Homosexuality Societal Health Risk

En Garde In The Bunker

En Garde In The Bunker

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” (CHECK, CHECK, CHECK. The point here? Undermine the family unit and weaken the community by creating single parent homes and non-reproductive couples. However, as many same-sex couples do have the desire to have children, this aspect of the mission has failed to a degree. The irony is that most “isms” consider homosexuality as offensive, however, as with anything else, it provides a means to their ends and the homosexual population are too eager to join the cause without knowing the history behind the “acceptance”. )
~ Number 26 from “45 Communist Goals” To The Downfall Of America ~ 1958

The only sector trying to force anything upon anyone else is the less than 2% of the population known as homosexuals. So you want to compare “Family Values” of homosexuals and heterosexuals? Not going to be good for you…. The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12] Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13] In their study of the 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven etal found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14] A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15] So much for Family Values huh??

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE

By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:

Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”[53]

Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually “open” relationships:

For these men the term “monogamy” simply doesn’t necessarily mean sexual exclusivity….The term “open relationship” has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]

The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]

Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in “committed” relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]

The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian “committed” relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for “gay marriage” lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

To say nothing of the excessively-high health costs brought upon the nation through this very unhealthy and dangerous aberrant behavior.

Full research report right here…

One thought on “Homosexuality Societal Health Risk

  1. Pingback: Boy Scouts Become Liberal Insanity - Dennis G Hurst

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.