By: Cameron Jones
Posted: 4/20/07
I am what the enrollment office of the University of Arizona would call a non-traditional student. I like to hope that I am relatively normal, but alas, a little "event" a year and a half ago changed that.
I'm married.
And happy, thank you very much.
Listening to some of my closest friends before my wedding, you would have thought I was making the worst mistake of my life.
Apparently, I was far too young to know what I was doing, and far too na've to think that I could balance school and a husband.
They thought I would give up on my education and make babies while barefoot in the kitchen.
Planning my wedding was frustrating because everywhere I would go, whether trying on my dress or picking invitations, someone would invariably comment that I was too young to get married.
The lady hemming my dress asked if I was 16 yet. For the record, I was 20.
Common supposition is that people under 25 do not know enough about themselves to make an intelligent decision regarding a life partner. They say that you will change and grow apart and add to the high number of divorces in this country.
Scientific research used to suggest that women who married young were unlikely to finish their higher education. Women who did pursue a degree and a career were unlikely to marry at all because they postponed their personal lives to gain professional ones.
This attitude is still very prevalent, even though the reality is changing. It is no longer the 1970s, though. More than 30 years later, ideas about educated women have changed.
Women who go to college are very likely to get married eventually, according to Norval Glenn, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin in an article for the Daily Bruin.
Also, according to Glenn, "People that are married actually tend to do better in school."
It is refreshing to finally have something to back up my suspicions about the benefits of married life as a student, besides my own experiences.
Does that mean that my husband forbidding me to procrastinate helped me get better grades? Probably. Being forced to be responsible in financial areas like bill paying, credit management, taxes and getting a mortgage may have leaked over into other areas of my life.
I believe that having someone by your side who is committed to going through life with you, and having to be by their side in return, can form a very stable environment for schoolwork.
You want to succeed, not only for yourself, but also for your partner who is rooting for you as well.
Another thing I can be happy about: My husband and I are actually less likely to divorce.
Steve Mintz, co-chair of the Council on Contemporary Families and a sociology professor at the University of Houston said college-educated couples stay married longer than those who are not, according to the Daily Bruin.
Mintz said, "In a world where half the marriages end in divorce, people aren't just marrying for the moment anymore. They're trying to determine how it will sustain. Whether you're likely to grow together has grown more important."
It makes sense, in a backwards sort of way. My friends told me I would change and grow apart from my husband, but perhaps the point is to change and grow together.
By postponing marriage, one can establish their individuality, but they may give up the ability to mesh lives and goals with someone else.
If the point is to support each other along the journey, getting married young isn't such a bad idea.
Sure, it's not for everyone; only 15 percent of college students across the country are married.
But for some, it's the right decision at the right time. Perhaps it's time for a shift in perspective.
Getting married in college can be beneficial and does not mean that a person is going to give up an education and future goals. It just means that person is going to share them with someone.
Joyanna Jones is a journalism senior and wishes that college boys would learn to look for a wedding ring. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu
source
Monday 30 April 2007
Sunday 22 April 2007
Homosexual subculture wants to be infected with HIV!
A Melbourne man who fantasised about contracting HIV before actually being infected by the virus has spoken of a gay subculture in which infection is seen as "desirable".
The 20-year-old man, who does not want to be named, told Fairfax newspapers both complacency about the virus and the wish to have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man he was in love with led him to become infected.
"I wasn't actively seeking it, but maybe there were parts of me, dark corners, that wanted it, that were thinking, 'Let's just do it and get it over and done with and then it won't be an issue'," he said.
The young professional is the first to speak out about "bug chasing", a behaviour in the gay community in which men seek to become infected with HIV.
The phenomenon was highlighted at the recent committal hearing for Melbourne man Michael Neal.
Mr Neal was accused of deliberately spreading the virus.
A HIV-positive man said in court that "bug chasing" was "a big thing out there" and that he had been pursued on the internet by a man wanting the bug.
"I just kept reminding him that it was not glamorous," a witness told the court.
Dawn Wilcock, of Positive Women Victoria, a support group for HIV-positive women, said the reaction showed a need for Melbourne's gay community leaders to stop dismissing claims of the subculture as an urban myth.
"There's a lot of defensive and protective behaviour going on that is not addressing the potential repercussions of this," Ms Wilcock said.
"It's a real problem. We know that 75 per cent of Victorian women infected with HIV are contracting the virus from long-term male partners, so the health campaigns targeting gay men need to target others in the community who would never publicly identify themselves as being gay too."
The HIV-positive man said some men going to group-sex parties with HIV-positive men might want to "join the club" and have unprotected sex more freely.
"I have had an extremely intoxicated person claim that he wanted it once," he said. "I fobbed him off and he never came asking for it again."
source
Rolling Stone article that sheds major light on how sick minded this group really is
Short video on bug chasing
The 20-year-old man, who does not want to be named, told Fairfax newspapers both complacency about the virus and the wish to have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man he was in love with led him to become infected.
"I wasn't actively seeking it, but maybe there were parts of me, dark corners, that wanted it, that were thinking, 'Let's just do it and get it over and done with and then it won't be an issue'," he said.
The young professional is the first to speak out about "bug chasing", a behaviour in the gay community in which men seek to become infected with HIV.
The phenomenon was highlighted at the recent committal hearing for Melbourne man Michael Neal.
Mr Neal was accused of deliberately spreading the virus.
A HIV-positive man said in court that "bug chasing" was "a big thing out there" and that he had been pursued on the internet by a man wanting the bug.
"I just kept reminding him that it was not glamorous," a witness told the court.
Dawn Wilcock, of Positive Women Victoria, a support group for HIV-positive women, said the reaction showed a need for Melbourne's gay community leaders to stop dismissing claims of the subculture as an urban myth.
"There's a lot of defensive and protective behaviour going on that is not addressing the potential repercussions of this," Ms Wilcock said.
"It's a real problem. We know that 75 per cent of Victorian women infected with HIV are contracting the virus from long-term male partners, so the health campaigns targeting gay men need to target others in the community who would never publicly identify themselves as being gay too."
The HIV-positive man said some men going to group-sex parties with HIV-positive men might want to "join the club" and have unprotected sex more freely.
"I have had an extremely intoxicated person claim that he wanted it once," he said. "I fobbed him off and he never came asking for it again."
source
Rolling Stone article that sheds major light on how sick minded this group really is
Short video on bug chasing
Friday 20 April 2007
$5000 Fine Sought For Christian Marriage Commissioner Who Declined Gay Couple
Why do I talk about homosexual so much? One of the reasons is because they are at the forefront of the news. Another reason is because they are using the gay rights issue as a cover to dismantle freedom of religion rights. Another reason is because they have done more damage in Canada than in the US which, to an American, might give the appearance of going overboard.
This article talks about a marriage commissioner who could be fined $5000 for refusing to marry a gay couple. The gay couple could have gone to another marriage commissioner, but instead decided to file a complaint. This has nothing to do with "gay rights" but an attack on freedom of religion rights. This has got to stop.
This article talks about a marriage commissioner who could be fined $5000 for refusing to marry a gay couple. The gay couple could have gone to another marriage commissioner, but instead decided to file a complaint. This has nothing to do with "gay rights" but an attack on freedom of religion rights. This has got to stop.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
The problem with Musclehead's attitude concerning my articles involving children
"Musclehead" is not the real name or the real nick, but he's an administrator of one of the message boards I visit. He is the only person whom I've met that is very sensitive towards articles I post that involve children. Why he is so sensitive, I don't know? He thinks that if a person is not a parent,that such a person should not post anything that has anything to do with children. I'm sure that many people will disagree with that. After all, I'm not a pet owner either, but that doesn't mean that I should be forbidden to post articles involving pets.
One reason is because there is nothing inherently wrong with a non-parent posting an article involving children. It doesn't break any rules. Also, not every issue involving children is purely a parental issue. For example, when Canada was looking into lowering the voting age to 16 (which didn't come to pass), that is a political issue, not just a parental issue. Same goes with the spanking bill. While parents may have different opinions on that issue, it becomes a political issue when an anti-spanking bill is being debated in congress.
Another thing to consider is that I am a pro-life and pro-family activist. That kind of position is naturally going to involve child matters.
When I post articles, I look for articles that are interesting and ones I think the rest of the posters might find interesting. Some will involve children and others do not. In any case, I think that Musclehead is out of line if he is expecting me not to post any articles involving children. I also notice that he doesn't say anything when another non-parent does the same thing. I think he's only doing this to bug me in particular. The best thing for him to do is to pay more attention to the subject matter and less attention on the person who posted it.
One reason is because there is nothing inherently wrong with a non-parent posting an article involving children. It doesn't break any rules. Also, not every issue involving children is purely a parental issue. For example, when Canada was looking into lowering the voting age to 16 (which didn't come to pass), that is a political issue, not just a parental issue. Same goes with the spanking bill. While parents may have different opinions on that issue, it becomes a political issue when an anti-spanking bill is being debated in congress.
Another thing to consider is that I am a pro-life and pro-family activist. That kind of position is naturally going to involve child matters.
When I post articles, I look for articles that are interesting and ones I think the rest of the posters might find interesting. Some will involve children and others do not. In any case, I think that Musclehead is out of line if he is expecting me not to post any articles involving children. I also notice that he doesn't say anything when another non-parent does the same thing. I think he's only doing this to bug me in particular. The best thing for him to do is to pay more attention to the subject matter and less attention on the person who posted it.
Monday 16 April 2007
Billboard Company Refuses Ex-Gay Ads
from staff reports
Competitor stands up for free speech.
Focus on the Family's Love Won Out Conference is in Omaha, Neb., this weekend, but one billboard company doesn’t want anyone to know about it.
Over the years, Love Won Out has traveled to 43 cities sharing the message that it's possible to break free from homosexuality. The event is regularly advertised on billboards. But when conference organizers contacted billboard company Waitt Outdoor for the Omaha conference, they were turned down. Melissa Fryrear, director of gender issues at Focus on the Family, said no explanation was offered.
"There is nothing objectionable about the billboard whatsoever. The message is, ‘I questioned homosexuality. Change is possible. Discover how,’ " she explained. " It's obviously a message of hope.”
Thankfully, Lamar Advertising Company stepped up and placed the billboards. Scott Butterfield, a spokesman for Lamar, said his company would only turn down an ad that was inaccurate, misleading or promoted illegal activity.
“We support the First Amendment rights of advertisers to promote legal products and services,” he said.
Private companies have the right to refuse services to anyone they choose, although they rarely do. Fryrear said the message of Love Won Out is something people who are unhappy with their homosexuality deserve to hear.
“I needed that in my own life, and, thankfully, I did hear that message," she said. "We want to get that message out to as many people as possible and offer the hope that, yes, homosexuality can be overcome.”
Source
Competitor stands up for free speech.
Focus on the Family's Love Won Out Conference is in Omaha, Neb., this weekend, but one billboard company doesn’t want anyone to know about it.
Over the years, Love Won Out has traveled to 43 cities sharing the message that it's possible to break free from homosexuality. The event is regularly advertised on billboards. But when conference organizers contacted billboard company Waitt Outdoor for the Omaha conference, they were turned down. Melissa Fryrear, director of gender issues at Focus on the Family, said no explanation was offered.
"There is nothing objectionable about the billboard whatsoever. The message is, ‘I questioned homosexuality. Change is possible. Discover how,’ " she explained. " It's obviously a message of hope.”
Thankfully, Lamar Advertising Company stepped up and placed the billboards. Scott Butterfield, a spokesman for Lamar, said his company would only turn down an ad that was inaccurate, misleading or promoted illegal activity.
“We support the First Amendment rights of advertisers to promote legal products and services,” he said.
Private companies have the right to refuse services to anyone they choose, although they rarely do. Fryrear said the message of Love Won Out is something people who are unhappy with their homosexuality deserve to hear.
“I needed that in my own life, and, thankfully, I did hear that message," she said. "We want to get that message out to as many people as possible and offer the hope that, yes, homosexuality can be overcome.”
Source
Sunday 15 April 2007
Young Marriages (For Christians and other conservative minded faiths)
NOTE: This topic is for Christians and other conservative minded faiths that believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If you don't believe this, then don't post your answers as I am not interested in you. Such posts will be deleted.
This is the most controversial view that I support because both conservative and liberal minded people do not like it.
Conservative minded people support abstinence. There is nothing wrong with abstinence. However, when you ask these people when youth are deemed ready for marriage, they will usually say around the ages of 25-30. I believe this is too long of a time period for many people to wait. If you tell a bunch of teenagers that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and at the same time, say that they won't be ready for marriage until the ages of 25-30, do you really think they will be encouraged wait? Some will, but a lot of them will not. They will just end up engaging in premarital sex thinking to themselves, "Well I am not going to be ready for marriage until several years in the future, so I might as well have some sex now in the meantime".
Liberal minded people believe in "safe sex". That is, as long as a condom is used, it's okay for youth to engage in sex. They acknowledge that youth have sex drives and that many of them do not have the will power to wait several years into the future when society deems them ready for marriage. The problem with this approach is that it compromises conservative religious teachings such as Christianity, that teaches that sex should only take place in marriage. Christians and other religions that have similar teachings should not have to compromise their faith in order to accommodate their youth's sexual needs. Also, condoms and other forms of birth control are not fool proof. In other words, it helps to reduce the risk or pregnancy and STDs, but they do not eliminate the risk.
What are the reasons why I promote young marriages among Christian youth and young adults? Because it combines the best of both worlds. Because the sexual activity is taking place within marriage, it doesn't compromise Christian teaching. It also promotes monogamy. Also, if they go through a series of premarital counseling and the wedding itself, these young couples might take their relationship more seriously as husband and wife than if there were just boyfriend and girlfriend. Birth control can be used if they don't want children. If you are Catholic, you can use a certain natural method to avoid having children at the woman's fertile times.
The Bible verses that I use to justify this are these:
1 Cor. 7:1-2 (NKJV) says, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband."
1 Cor. 7:8-9 (NKJV) says, "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
The Wisdom Party of Quebec supports this view. They believe that the age of marriage should be abolished so that teenage girls can marry the father of their children. If the guy is a good man, then the teenage mother can cope with her situation much better than if she is left by herself.
Now I need to clarify some possible misunderstandings about what I support:
1) I do NOT support quick marriages. I am referring to young couples who have been seeing each other for at least 2 years and who plan to marry anyway. But instead of putting that marriage off in the far distant future, they might marry after high school graduation.
2) I do NOT support marriages just to have sex. The couple have to sincerely love and care for each other in addition to wanting to have sex with each other or the marriage won't last. Sex may not be the number 1 reason for marriage, but according to one pastor, it is the number 3 reason. So while it's not number 1, it's still one of the most important aspects of marriage. Most people do not marry someone if they have no sexual interest in them.
As I said, I only want Christians and other faiths that believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin to respond. I am not interested in arguing with people who find nothng wrong with sex outside of marriage.
Here is a good article on the subject:
Link
This is the most controversial view that I support because both conservative and liberal minded people do not like it.
Conservative minded people support abstinence. There is nothing wrong with abstinence. However, when you ask these people when youth are deemed ready for marriage, they will usually say around the ages of 25-30. I believe this is too long of a time period for many people to wait. If you tell a bunch of teenagers that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and at the same time, say that they won't be ready for marriage until the ages of 25-30, do you really think they will be encouraged wait? Some will, but a lot of them will not. They will just end up engaging in premarital sex thinking to themselves, "Well I am not going to be ready for marriage until several years in the future, so I might as well have some sex now in the meantime".
Liberal minded people believe in "safe sex". That is, as long as a condom is used, it's okay for youth to engage in sex. They acknowledge that youth have sex drives and that many of them do not have the will power to wait several years into the future when society deems them ready for marriage. The problem with this approach is that it compromises conservative religious teachings such as Christianity, that teaches that sex should only take place in marriage. Christians and other religions that have similar teachings should not have to compromise their faith in order to accommodate their youth's sexual needs. Also, condoms and other forms of birth control are not fool proof. In other words, it helps to reduce the risk or pregnancy and STDs, but they do not eliminate the risk.
What are the reasons why I promote young marriages among Christian youth and young adults? Because it combines the best of both worlds. Because the sexual activity is taking place within marriage, it doesn't compromise Christian teaching. It also promotes monogamy. Also, if they go through a series of premarital counseling and the wedding itself, these young couples might take their relationship more seriously as husband and wife than if there were just boyfriend and girlfriend. Birth control can be used if they don't want children. If you are Catholic, you can use a certain natural method to avoid having children at the woman's fertile times.
The Bible verses that I use to justify this are these:
1 Cor. 7:1-2 (NKJV) says, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband."
1 Cor. 7:8-9 (NKJV) says, "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
The Wisdom Party of Quebec supports this view. They believe that the age of marriage should be abolished so that teenage girls can marry the father of their children. If the guy is a good man, then the teenage mother can cope with her situation much better than if she is left by herself.
Now I need to clarify some possible misunderstandings about what I support:
1) I do NOT support quick marriages. I am referring to young couples who have been seeing each other for at least 2 years and who plan to marry anyway. But instead of putting that marriage off in the far distant future, they might marry after high school graduation.
2) I do NOT support marriages just to have sex. The couple have to sincerely love and care for each other in addition to wanting to have sex with each other or the marriage won't last. Sex may not be the number 1 reason for marriage, but according to one pastor, it is the number 3 reason. So while it's not number 1, it's still one of the most important aspects of marriage. Most people do not marry someone if they have no sexual interest in them.
As I said, I only want Christians and other faiths that believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin to respond. I am not interested in arguing with people who find nothng wrong with sex outside of marriage.
Here is a good article on the subject:
Link
Monday 9 April 2007
MARRIAGE-A-RONI: THE SAN FRANCISO TREAT
( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
CLERK: “Next.”
T&J: Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
CLERK: “Names?”
T&J: “Tim and Jim Jones.”
CLERK: “Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
T&J: “Yes, we’re brothers.”
CLERK: “Brothers? You can’t get married.”
T&J “Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
CLERK: “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
T&J: “Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
CLERK: “Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
T&J: “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
CLERK: “But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
TIM: “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
JIM: “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
CLERK: “All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
J&J&R&J: “Hi. We are here to get married.”
CLERK:”Names?”
J&J&R&J:”John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
CLERK:”Who wants to marry whom?”
ALL: “We all want to marry each other.”
CLERK: “But there are four of you!”
JOHN: “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
CLERK: “But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
JANE: “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
CLERK: “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
JOHN: “Since when are you standing on tradition?”
CLERK: “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
ROBERT: “Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
CLERK: “All right, all right. Next.”
DAVID: “Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
CLERK: “In what names?”
DAVID: “David Deets.”
CLERK:”And the other man?”
DAVID: “That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
CLERK: “Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
DAVID: “Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
CLERK: “That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
CLERK: “Next.”
T&J: Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
CLERK: “Names?”
T&J: “Tim and Jim Jones.”
CLERK: “Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
T&J: “Yes, we’re brothers.”
CLERK: “Brothers? You can’t get married.”
T&J “Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
CLERK: “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
T&J: “Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
CLERK: “Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
T&J: “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
CLERK: “But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
TIM: “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
JIM: “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
CLERK: “All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
J&J&R&J: “Hi. We are here to get married.”
CLERK:”Names?”
J&J&R&J:”John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
CLERK:”Who wants to marry whom?”
ALL: “We all want to marry each other.”
CLERK: “But there are four of you!”
JOHN: “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
CLERK: “But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
JANE: “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
CLERK: “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
JOHN: “Since when are you standing on tradition?”
CLERK: “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
ROBERT: “Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
CLERK: “All right, all right. Next.”
DAVID: “Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
CLERK: “In what names?”
DAVID: “David Deets.”
CLERK:”And the other man?”
DAVID: “That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
CLERK: “Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
DAVID: “Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
CLERK: “That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
Thursday 5 April 2007
Expert Research Finds Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking
PHILADELPHIA, April 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces lifespan by 24 years!
So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.
"What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.
According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.
In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.
"The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant," said Dr. Cameron. "The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."
Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal Distortion of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.
Read the full report
Source
So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.
"What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.
According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.
In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.
"The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant," said Dr. Cameron. "The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."
Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal Distortion of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.
Read the full report
Source