I believe that it is absolutely true that Canadians as a whole are much more knowledgeable about what is happening around the world than Americans do and that Canadians are more adaptable than Americans.
One of the reasons is because Canada is bilingual, not just in the language of English and French, but because of the differences in Canadian and American spelling. Occasionally an ignorant American will say that I spell a word wrong when, in reality, it's the Canadian spelling.
Another reason why Canadians know more is because we have to keep track of 2 different political systems. Not only do we have to know about what the Republicans and Democrats are doing in the US, but we also have to know about what the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois are doing in Canada. We have to know what Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing as well as President George W. Bush.
Canadians also get Canadian media and American media, but Americans only get American media. In the age of the internet, Canadian media is accessible to Americans, but few Americans use it. They probably think that Canada is not important, but they are wrong. Canada is the US's largest trading partner. That's a good enough reason to know what is going on in Canada because whatever Canada is experiencing has a good likelihood of it happening in the US.
Americans are not concerned about certain issues unless it is happening in their own country. For example, Planned Parenthood and EGALE are two of the organizations that are fighting to keep Canada's current age of consent for sex at 14. This is also happening in other countries around the world. But since it is not yet happening in the US in a significant way, the Americans are not concerned about it. However, most politically correct American parents who defend organizations like Planned Parenthood and EGALE would be really angry if these same organizations were doing in their country what they are currently doing in Canada.
So there you have it. Canadians as a whole know more about what is happening in the world than Americans.
Friday, 29 June 2007
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Political Correctness
On another message board, we are talking about political correctness. I mentioned that referring to groups of people in the way that they would like is good since it's good manners that being practised, but I should add "within reason" because of the different labels and changes that can sometimes take place. For example, dark skinned of African descent like to be called "Black" or "African-American", but they generally don't like being called "coloured" and definitely not "Negro". People who have a physical or mental disability like to be called "physically challenged" or "mentally challenged" and NOT "crippled" or "retard". But when it comes to discussing issues, political correctness should have no place.
For example, there is one particular administrator who is into fitness. If someone were to ask him about junk food, he would say not to eat it, or at least in moderation, because it is not good for you, even though eating them may feel good. If someone were to ask this same individual about drugs, he would say to keep away from them, even though the drugs may make the person taking them feel good for a while. However, when this same individual is asked if kids experiencing same-sex feelings should act on them, he will say something like, " You encourage the child to be whoever he or she wants to be, regardless of sexual orientation" and will completely ignore the scientific evidence that it's not good for them (source). No truly responsible parent or anybody else who works with kids would encourage them to engage in behaviour that is inherently unsafe. That's political correctness for you. This is one example as to why political correctness is not good when talking about issues.
Abortion is another issue. Canada's birth/death replacement rate is dangerously low. The main reason is because of abortions, but politicans want to believe that it's something else and are not able to solve the problem. In some ways, I don't blame them because many people don't want to believe it either and probably don't care.
Another issue is "Happy Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas". Political correctness should not be used to look out for the wishes of minorities at the expense of the majority, in this case, religions. Most people know that the majority of people are celebrating Christmas at the winter holiday season. Yet some businesses and governments want to please minority faiths and disregard Christians.
The biggest problem with political correctness when referring to issues is that does away with freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Political correctness does away with that. So for those who are reading this blog, if you don't like what I am saying, and wish to silence what I am saying, then you do not truly believe in freedom of speech. There are some reasonable limits such as not yelling "fire" when no fire exists, spreading lies, and that sort of thing. But when it comes to expressing beliefs, opinions, and especially verifiable information, there should be no political correctness to get in the way.
For example, there is one particular administrator who is into fitness. If someone were to ask him about junk food, he would say not to eat it, or at least in moderation, because it is not good for you, even though eating them may feel good. If someone were to ask this same individual about drugs, he would say to keep away from them, even though the drugs may make the person taking them feel good for a while. However, when this same individual is asked if kids experiencing same-sex feelings should act on them, he will say something like, " You encourage the child to be whoever he or she wants to be, regardless of sexual orientation" and will completely ignore the scientific evidence that it's not good for them (source). No truly responsible parent or anybody else who works with kids would encourage them to engage in behaviour that is inherently unsafe. That's political correctness for you. This is one example as to why political correctness is not good when talking about issues.
Abortion is another issue. Canada's birth/death replacement rate is dangerously low. The main reason is because of abortions, but politicans want to believe that it's something else and are not able to solve the problem. In some ways, I don't blame them because many people don't want to believe it either and probably don't care.
Another issue is "Happy Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas". Political correctness should not be used to look out for the wishes of minorities at the expense of the majority, in this case, religions. Most people know that the majority of people are celebrating Christmas at the winter holiday season. Yet some businesses and governments want to please minority faiths and disregard Christians.
The biggest problem with political correctness when referring to issues is that does away with freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Political correctness does away with that. So for those who are reading this blog, if you don't like what I am saying, and wish to silence what I am saying, then you do not truly believe in freedom of speech. There are some reasonable limits such as not yelling "fire" when no fire exists, spreading lies, and that sort of thing. But when it comes to expressing beliefs, opinions, and especially verifiable information, there should be no political correctness to get in the way.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Why I believe that alcohol should be illegal (and why Christians should avoid it)
In the past, I supported alcohol in moderation, but now, I support total abstinence of alcohol. One of the reasons is because of my conversion to the Seventh Day Adventist Church which requires all members to abstain from alcohol. But the most important reason is because of all the problems that it causes. The hazards seem to outweigh any benefits.
Many people have been injured or killed through drunk driving. Families have been split as a result, jobs have been lost, and many other problems alcohol causes. Many people don't even realize that you don't have to be drunk for alcohol to impair one's ability to drive. You don't even have to be drunk or have several drinks to be charged with drinking and driving violation. Also, there are laws that penalize a person or business for serving alcohol if drinker gets into an accident. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Many people say that moderation is the key. However, none of these people can agree on what moderation is. There are health benefits of moderate drinking, but it's only limited to one or two drinks a day. How many drinkers limit their drinking of alcoholic beverages to one or two drinks at a party? Not many I'm afraid. There are also studies that suggest that one can get similar health benefits from grape juice. This type of moderation may be fine for medications, but not for social drinking.
I know that not everybody will agree with this, but I would like to see a resurrection of the prohibition movement, or at least more Christians voluntarily abstain from alcohol. You don't need to drink alcohol to have a good time. Even if you yourself don't have a drinking problem, one of your invited guests may have one and serving alcohol only adds to that person's temptation.
I am not writing this to judge anyone in particular. I don't see anyone who disagrees with me as some kind of evil person. I'm also aware that there were problems with prohibition in the past, but I do think there should at least be a movement to encourage people to abstain. Personally, I would rather have prohibition back, even with the challenges of enforcing it, than to stay with the status quo of alcohol abuse going into the millions of dollars and ruined lives. With the high social costs of alcohol, I'm surprised that more Christians do not voluntarily abstain from it.
I am very thankful that I am part of a church that teaches and practises total abstinence because it enables me to hang around with friends that believe and practise the same thing and keeps off any pressure to serve or drink alcohol.
Many people have been injured or killed through drunk driving. Families have been split as a result, jobs have been lost, and many other problems alcohol causes. Many people don't even realize that you don't have to be drunk for alcohol to impair one's ability to drive. You don't even have to be drunk or have several drinks to be charged with drinking and driving violation. Also, there are laws that penalize a person or business for serving alcohol if drinker gets into an accident. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Many people say that moderation is the key. However, none of these people can agree on what moderation is. There are health benefits of moderate drinking, but it's only limited to one or two drinks a day. How many drinkers limit their drinking of alcoholic beverages to one or two drinks at a party? Not many I'm afraid. There are also studies that suggest that one can get similar health benefits from grape juice. This type of moderation may be fine for medications, but not for social drinking.
I know that not everybody will agree with this, but I would like to see a resurrection of the prohibition movement, or at least more Christians voluntarily abstain from alcohol. You don't need to drink alcohol to have a good time. Even if you yourself don't have a drinking problem, one of your invited guests may have one and serving alcohol only adds to that person's temptation.
I am not writing this to judge anyone in particular. I don't see anyone who disagrees with me as some kind of evil person. I'm also aware that there were problems with prohibition in the past, but I do think there should at least be a movement to encourage people to abstain. Personally, I would rather have prohibition back, even with the challenges of enforcing it, than to stay with the status quo of alcohol abuse going into the millions of dollars and ruined lives. With the high social costs of alcohol, I'm surprised that more Christians do not voluntarily abstain from it.
I am very thankful that I am part of a church that teaches and practises total abstinence because it enables me to hang around with friends that believe and practise the same thing and keeps off any pressure to serve or drink alcohol.
Sunday, 3 June 2007
Hope for homosexuals
If you've read the article in the previous post, then you know about the health consequences of homosexuality. I'm not someone that hates homosexuals. I'm someone that cares enough about homosexuals to tell them the truth. In other words, this isn't merely Jemdude's view or the Church's view. Engaging in homosexual acts may make you feel good (in ways I'll never understand), but it is not good for you.
You probably want help getting out of the homosexual lifestyle.
If you are in this situation, then I would like to refer you to Stephen Bennet Ministries. He's a former homosexual whose been there. He no longer struggles with it, and now has a wife and kids.
I'm not going to say that getting out of homosexuality will be easy, but this ministry will help you get through this.
You can download his 30 minute testimony at the following link:
30 minute testimony
Written testimony
Home site
You probably want help getting out of the homosexual lifestyle.
If you are in this situation, then I would like to refer you to Stephen Bennet Ministries. He's a former homosexual whose been there. He no longer struggles with it, and now has a wife and kids.
I'm not going to say that getting out of homosexuality will be easy, but this ministry will help you get through this.
You can download his 30 minute testimony at the following link:
30 minute testimony
Written testimony
Home site
Friday, 25 May 2007
FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over HIV Fears
By John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.
This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.
According to the FDA, the ban is in place because, “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.
The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”
Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion. “At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.
“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”
Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation,” reads the FDA's policy.
“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”
Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA. “The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said. “Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”
A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.
Read the full text of “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men”:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm
Source
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.
This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.
According to the FDA, the ban is in place because, “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.
The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”
Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion. “At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.
“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”
Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation,” reads the FDA's policy.
“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”
Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA. “The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said. “Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”
A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.
Read the full text of “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men”:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm
Source
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Some In Democratic Underground Worried About Backlash To Their Falwell Hate Rantings
Almost from the moment that Jerry Falwell's death was announced on Tuesday, the leftwing nutroots at the Democratic Underground began gleefully dancing upon his grave. Here are just a few of their hate rants about Falwell:
Uncharitable or not, I am sorry his death was not more painful and drawn out. He did not deserve a relatively peaceful, painless and quick death.
Rot in Hell Falwell!
May Pat Robertson and James Dobson be next.
I'm putting on my dancing shoes and am going to look for his grave!
One more nail in the coffin for the hate crime that is religion.
Pretty strong stuff. Even a few of the more rational DUers thought it was over the top and are now worrying about the backlash to their extreme hate rants against Falwell. One of these DUers goes by the screen name of earthlover who is now desperately worried that this backlash will ultimately hurt the Democrats at the polls. Here is some of the nervous commentary by DUer earthlover in a thread titled, Is Our Response To Falwell's Death Hurting Our Cause?
Since Falwell's death, these boards have been inundated with posts, many of which demonstrated absolute glee at his death and judgementalism that rivaled Falwell's...
...Followers of Falwell, and there are MANY, are going to be really angry to read or hear about such hostility coming from our side, especially during this time. This will motivate them to fight their fight even harder, and they will have all kinds of ammunition now to further their cause and to try to convince everyone that Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who show the same sort of hatred they disdain in others...
...Members of the conservative media are already picking up on the profuse hatred being spewed forth on these boards. So, to those who think these boards are just a means to "vent," remember one thing: the whole world is watching...
...Most moderates, and most sane people, and ANYONE with common sense is going to see people dancing on the grave of a still-warm body as being reprehensible, stupid and just plain rude...
...So, the question I have for you: do you have a political death-wish? Democrats have a great chance of winning in 08. However, the sort of thing I have seen about Falwell is going to help...the Republicans! They already are skilled at getting elected by painting us as anti-religion. Who would have dreamt that Democrats would act the way they have done this past day? It is a nightmare to me, but it is a dream come true for the Republicans...
To answer your question, earthlover, yes you folks on the left do have a political death wish. Don't think the over the edge hate rants against Falwell in the leftwing blogosphere will go unnoticed. Much to your evident dismay they will definitely be remembered.
If you don't have the stomach to see the unfiltered sicko hate rants against Falwell directly in the Democratic Underground, you can read a large digest of their bile in the DUmmie FUnnies.
source
Uncharitable or not, I am sorry his death was not more painful and drawn out. He did not deserve a relatively peaceful, painless and quick death.
Rot in Hell Falwell!
May Pat Robertson and James Dobson be next.
I'm putting on my dancing shoes and am going to look for his grave!
One more nail in the coffin for the hate crime that is religion.
Pretty strong stuff. Even a few of the more rational DUers thought it was over the top and are now worrying about the backlash to their extreme hate rants against Falwell. One of these DUers goes by the screen name of earthlover who is now desperately worried that this backlash will ultimately hurt the Democrats at the polls. Here is some of the nervous commentary by DUer earthlover in a thread titled, Is Our Response To Falwell's Death Hurting Our Cause?
Since Falwell's death, these boards have been inundated with posts, many of which demonstrated absolute glee at his death and judgementalism that rivaled Falwell's...
...Followers of Falwell, and there are MANY, are going to be really angry to read or hear about such hostility coming from our side, especially during this time. This will motivate them to fight their fight even harder, and they will have all kinds of ammunition now to further their cause and to try to convince everyone that Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who show the same sort of hatred they disdain in others...
...Members of the conservative media are already picking up on the profuse hatred being spewed forth on these boards. So, to those who think these boards are just a means to "vent," remember one thing: the whole world is watching...
...Most moderates, and most sane people, and ANYONE with common sense is going to see people dancing on the grave of a still-warm body as being reprehensible, stupid and just plain rude...
...So, the question I have for you: do you have a political death-wish? Democrats have a great chance of winning in 08. However, the sort of thing I have seen about Falwell is going to help...the Republicans! They already are skilled at getting elected by painting us as anti-religion. Who would have dreamt that Democrats would act the way they have done this past day? It is a nightmare to me, but it is a dream come true for the Republicans...
To answer your question, earthlover, yes you folks on the left do have a political death wish. Don't think the over the edge hate rants against Falwell in the leftwing blogosphere will go unnoticed. Much to your evident dismay they will definitely be remembered.
If you don't have the stomach to see the unfiltered sicko hate rants against Falwell directly in the Democratic Underground, you can read a large digest of their bile in the DUmmie FUnnies.
source
Monday, 30 April 2007
Young marriage: Not so crazy
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
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
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