!). I'm not there, no one is getting hurt (*consenting adults*), so it's not my business. There are plenty of things that go on in heterosexual bedrooms that I would find uncomfortable or offensive - should Big Brother get involved so we can pass judgment on everything "immoral" in other people's bedrooms? I think most of us consider that a very scary thought!

Third, many gay rights supporters would read me the riot act for even bringing up the science behind homosexuality. There is a whole Pandora's box that comes with any findings of a biological foundation to homosexuality. Will there be attempts at genetic engineering in the future to "cure" homosexuality, etc.? However, I at least think it is important to realize that homosexuality isn't some casual choice people make like: "hmmmm, I think I want to wear my red sweater today......hmmmmmm, I think I'll be homosexual this year." (and no, I have no explanation for Anne Heche!). There really is some fascinating research going on, though, and it can't be discounted (one of the more interesting studies is exploring the role of prenatal androgen exposure in sexual orientation).

Fourth, my personal experience with gays and lesbians has always been positive - coworkers, neighbors, friends, and even a relative. All have been honest, loyal, trustworthy people. Truthfully, I know of more heterosexual people of questionable character and morals than homosexual people!

Muddle, you bring up some interesting points, especially the comparison to the immorality of infidelity. The best I can say is that I don't believe that a heterosexual committed marriage with kids is "right" for everyone. If a guy doesn't want to be monogamous, then don't get married, and he should be honest about his intentions and actions. To each his own! I'm not going to say that everyone should get married and have 2.6 kids, etc. But that all comes back to my basic assertion that I don't have the authority to pass judgment, particularly religiously based judgment on anyone (the Bible tells us to be fruitful, so is that what we all should do? I don't know!). We have laws to protect people & property from harm, and we also have protected freedoms in this country - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! If happiness is found in the loving arms of a same-sex partner, then that's that person's choice, not mine.

Ok, I said way more than I really intended to! But I do have to add - the gay fitness club ad is *priceless* - talk about perfect timing!

Thanks for the time you put into that post! you probably won't change minds or open hearts that are closed, but that is about as coherent an argument as one can make.

Kevin "Hack" King

You know, when we first moved to PTC, reading the Citizen online scared me. Intolerance and prejudice raise their ugly heads on these blogs quite a bit. Fortunately my real life experiences in Fayette & Coweta counties have shown me that most people here are intelligent, friendly, and tolerant.

I appreciate the few voices of reason who regularly post here on the Citizen online (and you are one of them). I don't post frequently, but I do read the Citizen almost every day. This was one blog that I felt compelled to add to, though.

Thank you for your kind words!

Google suicide rate in Gay population. On that issue I rest my case.

As for AIDS?

Gay disease, you say? OK.

While AIDS was killing millions in Africa, as you say, for a whole decade AIDS was known as "The Gay Disease" in the USA. AIDS spread as fast as Gay Bath Houses would allow. Gays themselves named it "The Gay Disease" and howled discrimination when no cure quickly came forward.

They marched on Washington demanding a cure, saying if heterosexuals were coming down with it a cure would be found immediately. Well, the Gays contaminated the blood supply, and heterosexuals did start coming down with it. As of today, almost thirty years later, still no cure ... so the gays were wrong; BUT! don't dare say AIDS is "The Gay Disease" today, it is a hate crime to do so.

How do you get infected with HIV? It has to somehow be introduced to the blood supply. Needles and drug addicts aside, how is that done?

Anal intercourse is by far the easiest and most prevelant method, lesions around the colon and anus, internally and externally, are ready receptors. Those body parts are not made for such activity and are easily damaged.

Vaginal intercourse is the second most common way due to how the womans sex organs operate, especially when menstrating. A sore from an STD can also make infection more likely. But on the average, a healthy woman stands only a one in a hundred chance of getting HIV from a given sexual encounter.

Can another woman infect a woman? Hardly likely! It is always a man. How does a man get HIV? Without the presence of an open wound, it is almost impossible for a man to contract HIV from a woman. If he has an STD he can get HIV from a woman, but not easily. Odds of a man contracting HIV from a woman is greater than a thousand to one if healthy, at least a hundred to one if he has an open sore. If he washes the odds become astronomical.

A man, 95% of the time, gets HIV from another man. If a man is having sex with both men and women, he is bi-sexual (falls under the homosexual identities) or he is a male hustler to Gay men (bi-sexual in deed if not in fact).

Babies get HIV from their moms, but give it to no body.

SO! Women get AIDS from men; men get AIDS from Men, if men would stop having anal intercourse with men, AIDS would go away! Does that make it still a gay disease with heterosexual women and babies victims? Sounds like it.

Homosexual activity and promiscuity in Sub Saharan Africa. In many African nations it is, and has been, tribal ritual for adolescent males to be subjected to having sex with older male youths and men. When they reach age, they carry it on with yourger males being initiated into manhood and hunting/raiding parties.

The raping of both males (especially young males) and women of other tribes has been cultural norms for eons. Even today, in some countries there are no laws against rape, and those that have them don't enforce them. Homosexuality is rampant in Dark Africa as cultural norms, females are object of pleasure and beast of burden ... of course AIDS would find a happy home there ... not to mentions all the other known and unknown STD's.

You lost credibility with me when I went back up and read through all the posts and saw your "I, too, have many Gay Friends" (and capitalized?) comment. I find that comment hard to believe in light of your angry, intolerant posts on the subject.

Sex, religion, and politics are topics of discussion that can rarely be "won", and I think all three topics are touched upon in this blog, so I am not going to wade deeper into this quagmire. However, I hope I was able to add at least a little intelligent conversation here. Also, you need to cite the sources for your "facts" - I find many of your assertions questionable.

So I am left with just one question.... Your anger and physical descriptions make me wonder if you suffered an unfortunate experience as a youth? If so, for that I am truly sorry. Therapy would be a more productive outlet for your pain and anger than spreading inaccurate information with the intention of promoting intolerance.

I lost credibility with you when I say I am against reckless sexual behaviors and anti-social assaults on the family unit by some self-serving PAC, ... yet have gay friends I admire and respect? You are like the guy who thinks Chaney would hate his daughter because she came out of the closet. You can't understand me? Believe me, I can't understand you.

I just puked up my Red Bull and Chocolate Covered Donuts.

I am thrugh with this gay conversation ... it was an exercise in foolishness anyway.

Whatever you do don't google the suicide rates for cops and air traffic controllers or you'll start in on them.

not to mention Dentists.....

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"

Never happen ... I honestly don't know how I got started in this post. Guess it was Gay Marriage.