QUICK LINKS
Procreation or Annulment
Just when you think you’ve seen it all – you find you haven’t.
Last week an initiative was accepted by the Secretary of State’s office that if approved by voters will, among other things, require that couples married in Washington State file proof of procreation within three years of the date of the marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled.
That’s right. And the initiative, I-957, will also add the phrase, “Who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage.
This new organization is called WA-DOMA, clearly intending to be mistaken for the Defense of Marriage Act, which was upheld by the state Supreme Court last summer, but in this case DOMA represents Defense of Marriage Alliance rather than Act.
According to their own statement, they are saying that social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation and that that was the basis for the Supreme Court upholding The Defense of Marriage Act or Andersen v. King County last summer. Therefore, they are now trying to enshrine in law the idea that if same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it should follow that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be banned from marriage.
In a statement by Gregory Gadow, who is apparently leading this new campaign says, “The time has come for those conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine.”
He says that this initiative is the first of three that WA-DOMA has planned for the upcoming years. The other two will prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together and make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.
Do they think these initiatives will stand if they get them passed? They say, “No, they don’t.” In fact, they say they think that if they get them passed, they will be struck down by the state Supreme Court as unconstitutional. “But,” they say, “that is our ultimate goal.”
They say that each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (traditional marriage between one man and one woman). Eventually, they say, Andersen (DOMA) will fall apart under the weight of judicial opinion and marriage for all – meaning gay marriage -- will become a reality.
Who knows if they will collect enough signatures to get I-957 on the ballot, and if so, would Washington voters actually approve that kind of law?
I would certainly hope not.
However, it can not be stated too strongly that the assault on marriage continues.
Marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, has historically served the human race well for more than 5000 years. Clearly there have been abuses of that standard. However, there is no case where alternatives to one man, one woman marriage have constructively served the common good.
I am convinced that the gay rights agenda is more about authenticating a lifestyle that is historically out-of-step with society and clearly in violation of biblical teaching than it is about even the entitlements and recognition they seek.
Be assured, the Domestic Partners bill that is now being heard is merely an incremental step toward gay marriage.
This is a time when we must stand and be counted.
___________________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
54 Comments:
Thanks Gary for the admonition. I am stand and will be counted.
The reality is that they are pointing out the logical inconsistency in the law in the same way in which FNF pointed out the discrimination logical inconsistency.
The difference between them and you is simply that they genuinely care for humanity and you could care less except for your personal philosophy regardless of who you hurt.
While the absurdity of what they are doing is obvious, it is, at least, humane. The absurdity of FNF is sin against God and the destruction of those who are not of your ilk.
Yes, the initiative is to make a point - marriage is NOT necessarily about procreation and the claim that it is is absurd, just as this initiative illustrates.
If it was we wouldn't let non-reproductive capable people license the contract - 1/3 of US women will have had a hysterectomy by age 60, just shy of 50% of US children are being raised by their 2 biological parents. In several states that allow first cousins to marry the can only do so if they show proof they CAN'T procreate.
So yes the initiative is laughable, but then you can also see why we laugh when you say marriage is about procreation?
Oh I do have a question about the poll - why is the poll about parental notification when the bills are about parental consent, right? Not even close to the same thing.
Of course a parent should be notified - I'd hate to think a young lady got an abortion just to keep the pregnancy secret from the folks. But once they know if she still wants one she shouldn't need their permission.
This initiative, of course, is a bad idea. But it illustrates the lack of logic behind conservative arguments against same-sex marriage as well as our state's Supreme Court ruling. Notice that Gary did not justify in any way why the "marriage is for procreation" argument makes sense?
Either marriage is about procreation or it is not. It cannot be about procreation only when homosexuals are involved.
If the procreation argument is to be used to keep gay poeple from marrying, it must also apply to all people equally.
Is it fair that we prohibit same-sex couples to marry because they cannot procreate with each other, but we allow opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate with each other to marry (such as those too old to have babies, those who are infertile, or even those who choose to marry without having children)?
Furthermore, if marriage is about children, why do our marriage laws allow child abusers to marry? Or known pedophiles? Or people in prison? Or drug addicts? Alcoholics? Or people who keep having babies and passing them off to foster care?
It's clear that marriage truly isn't only about procreation and raising children; it's about so much more. You cannot apply a single argument to one group of people and not others.
This initiative makes a valid point: If marriage is about procreation when it comes to gay people, it's also about procreation when it comes to straight people. I have yet to see a logical argument against this.
RE: Marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, has historically served the human race well for more than 5000 years...
This argument that "tradition" somehow should dictate current law is ludicrous at best. If we followed tradition, our laws today would have to be the same as they were in 3000 BC. How many people would like a return to these "traditions":
* Women as property
* Women forbidden to vote
* Women forbidden to own property
* Blacks forbidden to own property
* Slavery
* Polygamy
* Stoning
Furthermore, the claim that marriage hasn't changed in 5,000 years is false. Before recent times, polygamous marriage was a common form of family arrangement. Until the 20th Century, marriages meant that men "owned" their wives. Until the late 20th Century, interracial marriages were forbidden.
Here's an interesting article about this very topic:
seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/260456_marriage.html
The group's web site is:
www.wa-doma.org
"I am convinced that the gay rights agenda is more about authenticating a lifestyle that is historically out-of-step with society and clearly in violation of biblical teaching than it is about even the entitlements and recognition they seek."
Don't flatter yourself, Gary, it's about the rights, us queers could care less what it says in your big book o' magic.
Why no mention of your buddy Hutcherson's initiative to make discrimination against homosexuals legal?
Anon 11:02
I great appreciate your rational here - that is why it is written - "in much counsel is much wisdom"
Thanks for the wisdom.
Sincerely
In Christ,
Human
This is yet another example of the bullying tactics these folks will use to get their way. If they cannot redefine marriage to accommodate male on male and female on female sexual activities, they will redefine it to force childbearing upon others as a punitive measure for not giving them everything they demand.
At no point does the children's welfare ever seem to enter into their thinking. Make no mistake, the distinctive characteristic of this lifestyle is sexual activity with people of one's own gender.
Enjoy the annulment of Gary Randall's humorless paranoia at Blackwhite.
" they will redefine it to force childbearing upon others as a punitive measure for not giving them everything they demand."
No dear, it was your side taht redefined marrige as being all about childbearing, the initiative just highlights the fallicy of that position. You made this bed, now shut up a lie in it!
Pam,
I don't know whether you consider yourself a follower of Jesus, but to spin even for political purposes is contrary to the truth and honesty (as well as dignity) that we are called to in Christ. Your statement is very much a spin and it is obvious to anyone who will judge rightous judgement rather than according to appearance.
It is very unbecoming at best!
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
The child's welfare? Pam, wake up and smell reality. Which child are you concerned for?
The one whose own parents rejected them and has the opportunity to live with two loving, committed, stable parents who happen to be of the same gender as each other?
Or the child born into a loveless marriage between a heterosexual and a homosexual, torn and conflicted because their only marriage option is with someone they don't love?
Pam ,
I see those tactics promoted in books myself . They still exist in mnay public liberaries , like After the Ball Was Over ...
At one time adoption was actually promoted in homosexual special right agendas as a means to achive cultural acceptability . I am sure that is not the case in many situations , but can you see other organzations promoting such a thing as adopting a child in order to gain a political reward .
Just heart wrenching what some people will do to their children , or someone elses for their own selfish reasons . .
This idea demonstrates "Intelligent Stupidity".
The one man/one woman marriage has not been said to be ONLY for procreation.
This is such a hairbrained idea they should to be ashamed of themselves.
They truly, have no common sense.
Hey Anom ,
I am sure it is meant as satire . I recall somethign similiara few years back that was meant to cause headlines . that is all it is a a sound bite , keep the issue in the fore front .
Just heart wrenching what some people will do to their children , or someone elses for their own selfish reasons . .
Even more heart-rending is someone presuming bad intent of anyone doing a good thing when they don't know it as fact.
The one man/one woman marriage has not been said to be ONLY for procreation.
You obviously missed the arguments against marriage equality at the State Supreme Court. Their primary contention was that only men and women married couples should be allowed to license the civil contract because of the possibility of procreation.
Ergo, if that's is the reason to discriminate than to be ethical and honest you must not allow even opposite gender couples that knowingly can't procreate to license the contract.
I totally agree, its obvious that marriage need not involve procreation but then that means the only difference between same and opposite gender couples is gone.
I found this interesting , among other articles On NARTH. Many issues discussed , and even
a blog that gives examples of harrassment from extremists .
NARTH Psychologist Responds To Critic Of Exodus: Balance Needed In Schools
November 1, 2005 - Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Susan Paynter condemned an upcoming Exodus International conference for troubled teens in her Oct. 26th column, "Ministry's on a misguided mission to scare gay teens straight."
In it, Paynter describes Exodus International as a "so-called 'ex-gay' ministry" and a "gay fix-it" group.
According to Paynter, "... most mainstream researchers hold that 'repair therapy' rarely, if ever, works."
NARTH Psychologist Ned Stringham, Ph.D. wrote a letter to Ms. Paynter about her misleading column:
While reading your October 26 column on line, I was struck by your condemnation of the Groundswell Conference scheduled for the Seattle area this week. I believe your column needs a response.
You point out that the goals of the conference include "scaring teens straight," that it masquerades opinions for science, and you suggest that it trains attendees to "harass" and even "bully" other teens. You also quote a pastor who indicates the conference teaches gay teens that they are "not valuable and rejected by God." These are serious accusations. Do you have any documentation to verify your claims that Groundswell uses such divisive methods?
Sadly, when today's public schools address sexual orientation issues they seldom provide a balanced approach. Rarely are kids told that there are no studies proving a genetic cause for homosexuality. Rarely do they hear about the scientific studies conducted over the past fifty years that document the journey many have taken out of homosexuality into heterosexuality. Only occasionally are the grim statistics presented about the health risks of gay sex and the mental health problems gays experience in larger numbers than the general population.
Instead, today's students are generally given the simple argument that if they are attracted to the same sex they are gay, they always will be gay, and any attempt to change is futile and founded upon delusion and self hatred. They are also told that they are hated by religious people and mental health professionals who suggest that orientation change is possible.
As a clinical psychologist, I find it tragic that teachings about a complex issue like homosexuality should be reduced to such terms.
Like you, I have not attended a Groundswell Conference. I hope that you will attend, listen, and find out if your accusations have merit. However, I also hope that the people of Seattle will welcome this conference as an invitation to consider how to provide better balance in the teachings given by schools and churches about sexual orientation. If they do so, they will set a wonderful example for the entire nation.
Ned Stringham, Ph.D.
Licensed psychologist
Lincoln, Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Reading: NARTH's Response to "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth"; 'The New Gay Teenager'; Gay 'Time' Magazine Writer Details Rise Of 'Gay Teens'; Adolescent Homosexuality.
This post has been removed by the author.
I guess I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say with your cut and paste?
Rarely are kids told that there are no studies proving a genetic cause for homosexuality.
Actually they are told that and few other than the detractors use the words genetic cause. Most researchers have come out and said there is unlikely a gay gene.
Rarely do they hear about the scientific studies conducted over the past fifty years that document the journey many have taken out of homosexuality into heterosexuality.
Really? Peer-reviewed studies? Odd that I haven't seen them. Dr. Robert Spitzer did a study where 273 people who were supposed to have successfully changed were referred by NARTH and religious 'ex-gay' ministries. Only 40% weren't bisexual, even fewer were self-identified 'gay'. All told only 20 self-identifying 'gays' had actually made a change to satisfying heterosexual functioning.
So out of 273 supposed 'cures' less than 10% actually might have been. (Humorously 78% of the 273 spent time giving public testimonials, some professionally, about their 'cures' oops)
That there are many paths to someone's adult sexual orientation is pretty much a given, and that a rare one can actually change from one to another isn't surprising. But out of the tens of thousands of claimed cures, they could only refer 273, most just bisexuals made to pick, and of the truly gay ones only 20 were convincingly changed. Not very good odds are they?
Paytner was right in her assessment of the gathering: change is rare, those who think they have changed usually haven't and other research shows that many going through the programs are harmed by the attempt. Changing sexual orientation makes no more sense than a left-handed person desperately trying to become right handed. And of course monogamous gay couples have no health issues monogamous straight ones don't also have.
So if you presented this to give me an opportunity to show how it is just massive spin and deception all I can say is 'thanks'.
OV,
your statement:
"I totally agree, its obvious that marriage need not involve procreation but then that means the only difference between same and opposite gender couples is gone."
You vacilate so. Sometimes you make statements that SOUND so "thorougly researched" and then you make bland assumptions! "but then that means the only difference between same and opposite gender couples is gone."
Procreation is NOT the only difference between "same and opposite gender couples". The whole set of ideologies of same sex "couples" is perverted or different from what is normal or designed based.
I guess you do not understand the mental gymnastics one does to convert designed sex to homosexual sex. It does call for one to "translate" in one's brain from - the train goes down the track, to, the train goes sideways, maybe or maybe not on the track at all! It is "different". That kind of thinking may seem real to anyone who is open to some "out of this world" way of thinking on this subject (maybe even on many other subjects, also)! Do you understand what I am relating?
I don't know how you seem to "know" so much about "everything" (like exactly what all school districts are teaching to make the statements or implications of "what IS being taught in [all] schools!). Then you make a bland statement.
Most people do whatever they can to deal with any pain they encounter. Shyness is a way little ones react to maybe an embarrassment that they encounter even innocently. The more others make of this innocent word, action etc., the more the little one starts to try to engage various ways of protections on their person. That is an inborn response. If a child experiences enough of these situations, their response mechanisms can be altered enormously. Some start to create an alter ego, some accept whatever others say about them, some recoil and recluse themselves. There can be other reactions as well. Defiant, bully, etc., etc. etc.. Same-sex relating does fall into the reaction a person experiences in, most of the time though not always, early childhood. Some, by temperament, succumb to this proclivity later. "Sexual identity"is always present in a young child's growing experience. People can relate to a child in ways that are really quite ok, like, "My, you are just like your father!" or "Come on, you are daddy's big boy" or "she is such a charmer". These are all examples of how a child starts to internamlize their gender identity. If a child is told, "You are as clumsy as your father!", or "You are JUST like your father (in a condesending tone of voice)! or, "You are a sissy!", or (to a girl) "You are just like your brothers), or (again to a girl), "You're daddy's buddy!", or, "Pretty things are for girls only". Can you see that these kinds of declarations, and the many other possibilities, can have a negative impact on how a child sees their sexuality? The thoughts register in their developing brain and maybe later seem to "come out of the blue"!
Thank you, Mr. Randall, for your words of encouragement. It is nice to know that the democratic process in this country is still strong enought that, through a single, simple initiative of the people, we can bring down civilization.
The Defense of Marriage Initiative is based on a simple concept. Social conservatives have stated for many years that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation; all other possible reasons for marriage can be used by same sex couples to gain the right to marry. The Washington Supreme Court used this meme to uphold the state's Defense of Marriage Act. So be it.
The Washington Constitution prohibits laws that are not applied equally. If same sex couples can be banned from marriage because they will not procreate, the state constitution REQUIRES, on the grounds of equal application of the law, that all couples that can not or will not procreate be banned from marriage.
By proposing Initiative 957 and putting the Court's decision into statutory form, we mitigate the appearance of an activist court making up laws to suit their own prejudices. By working to have laws and judicial rulings regarding marriage applied equally and without discrimination, we mitigate the appearance that marriage is a special right available only to heterosexual couples. And everyone knows how conservatives feel about activist courts and special rights; goodness knows they can't shut up about these concerns.
And finally, thank you for promoting the Defense of Marriage Initiative. Your article will help bring our drive to people who might not have heard about it. Please keep up the good work; I will be praying for you.
Procreation is NOT the only difference between "same and opposite gender couples". The whole set of ideologies of same sex "couples" is perverted or different from what is normal or designed based.
Absolutely incorrect. All studies show that gay couples marry for the same reasons as straight ones, they want the same things out of marriage and one study showed they even bicker about the same things.
guess you do not understand the mental gymnastics one does to convert designed sex to homosexual sex.
Silly rabbit, gay couples do absolutely nothing that straight couples don't also do in the bedroom. They do it for the same reasons, and get very much the same results.
Do you understand what I am relating?
Yes that you are presuming you know what others should and shouldn't do without a whit of evidence to back up your opinion and in the face of tons of evidence to the contrary. Sort of makes your opinions pretty much valuable only to yourself.
And your antiqued ideas about mental development are 'quaint' but once again wrong. Gender identity and sexual orientation are two different things for one. For two, gender identity and sexual orientation have their roots in neurobiology and are often evidence from earliest childhood.
And regardless of why people develop a gender identity or orientation all empirical evidence shows that the VAST majority can not change either once fully grown so the issue is still equal treatment under the law for the way citizens are, not the way you wish they would be.
NARTH has a board member, who puplically suggested that blacks should be thankful for slavery, it was a good thing for them. This person remains on thier board, that says all any decent person needs to know about thier credibility.
Anon 9:23
I appreciate your taking a stab at some complex areas in semi-civilized sort of way.
I must admit that I find your theses weak when it comes to human development. I see the creative power of God much more strongly at work than for the little tyke to be so easily knocked off kilter by a few inappropriately couched comments in their formative developmental years.
I will be the first to admit that I am not convinced regarding the causes of homosexuality as opposed to hetrosexuality. Ultimately, in the matter of simple civil rights, which is really the case before this board, it is entirely irrelevant. We are all taxpayers - we are all "righted" as need to function in a peaceful manner in our society.
Likewise, this is the Lord's call to us - to live, as much as is within you, peacefully with all men." Certainly we are far away from need to engage in any sort of violence or oppression either directly by the sword or through the legislation of our own morality.
BTW - the use of the term "bland" is disparaging - I don't think that is the high call to which we are called. I hope you understand that I am not disparaging you when I find weaknesses in your thought - I hope you find it challenging and provide the challenge to me in my own - this is the high call in Christ - and to stablish peace and freedom and justice in our humility before God.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Gregory,
Nice name - do you know what it means??
Glad to join the board - admittedly I had to read your entire article to properly understand your first sentence - I am a little slow but at least I read. Thanks for perfectly clarifying both the issue as well as the obvious implications. I hate to say it but weak thinking is endemic to the Evangelical and Roman Catholic communities - it is sad - with the power of the Holy Spirit, it does not have to be that way but, rather, they should be at the vanguard of quality thought.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Oshtur - Thanks for differentiating on sexual identity and gender orientation. These are basic concepts and good to have identified in our thinking.
Anon 12:30
I actually don't know or care who NARTH is - but, if this was the case, as you stated, I would agree that it is a serious issue.
As we well know, Evagelicalism has had more racism and slave-owners in it than any religion imaginable. You can start off with the Southern Baptist Convention. So if you want to talk about moral corruption, let's start at home first...
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
An EXCELLENT example of how some are confused about the underlying situation.
The issue is not, and never has been, about being able to license the civil contract of marriage with any ONE you want. The issue is about every citizen being able to license the civil contract with someone they could reasonably be expected to marry.
There is no known mechanism that would suggest that someone could ONLY reasonably be expected to pair-bond with a family member. Even though those are proscribed, the individual still has a pool of literally billions of other potential spouses to license the contract with.
There ARE people who can only pair-bond to one gender and as such limiting the licensing of the contract to only the gender they do not pair-bond with is giving them an effect pool of zero potential spouses to license the contract with. See the difference?
And, of course no one is being discriminated against by the sexual practices - there is no practice that homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't also do in far greater numbers. This has never been about what people do, but about who they do it with.
It always seems like some people think that everyone can pair-bond with anyone they want leading me to suspect the ones most frightened of this are actually bisexual. They personally have always had to select which gender they were intimate with since they are attracted to both. Its understandably that they would be very threatened by not having their choices limited by the state if they thought only one choice was right but they must realize they are in fact a small minority of the population - most people are not as 'flexible' as they are in their sexual orientation and can only pair-bond with a single gender.
Thinking back on number of tele-evangelists and high profile anti-gay religious leaders who have been shown to have same sex desires there just might be some traction to this hypothesis.
Oshtur,
You bring up a good point -
What sexual practices do homosexuals engage in that heteros don't - well, I think in terms of method, there is no method difference - but, presumably, heteros don't use the same method with a member of the same gender - so I might suggest that there is some meaningful distinction in method.
BTW - poor Anon 5:48 - the reality is that if Dad is willing to suck it up, we should let them have at it - it is God who is the judge!
BTW - my brother said "YUCK" after hearing about heterosexual sex the first time too...
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Excellent!
This means that men that have vasectomies and women that have hysterectomies will have to have their marriage status revoked.
We also don’t have to “suffer” through “elderly marriages” any more. After all, grandma has passed menopause and can’t have kids, so, deny her any thought of spending the rest of her life with her second (or third?) husband… Actually, all marriages automatically get disolved after menopause!
This will also put an end to all of those May-December weddings! No more litigation that Gramps new 21-year old wife just married him for his money.
You’ll also want to buy as much Pfizer stock as possible! Viagra sales will go through the roof as men and women try to hang on to their last years of marriage before being force to either live alone or worse… LIVE IN SIN!
Fertility clinic stock will also be a great buy as sterile couples in love will be desperate to get their “proof of procreation” certificate.
Once all these folks have been certified as “unmarriable” just like gays and lesbians, the institution of marriage will be safe!
Praise Jesus!
but, presumably, heteros don't use the same method with a member of the same gender
Actually I think you'd be surprised - population studies show that 90-95% of the people in the US engaging in anal intercourse are heterosexuals.
Hmmmmm...
Oshtur - I have no doubt re: hetero use of anal sex (though I wonder if the % is that high on a regular basis vs. exploratory basis - I have never done any homework here...)
However, hetero's use partner's of the other gender (presumably) - that was my point - and in doing so there is a difference in method - or shall we say - Method Option 1 and Method Option 2.
In my own humble opinion, I like to think I have my holes properly sorted out - it seems apparent which has its natural use. Though one will ask re: pleasure dynamics associated with anal sex - well, I can't give a studies opinion but it seems a reasonable question. Perhaps simply in light of all the use and some of the related difficulties that each of us encounter with that orifice, God was gracious to make its use entirely unpleasant - just a thought - no conclusion.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Oshtur - I have no doubt re: hetero use of anal sex (though I wonder if the % is that high on a regular basis vs. exploratory basis - I have never done any homework here...)
No actually studies show that 20-25% of heterosexuals 'have' dones so, 10% do so on a regular basis.
However, hetero's use partner's of the other gender (presumably) - that was my point - and in doing so there is a difference in method - or shall we say - Method Option 1 and Method Option 2.
As I am aware of no anatomical difference between the two organs based on gender I would have to respectfully disagree.
I hope the initiative makes the ballot. It's makes a very succinct point.
For those who continue to invoke Jesus on this site, he would be very disappointed at the time and energy devoted to discrimination and wonder why you didn't put this time and energy into helpful activity.
Leave him out of the argument because he wouldn't have wanted to be there.
from Medical Issues
Two New Studies Describe Gay Barebacking, Circuit Parties, And Spread of HIV
Researchers have surveyed the attitudes of gay males engaging in unprotected sex and the ideology behind extensive drug use and multiple sex partners at gay circuit parties.
August 29, 2005 - A study published in the August, 2005 edition of the Journal of Sex Research, and one in the Journal of the International Association of Physicians In AIDS Care [JIAPAC] (Vol. 4. No. 2, 32-46, 2005) describe the attitudes of individuals who engage in unprotected anal sex (barebacking) and those who use drugs and engage in multiple sex activities at gay circuit parties throughout the United States.
Northwestern University doctoral candidate Amin Ghaziani and Thomas D. Cook, Ph.D. wrote "Reducing HIV Infecitons at Circuit Parties: From Description to Explanation and Principles of Intervention Design" for JIAPAC.
The authors describe circuit parties as weekend-long erotically charged "drug-prevalent dance events attended by up to 25,000 self-identified gay and bisexual men who socialize and dance nonstop, sometimes for 24 hours or longer."
Ghaziani and Cook state that circuit parties originally began as AIDS awareness events in the mid-80s, but "Although it is unconfirmed, circuit parties may have ironically become potential sites for HIV serotransmission." They maintain that the idea of a link between circuit parties and HIV transmission is "not unfounded, even if it remains speculative."
They note that as many as 25% of the circuit party attendees admit they are HIV positive and use crystal meth as well as ecstasy in risky sexual behaviors.
Most circuit party attendees (95%) admit using psychoactive drugs. Of these, 61% ingested three or more drugs in one night. In addition, 67% reported engaging in anal or oral sex. Only 21% reported engaging in "safe anal sex." Twenty-nine percent had multiple sex partners during a weekend. Of these, 47% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI).
Reasons for attending circuit parties varied with 97% saying they wanted to attend to "celebrate and have fun"; 68% wanted "to be wild and uninhibited"; 43% said they wanted sex; and 14% wanted to "forget about HIV/AIDS."
The authors noted that the use of crystal meth at circuit parties is at epidemic proportions.
They propose a causal model that explains the process used by gays at circuit parties who engage in unprotected sex. One part of this model includes elevated libido and the use of drugs that distort judgment. They say: "We posit three mediating mechanisms between party attendance and unsafe sex. One is pharmacological, because club drugs play a central role in risky sexual activity at parties.... Social psychologists have long known that large groups can reduce a person's sense of self and that such de-individuation can loosen normative behavioral and moral constraints .... The final mediating mechanism has to do with feelings of social connectedness and the search for community, experienced at the individual level."
Ghaziani and Cook observe that "Participants report become so immersed in the party atmosphere that they forget about the immediate threat of HIV/AIDS or no longer care about it. They feel invincible and engage in situationally sanctioned practices they would otherwise avoid."
Intervention Strategies
The researchers propose several intervention strategies to reduce the likelihood that HIV infections will occur at circuit parties. One is an educational campaign to explain how different cocktail drugs can "affect cognitive distortion and libidos and hence unsafe sex. Our assumptions are that it is not possible to halt drug use at parties and that the real need is to reeducate and reduce the impact of those drugs that most distort judgment about sexual behavior."
A second approach is to promote and sustain the use of condoms by circuit party attendees. This would include educational efforts by circuit party leaders and hotels catering to party goers.
A third approach is to provide lighting in the outermost portions of the dance floor in order to discourage the "most frenetic encounters that occur at the height of stimulation." The goal is not to discourage anal intercourse, but to encourage it in hotel rooms where gay partners will have a "little more time to reflect on and perhaps even negotiate what they are doing and to distance themselves from the overly eroticized cues and loud music on and around the dance floor."
A fourth approach is to recruit "groups of young men from different cities who are willing to individuate themselves at a particular party (eg., by wearing different clothes from the party 'uniform') and who will then use this situational salience to represent safer sex positions." They will be available to discuss safe sex with participants at circuit parties.
The authors conclude: "Circuit parties are community-building and profit-generating events, and short of legally closing them, they are not likely to go away. Attempts to ban alcohol, prostitution, drugs, and rave parties teach us that moralistic and demonizing legislation only drives such activities underground and may even exacerbate the risk contained with them."
Barebacking And AIDS
John Maxwell, writing in "AIDS optimism, condom fatigue, or self-esteem? Explaining unsafe sex among gay and bisexual men," for the Journal of Sex Research conducted a study of 102 high-risk gay and bisexual men in Toronto. The study was designed to discover the reasoning processes used by these men in engaging in unsafe sex.
Maxwell notes that three key theories have been hypothesized to explain why Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM) are engaging in unsafe sex: AIDS optimism, condom fatigue, and low self-esteem.
This study "seeks to investigate how well widely-circulating explanations accounting for unsafe sex engage with the social circumstances and reasoning processes of men in their sexual relationships. It examines, in particular, narratives of men who have abandoned condom use altogether and employ a language of barebacking to describe their practices."
Maxwell's study found that many gays engage in unsafe practices because they're in "heat of the moment" situations or in "trade-off" situations where they do not want to offend their sexual partner. These men "trade away safe sex lest it prove an obstacle to sexual interaction."
In addition, personal turmoil and depression are also factors involved in unsafe sex. Individuals who do not believe life is worth living are more likely to engage in practices that expose them to HIV infection.
Maxwell also notes that unprotected sex occurs intentionally. He notes that a minority of HIV-positive men (10) in the study revealed their HIV status right away as a warning to prospective partners. Many HIV positive males considered condom use not needed with other HIV positive partners but wanted to make sure HIV negative partners used condoms with them.
The author notes that "one of the most consistent findings in HIV research is the tendency of couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to shift away from safe sex over time."
He also notes that "Monogamy may work... as a safeguard for some couples against HIV transmission, but it can also act as a semiotic snare, setting up the conditions whereby vulnerability to HIV may be increased."
Maxwell says that no one in his study indicated willingness or acceptance of knowingly infecting a partner: "When the premises of individual responsibility are knowingly absent, many express a strong reluctance to allow unprotected sex."
He says that the San Francisco AIDS Foundation has pioneered a program to address the "fundamental problem related to the emergency of a barebacker microculture." The "assumptions campaign" urges men to question their assumptions and to reinforce the use of condoms with men of unknown HIV status.
According to Maxwell, there is need for further research on prevention alternatives to condoms such as microbicides and vaccines and the need to challenge the stigma and rejection of people living with HIV. He also suggests that there is a need "to depict men drawn from a greater diversity of ages and ethnocultural backgrounds as desirable to diminish the power of beauty hierarchies that influence men to 'trade off' safe sex."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Reading: "The Health Risks Of Gay Sex," by John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. "A Psychoanalyst's Perspective: AIDS And The Death Wish," by Gerald Schoenewolf, Ph.D.,
American College Of Physicians
Notes Syphilis Rise Among Gay Males
September 13, 2006 - This month, the American College of Physicians released data from the Centers for Disease Control on the growing rates of syphilis among men who have sex with men (MSM). According to this report, the rate for syphilis was dropping until 2002 when it began increasing to 2.7 per 100,000 population. The highest increase was among male homosexuals. It rose from 5% in 1999 to 64% in 2004. The rates for women remained the same, except for the southern portion of the U.S., especially among African-Americans.
A July 2006 report on rectal gonorrhea and syphilis rates among MSMs in Boston reviewed 22,000 visits by MSMs from 2003 and 2004. A total of 66% of those MSM tested for an STD were asymptomatic. A total of 7% of the asymptomatic males tested positive for at least one STD, compared with a 20% positivity rate among symptomatic MSM.
According to Donna Helms, a fellow in the Division of STD Prevention at the National Center for HIM, STD, and TB Prevention at the CDC, "Urethral gonorrhea and rectal gonorrhea positivity rates were high." Ten percent of all asymptomatic MSM had urethral gonorrhea and 6% had rectal gonorrhea; 2% had pharyngeal gonorrhea. (Family Practice News, July 15, 2006)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anon 6:22
Perfectly said, my point exactly, and amen!
Thanks,
Human
6:22
:) So you are speaking for God? You know His mind? Interesting how you think you know what He wants, but it is obvious that you don't know him. Even human rarely has a clue, thou he talks about it all the time.
Time to start boneing up. God is very interested in all aspects of our lives. He wants us to be happy and healthy. It is apparently not very healthy to go against God's laws. He is the one who gives the direction that we should go in. We are to instruct others of that way, and help them become happy and healthy too, while they are growing and learning about God's ways.
Anon 9:00 & 9:03
Gosh, all that unsafe promiscuous gay sex going on. Wouldn't it be healthier if those fellows could just find somebody nice, settle down, and get married?
When homosexual activists and “gay equality” win, Christians and religious freedom lose. So do children who need a mom and a dad, as the world is witnessing again in Great Britain.
Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how “sexual orientation” laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s “gay”-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:
“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”
Under Blair’s “compromise,” Catholic adoptions agencies will have 21 months to comply with the “sexual orientation” laws, but some say they would rather close down than violate their religious beliefs, BBC News reports.
Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right. In Canada and France, legislators recently were fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In 2004, pastor Ake Green was jailed for a month for preaching –– in his small church in Borgholm, Sweden –– that homosexual behavior is an egregious yet forgivable sin. And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might “prejudice” them against a homosexual child put in their care.
Britain’s “gay adoption” travesty parallels that which followed the triumph of homosexual “equality” and legal “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Last year, Catholic Charities of Boston ceased all adoption operations in the state after being told that under Massachusetts’ pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law, only agencies that place children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.
Catholic doctrine states that it is “gravely immoral” to put children in such homes:
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”
But “gay rights” tramples religion in post-Christian England, where the government has lately even set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech. It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government –– and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America –– now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as “civil rights.”
Queer, indeed.
“Breeders” Still Required
Sad as it is, this is a marketing story for the ages: in a few short decades, “gay liberation” activists went from including the notorious “man-boy love” group NAMBLA in their “pride” parades and mocking married couples as “breeders” –– to passing “sexual orientation” laws worldwide that put government officially in the role of defying Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence.
But is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?
Let’s be clear: Nature discriminates against homosexuality. Same-sex arrangements can never be “equal” to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. They cannot produce children by themselves. Homosexual partners cannot acquire a child without involving heterosexual procreation in some way.
Yep, those irritating “breeders” come in handy once in a while.
Heterosexual couples and larger society, on the other hand, do not need homosexuality to produce children. All but the most corrupted souls can see the divine purpose in male and female physiology. Men and women were made for each other. Conversely, there is no purpose to same-sex behavior. If you have a beef with that, take it to the Creator, but don’t take it out on the children.
Kids are not guinea pigs in some adult “gay” experiment. They need a mom and dad. The Catholic Church is right. Shame on the British –– and our own Massachusetts –– for boxing churches and charitable religious groups out of the business of providing stable homes for children –– all to satisfy a radical sexual lobby.
Are religious exemptions the answer? Hardly. Already, the Left is circumscribing the definition of exemption to be as narrow as possible: in Illinois, the ACLU argued that it’s OK for a church to fire a homosexual pastor, but not the church janitor who declares that he’s “gay” and proud of it (because the janitor was not “hired to transmit doctrine”).
We simply cannot trust the radically pro-homosexual ACLU to protect our freedoms.
Moreover, religious exemptions put the government in the untenable position of dispensing fundamental (not newfangled) rights to some while denying them to others. If Muslims and Christians are exempted from oppressive “gay” laws, what about secular people who also oppose the homosexual agenda? Do they surrender their freedom of conscience because they don’t go to church?
Zero-sum game
Chai Feldblum, a lesbian professor at Georgetown University (which I thought was “Catholic”), and one of the world’s leading experts/activists on “sexual orientation” law, admits that it is a zero-sum game between protecting religious freedoms and granting rights based on “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) orientations. Someone wins, and someone loses.
Speaking at a Beckett Fund symposium (click HERE for a PDF of her paper), Feldblum takes pains to acknowledge that religious people will lose their freedom to act on their belief that homosexuality is wrong under “sexual orientation” laws. Nevertheless, she believes that “sexual liberty should win in most cases” to protect “the dignity of gay people.”
In other words, homosexual activists win, and we lose. To affirm a group of people practicing changeable, destructive and sinful behavior, we must trample on the freedoms of moral-minded Americans, even if it means putting children at risk.
I appreciate Chai Feldblum’s sympathy, but it cannot not substitute for the loss of our God-given freedoms. I don’t know about you, but I will not surrender my liberties without a fight.
The late, great Milton Friedman said, “A society that puts equality … ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” He may have meant that for economics, but the same applies in the social realm.
Homosexual activists and their straight liberal allies value their revolutionary quest for sexual egalitarianism above your freedoms of religion, conscience, association and even speech. It appears that they have won in Britain. If you care about freedom in the United States of America, you must stop them from winning here.
Footnote: I highly recommend reading Maggie Gallagher’s excellent (May 15, 2006) article in the Weekly Standard, “Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.” It touches on the Boston Catholic Charities adoption pullout and the Beckett Fund symposium on “gay” versus religious rights.
Jason
Jason, so don't take the public funding and you can discriminate all you want.
You (probably) don't want to fund abortions with taxpayer money. I don't want to fund agencies callous enough to deny a home to orphans.
UK Couple Seeking Adoption Rejected for Christian Position on Homosexuality
January 30th, 2007
This story illustrates the disturbing neo-reality toward which our nation is advancing as we embrace various homosexual “rights.” It will not work both ways: If homosexual adoption is “good,” adoption by Christians (who oppose homosexuality) will be viewed as “evil” and will ultimately be disallowed. If so-called “homophobic hate speech” is outlawed, Christians will necessarily forfeit freedom of speech and will be persecuted for preaching repentance from homosexuality. Law cannot be morally neutral. – Sonja Dalton
Excerpted from Adopt? We Were ‘Too Idealistic’, published Jan 25, 2007, by Telegraph (UK):
…My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.
We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months…
We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians…
We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.
We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.
The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose…
At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?
Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…
If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GM1EGJRZVEAJ5QFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/portal/2007/01/25/ftadopt125.xml
Lisa
Hi Lisa, we only have your side of the story here, but I am very sorry that happened to you. For the record, it is AS wrong to discriminate against christians in adoption as it is to discriminate against gays.
Gosh, all that unsafe promiscuous gay sex going on. Wouldn't it be healthier if those fellows could just find somebody nice, settle down, and get married?
Yes, they seem to want it both ways - they don't want gay people to couple up and settle down yet they post propaganda pieces about promiscuity fueled by not coupling up and settling down - which one do they want?
And of course the statistics are so incredibly slanted in presentation that we know the person doing this cut and paste is trying to be deceptive. Syphilis is up '64%' from virtually no existent, its still a handful of cases. As anyone in basic epidemiology knows a small closed group spreads all STDs faster and better than a larger one - you see it in gays, blacks, indians, etc. The rest are all just as much negative spin.
What is almost humorous is there not realizing that everything they posted is a reason FOR marriage equality just as you alluded. What we do know is that acceptance breeds conformity. Seattle had the lowest HIV rate in young gay men in a national study. The people mentioned in the 'scary stats' aren't the people that brought their marriage case before the courts.
Again, want to have gay people settle down into monogamous relationships give them the same tools and incentives that straight people have. If you won't give that little bit your room to complain is pretty low.
Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right
Ha! Who ever wrote that silliness doesn't really understand the issues involved or what religious freedom is about.
Religious freedom means that others don't have to
practice your religion. What Catholic in the US or Britain is prohibited from worshiping as they choose? None. What they don't have a right to do is tell others they have to toe the Catholic line especially if it involves state-regulated functions or is part of a secular business that just happens to be owned by a church.
Our 'god-given freedoms' say that everyone has a right to choose for themselves. Inspite of the hysterical tone of the article there is NO indication that a few children having gay parents will cause anything hysterical at all.
Does provide a platform for theocrats and religious bigots to whine about how they can't force people to follow their religion though.
I've always wondered, if a business can force its employees and customers to follow a particular religions tenets - why not just say your business is owned by the Christian Scientists, you wouldn't have to offer health insurance at all!
Practice your religion to save your soul all you want and acknowledge my right to keep the 'woo woo' stuff out of my life and we mutually acknowledge that both of us have a right to access to society and civic features and we'll be just fine.
Yuck - more victimization propaganda from the Evangelical Religious Right (ERR).
Jesus came to promote truth, we now have wolves in sheeps clothing using what foul hypocrisy necessary to advance their cause - not surprising for Roman Catholics who have been the world's greatest force of oppression for over a millenium and half - and Evangelicals for about a half of millenium are not to be out down.
Pity Jesus and His call to genuine integrity and truth has been long lost sight of in light of the charge towards social/political domination.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Well, that's interesting, Lisa, but I find your story from the Telegraph less than credible. First off there is the anonymity of the writer, why? Second there is the complete lack of mention of what agency they are speaking of. Seems to me this is integral to the story, if they were speaking with a private agency, then I see nothing wrong. Religious adoption agencies routinely discriminate against gays and lesbians, why shouldn't a private secular adoption agency be allowed to discriminate against anti-gay prospective parents? After all what's sauce for the goose...
The other thing I find telling about this article is vauge and subjective nature of it, filled with unsupported and unsupportable asides such as:
"If you are single or gay, it seems, it would be far easier to adopt."
"Why is it there isn't the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?"
"We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them."
By the inclusion of these asides, the author of the piece reveals her true intent, an anti-gay hit piece.
Let's unpack that last quote; Why would an agency, which as the author claims, is actively discriminating against heterosexual Christian couples make such a claim? If they did give such a figure wouldn't they also give a figure for singles and gay couples? If so, why was this not presented in the story? Perhaps because it disproves the first quote?
Jason, posting other people's work without attribution is called plagerism and is the same as stealing. Now, you owe Peter LaBarbera an apology for stealing his garbage. Although it's beyond me why anyone would want to claim credit for LaBarbera's incoherent rantings.
I find your story from the Telegraph less than credible
yes, aren't they the British equivalent of the National Enquirer?
I love people who do research!!
THANKS!!
The Evangelical Religious Right always dies a quick, albeit screaming death when confronted with actual facts and truth.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
"Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right"
No, it's not just Christians. Those who believe in fairy-tales instead of science are going to become second class citizens. Those who won't learn about the real world because it conflicts with the religious beliefs will be left behind - You aren't going to make a lot of money as a doctor if you only offer prayers as treatment.
It's not just the western civilization, it's the way of the world.
If religionists do become second class citizens in this country, it would only by thier own choice. They chose ignorance all the time
Good points ,
Communism , China , and the worse mass murderers of the last century all knew the "ways of the world" without religion .
You won't make as much money as a doctor under socialized medicine , but I guess when they he went home he or she could say a prayer for the First Amendment ?
Since when could you not believe in science and God of the Bible ?
Post a Comment
<< Home