But let it settle in your mind, don’t jump to conclusions, i am not that sure myself, may be because of “consensus pressure” still felt an obligation to share with you:

——————–

There is no doubt, despite propaganda to the contrary, that in the USA AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem. There was a legal controversy many years ago involving a friend of mine, named Bryan Ellison.

He co-authored a book on AIDS by one of the discoverers of retro-viruses. The book alleged that the connection between AIDS and HIV was correlative rather than causal.

That is to say, HIV is a marker for the risk behaviors that causes AIDS; so that AIDS is caused by behaviors that wreck the body’s immune system. Strong aphrodisiacs used by gays, repeated anti-biotic use, repeated infection by Hepatitus and venereal diseases, all break down the immune system over time.

This argument was met with a massive legal offensive in which Ellison was forced to leave the country and the book was confiscated during its first printing. I have two copies of the book with me. This is an unusual example of a book successfully suppressed in the United States.

Bryan was crushed by the Lavender Mafia, which is surprisingly powerful in the U.S. One ought to note that Hitler was a homosexual and put into power by a homosexual network that advanced him. This is not fully understood and has been documented by at least one historian. A very brave historian, by the way.
——————–

and this was my answer then:

——————–
Very interesting and disturbing it is. But so true.
I was reading about some deceases recently and not so recently and noticed that there are SO MANY diseases that gays have on a much wider scale then normal people. Including complications from papiloma virus, herpes, etc, etc, etc.

For instance human papiloma virus causes no problem in normal men but homos are known to have anal or penile cancer from it. And so on..

Also mainstream view is that homosexuality can not be cured. But the opposite happens – in a lots of cases people become homos later in life. I know some stories and they are also reported frequently.

SO this propaganda of homosexuality is totally a lie and dangerous manipulation and must be stopped at any price.

I will look up the book online. Almost everything can be found online))
——————-

The book is listed on Amazon. But can not be ordered.

That book was probably a unique occasion in US when court in NY baned its publication and ordered destruction of the printed copies. I think official reason was some publishing technicality or copyrights, – u can find out.

Also it is interesting to read wiki entry on this.

—————————–
another friend said:

Another good read to is Liberal Fascism by Jonan Goldberg. You well be suprised how much liberalism and nazism have in common including the homosexual agenda.

—————————

it is interesting how meaning of words change and it looks like someone is working on it like it is described by Orwell

Liberalism used to mean something very good: free markets, liberties, peoples rights

same way word GAY used to mean happiness and delight

The author’s mistaken assumption is that $20 buys you “binding” terms that can’t “be challenged”. Marriage buys you no such thing.

Indeed, the fundamental assumption of the gay marriage crowd is that marriage is some kind of right or benefit. But it is not at all clear that it is. Marriage is actually obligations and responsibilities. Once you marry, you are responsible for your spouse’s debts, for instance. Depending on the state, you are responsible for your spouse’s children, even if they are not biologically yours. Even if you are no longer married, you can still be responsible for your ex-spouse (”alimony”).

Marriage is not legal protection. It is the opposite: legal complication and legal vulnerability. In a sense, you are actually renouncing certain rights when you get married, not gaining them.

I’m not surprised that you know kids raised by non-traditional parents who you feel turned out “superbly; but define “superbly” for me. Are the children missing important developmental “building blocks” because of their environment? Science says yes.

I have intentionally focused my argument on psychology and sociology and left my personal feelings out of it. I believe you can make an air tight case against re-defining marriage based purely on psychology and sociology. I have tried to do that here.

Your statement about “perpetuating inequality” assumes gay parents are entitled to raise children, and you haven’t proven that point.

My assertion is simple:

2 non-biological (including same-sex) parents is not equal to 2 biological (by default includes 1 man and 1 woman) in terms of raising a healthy, well-balanced child.

I also assume said parents are functioning contributors to society in that they have jobs, aren’t physically abusive, are not addicted to drugs, etc. I specify this because I want to avoid the, “What about really dysfunctional biological parents vs. a gay couple?” argument, which I believe is weak. If any child is orphaned because their parents are deceased or choosing not to be in the picture, that child starts out with a major disadvantage, so it seems logical to me to do our best to give them the closest thing possible to their natural parents. Again, that implies 1 man and 1 woman.

To play Devil’s Advocate, I am not positive that it is not within society’s power to deny the property benefits given that no children can possibly be conceived. As a general principle I do not believe that people have a general right to marry… in fact, we are rife with laws that prevent marriage based on age, mental state (the ability to consent), relationship of the two people (marriage between cousins and even siblings is allowed, albeit frowned upon, in many European countries). So clearly marriage is not an absolute Right. And given that it is not an absolute Right, why wouldn’t a society convey a benefit when it cannot possibly receive a benefit in return… in this case, new citizens to continue the society?

I know this is a hot political topic, so while people might find the idea unpalatable… is the logic incorrect?

And marriage has always been about property: the nobility has always married their sons and daughters, often lovelessly, to enhance their estates. And that is to say nothing compared to what Royalty has done, marrying to ensure political alliances. No, marriage has always been about property; children have been a corollary.

Don’t kill me, folks, that’s just mho.

Chris in Toronto.

Technically, this has been the case for centuries, I didn’t invent it. It does make logical sense too though, doesn’t it?

As for your aunt and uncle, God bless them for rescuing 2 children from an orphanage and saving them from a fate much worse and enduring what must have been painful, as I understand not being able to bear children is hard.

You married your wife without children in mind so I can only assume you did it to express love, a commitment, tax breaks, or all of the above? I am not condemning you for not desiring to have children, I am just saying it is not the norm. If it were, there is a good chance some of us wouldn’t be here.

“Another thing we found out is that gay couples are selfish, and dysfunctional.”

Definitely didn’t say that, and in fact, I went out of my way to include anyone, gay or straight, single or otherwise, that bring children into a situation that they know is less than ideal for that child’s personal development. Gay couples haven’t cornered the market on dysfunction, theirs is just alot more public.

That fact that you point to cases where heterosexuals who don’t parent well only reinforces my overall point that people should consider carefully, while putting the best interests of children first, the environment they will subject their children to and if that will result in healthy balanced people.

Your Nanny State argument is groundless. I am advocating personal responsibility of each individual in their affairs, which includes how you parent, while extreme liberals believe the state is better equipped to raise children than 2 biological heterosexual parents. Horrible thought.

I am glad that you have deduced 2 things about me without me spelling it out:

1. I am a Conservative.
2. I am a Christian.

That means I am doing my job.

Another thing we found out is that gay couples are selfish, and dysfunctional. It turns out that by contrast hetero couples are only there for the child. The problem with this thesis is that you only have to turn on the TV to listen to case after case of dysfunctional straight couples, married, etc., who do the most horrible things to each other and their children, or the children to their parents. I’m sure that if Bullfrog chooses to illuminate us further with his opinions, he’ll have more prescriptions for solving these problems too; however, it’s hard for me to sort those arguments out from those of the left, who try to turn us into a nanny state constantly. What should we call it when a conservative does it? Perhaps the Sunday-School-all-week-long State?