Sunday, October 11, 2009

SEX ED FOR GAYS INEFFECTUAL AND COSTLY

Taken from the September 2009 publication from Family Research Institute:

According to the CDC, August, 09, from 2004 to 2007, new infections among gays in the US increased 27%. Among non-gays, the increase was 6%. In 2004, gays accounted for 48% of new HIV infections; in 2007, 53%.

This, despite the fact that gays get PLENTY of sex education at gov't. expense.

Gays accounted for 30,820 new cases of HIV infection in 2006.

We are 3 decades into the epidemic; yet AIDS ed fails to work --and would appear to stimulate even more gay infections!

Yet, the U.S. and UNESCO are promoting the same AIDS ed for other countries that doesn't work here.

The new CDC test to show whether an HIV infection is recent (STARHS) was used in 39 areas that permit name-based identification (these areas house 68% of the US population.) From '04 to '07, 4% more IV drug users and 20% more high-risk heterosexuals got infected. And 27 % more homosexuals.

According to Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute (whom gays and liberals discredit for obvious political reasons,)
"Every year, a gay is 50 times more apt to get HIV than a straight. [in the u.s., I assume] Rectal sex--with or without a condom--is the main culprit. Not engaging in rectal sex and not shooting drugs --and avoiding sex with those who do --drop your chances of getting HIV close to zero. The new CDC findings demonstrate that touting condoms for 'safe anal sex' is dangerously misleading and counterproductive."


His publication notes that, "Failure never troubles organizations funded by governments. Indeed, failure is reason to 'double down,' and spend even more on what hasn't worked."

Lancet reported that HIV rates among gay men in some African countries are 10 times higher than among the general male population and Lancet says the discrepancy is "driven by cultural, religious and political unwillingnessto accept [gay men] as equal members of society" (BBC 7/20/09). But the reality is that as homosexuals have become more accepted, their HIV rathes have gone UP, not down.


UNESCO wants to teach kids, aged 5-8, that "many different kinds of families exist around the world (e.g. two-parent, single-parent, child-headed, guardian-headed, extended and nuclear families, same-sex couple parents, etc.)" (UNESCO: International guidelines on sexuality education: An evidence informed approach to effective, sex, relationships and HIV/STI education June 2009; Lansky A., Nat'l HIV Prevention conference, Sept 2009.)

...kids age 9-12 are not only to be taught the evils of "homophobia and transphobia" but are also to learn to speak out against such "bias and intolerance" [ p.32]. This is all part of "respect for people with diverse sexual expression and orientation" [p. 39].

Meanwhile, while we refuse to recognize that homosexuality should be discouraged in youth, the U.S. Census Bureau says, "Within 10 years, for the first time in human history, there will be more people 65 and older than children under 5 in the world."

Who will pay the taxes? Who will support and care for all these elderly who chose not to have children?

We need more heterosexual folks marrying and parenting --not more explorers of sexuality and transgenders indulging a desire to be something they were never designed to be--and becoming diseased and childless in the process.




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

7 comments:

Masoni said...

To be frank, I tire of your hate speech. Our correspondence cannot continue to be cordial if you pursue this disgusting path of homophobia and ignorance.

Masoni

Barb said...

I tire of the topic, too, Masoni, but it's obvious that more and more of your generation has embraced lies about the niceness and normalcy of something my generation scarcely heard of --at least not before jr. high --when we thought it really weird and didn't know anyone who was seriously gay.

It's not ignorance to look at the data that tells us our boys, especially, have a real high risk of AIDS once they enter the gay lifestyle --and it's not homophobia or hate speech to suggest that we need to help young people choose a straight path--just as we, in the church and home would teach against adultery, incest, rape, etc. --or rather, teach in favor of the male-female unit and the value of chastity until marriage.

You can't prove the genetic inevitability or immutability of homosexual orientation, Masoni--any more than you can prove that hatred is my motivation --which it is not.

Newsweek had an article a few years back which despaired over the fact that there was another wave of HIV infections --and that the more we teach the risks of homosexuality suggesting condoms as good protection, in fact, the more prevalent gays seem to be and the more they have unprotected sex --heedless of their risks.

In fact, the more we celebrate diversity to mean "sex any way you want it," the more we see young people experimenting --and becoming addicted to these activities, becoming more promiscuous in general --and not necessarily practicing "safer sex," either.

BlackTsunami said...

For the record, gays do not discredit Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron discredits himself. And that is according to the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, William Bennett, Exodus International and so many others.

But if you believe Cameron's mess, do you agree with the following statement from Cameron:

“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm . . . Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” - Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999

Barb said...

No, I don't agree with all he reportedly said here --but I think it may possibly be true that men enjoy rougher sex and so, if they could get over the revulsion, they might enjoy giving it to each other with more sado-masochism --and women like a light touch without discomfort typically. Men do know what feels good to them and women to them.

Homosexuals used to typically bray on talk shows that they could make any man enjoy homosex. They've stopped saying that, since they want us to believe it's "nice" and normal and INNATE -- inevitable and immutable --that gays have to be gay the way most heteros just have to be hetero. They don't want us to think it's their choice. But their advocates used to brag that they could turn a man to gay preference--especially if they got them young enough, according to one of the early activists --the one who threatened to seek out our sons in the libraries, locker rooms, camps, schools, churches, etc.

That promise of homo-erotic bliss won't tempt most people in a hetero-favoring culture. Just 1 or 2 out of a hundred go for the sensations alone without regard for the disgust.

I also think the devil does have a "forbidden fruit" allure to sin --such that ANY illicit sex has a powerful hit (like porn) --perhaps just the first time. There seems to be a downside which has to be drowned in drugs and alcohol and extreme promiscuity with frequent stranger encounters in the gay community.

I'm being theoretical about some of my musings here, having lived very conventionally, but part of understanding people is trying to imagine how they think and feel.

But marital sex, boring? Maybe at your house or even at Cameron's.

but there is so much more to ENRICH a loving relationship in hetero marriage --so much more purpose in the union and the results --so much lifelong affection and delight in our attraction of opposites. And there is variety throughout the various stages of life. The so-called "boredom" of normal marriage he acknowledges --would be one possibility that might serve as birth control during the most fertile years --but it doesn't work for everybody. Many remain enthusiastic about sex in marriage --like the Duggars!

Barb said...

I think he's saying that all homosex is about is the orgasm --entirely selfish and physical pleasure--uncomplicated by fear of pregnancy, pregnancy, birth control concerns, male/female differences/incompatibilities --and it is sex "the way you like it" because a man knows what feels good to him.

Most of us just gag at the thought of being with our own sex --my husband says it's not an even remotely tempting idea to him but revolting--and it makes me turn away in revulsion to see same-sex smooching on tv --yccch factor is high for normal folks.

Seems to me Cameron is saying that if sex is strictly, only pleasure to someone --such that one would crave it in a public park or bathroom, he understands how it could be addictive --like the artificially induced high of cocaine, e.g. And I guess you couldn't call it boring with its constant risk and turn-over of partners.

I presume that those in the life for the relationship aspect are those who've had defective bond with parents --one or both --or early molestation possibly mixed with hero worship of the molester --or simply arrested development where an insecure male is stuck in the same sex admiration (and envy) of a charismatic peer--and his admiration for the ideal male becomes erotic for him. These are the ones I feel sorry for --not those hetero-marrieds who want a quickie in a bathroom with just anybody.

Kids need to be taught to shut the gates to temptation in the mind where it starts.

I believe in all these possibilities of causation of gay orientation except genetic-- You can see the evidence of parenting failure, low self-esteem and insecurity as male or female, identification with the same sex in formative years, idolatry of ideal physiques of same sex persons, molestation history, and those merely addicted to impersonal same sex orgasm --it all starts in the mind --in a heart that is not being guarded against sexual temptation.

I believe Cameron is still a member of the APA --or chooses not to pay dues -- I don't know for sure --but the two recent past presidents spoke at NARTH about the APA's wrongful conclusions and politicization of this issue and their unabashed and wrongful gay advocacy. The APA was chastised for opposing reparative therapy for gays who wanted to be normal. And they more recently admitted that psychology can't say with proof yet what makes some people homosexual.

Barb said...

Checked out your profile BlackTsunami --and I see you are not a bored married hetero.

You will take offense to everything I have said here --but gay is not who you really are from birth --but who you have become and what you do.

"God loves you and has a plan for your life" and homosexuality is never HIS plan --by design. He had something better in mind when He made you male.

Barb said...

correction: ON 2nd thought, I doubt Cameron is a member of APA, but I bet he could be -- he is still a licensed, credentialed, degreed psychologist.