There are some FAQ’s on the Exodus International website that are written with a reasoned approach and present their case without resorting to histrionics and wild assertions. Exodus does have some participants who are logical and they seem to be called upon to answer questions about church life and witness. But when Exodus addresses a social question and wants an answer that is bat-poop crazy, they know they can call on Nancy Brown.
So it’s no surprise that Nancy was called on to answer the question
Is there a connection between life expectancy and homosexuality?
What health issues are involved with homosexuality?
I don’t think anyone will be surprised to find that Nancy has opinions on this subject and that none of them are hindered by the constraints of factuality or honesty. There are no flights of fancy too whimsical or “statistic” too ludicrous to be repeated by Nancy.
There are a significant number of health issues connected with homosexuality. Consider the following health statistics:
Alrighty, let’s consider them. To make analysis easy and fun, we’ll group her claims by her basis for support.
First we’ll look at the claims for which Nancy provides no support other than her own bile:
74% of AIDS cases originated with homosexual contact
23.1% of male homosexuals, 39% of female homosexuals are raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a cohabitating partner at some time in their lives
What can you say when someone doesn’t even pretend to know what they claim? I suppose I could claim that Nancy Brown kicks her dog on 74% of Tuesdays and burns dinner 23.1% of the time. Who knows if it’s true?
But as for 74% of AIDS cases origination with homosexual contact, from a global perspective this is ridiculous, irresponsible, and callous. The National Institutes of Health (a far more reputable source than nothing at all) says this:
Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.
Nancy doesn’t tell us where she heard the quote about rape and assault, but fortunately we already know. This is the National Violence Against Women Survey and she borrowed it from Focus on the Family. Now here’s where anti-gay activists play with numbers (follow along, it will amuse you, I promise).
The numbers Nancy quotes look like its woman-on-woman and man-on-man violence. It’s actually a combination of all the violence they’ve experienced in relationships from either sex. As Jim Burroway brilliantly illustrates on his site, when you break these out and look at the raw data,
Same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than a female partner
[and]gay men are safer around their same-sex partners than straight women are around their husbands or opposite-sex partner.
Nancy’s next batch of “wacky fun facts for demonizing gay folks” come from E. Fields from Marietta, GA. and his article, “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?”
Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be killed by partner abuse than heterosexuals
The median age of death of a Lesbian is 45
The median age of death of a homosexual man without AIDS is 42, with AIDS is 39
We aren’t provided a link to Mr. Fields’ fine tract and I don’t seem to find it online anywhere so we can’t mock Linda’s reliance on it directly. However, the following question was raised on another website about this particular source
So who is Dr. E. Fields of Marietta? I hope he’s not, but expect he is, the same individual described in a report by the Center for Democratic Renewal, an Atlanta-based hate-group watchdog organization: “The Truth At Last, handed out by various KKK factions, Populist Party, and neo-Nazi groups, is published by Marietta’s Ed Fields. Fields was co-founder of the America First Party, a white supremacist political party.”
In general, when seeking credibility for your screeds against a minority of the population, it’s best not to link up too closely with white supremacists, Nancy. Rational people tend to think that your opinions are like theirs, lies used to justify hatred and inhumanity. The next thing you know, you’ll be justifying slavery. Just out of curiosity, Nancy, do you subscribe to Dr. Fields’ Jew Watch?
But these claims aren’t really unfamiliar to us and they don’t originate with the racist Mr. Fields. These are claims made by the discredited and dishonest Paul Cameron. Nancy has wisely tried to deflect any association with Cameron because he is well known, even in conservative circles, to be a propagandist and unethical. Exodus loves to quote Cameron but only when they can pretend that he isn’t the source.
Oh, and in case you haven’t guessed, the claims are not true.
Now let’s look at the claims for which Nancy provides a source
25-33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics
Nancy’s source here is R. Kus, “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America,” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 14(2) (1987), p. 254. Now that really sounds credible, doesn’t it; it’s all right there in the “Medical Journal of Homosexuality”.
Wait. What “Medical Journal of Homosexuality”?
Surely if this prestigious journal existed there would be some reference to it on the internet. Yet this authoritative sounding source has contributed only one “discovery” to the billions of contributions available on the world wide web: this rather spurious claim about gay Americans and Alcoholics Anonymous which is repeated blindly on anti-gay activism sites. Also, oddly enough, the Library of Congress hasn’t heard of the Medical Journal of Homosexuality either.
Now I can’t claim that this journal never existed, but I’ll believe it when I see it. (or when our very knowledgeable readers correct me).
More likely, this is a misquote of a refernce in the Journal of Homosexuality (which does exist) about an AA meeting in which the following phrase is used “alcoholism is believed to be the number one health problem among both male and female homosexuals, afflicting between 20-33% of this population”. The support for this reference? Three first-person articles written by recovering gay alcoholics in the 70’s.
Yep, the 70’s. It will take us some time to find these articles and determine if the wide range of “20 to 33%” is based on anything more than a wild guess. But I can guarantee you that Nancy hasn’t read them.
Let’s move on to the next really stupid thing that Nancy (and Exodus) have for us
50% of Suicide victims are homosexual
This time Nancy’s source is a newspaper (one that actually exists outside her fevered imagination): Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some”. Post-Tribune, 18, December 1992.
WOW!! If it was in the newspaper it must be true. Right?
Well who is this “J. Kaifetz”?
Jerry Kaifetz is a businessman who has owned an operated a chemical company near Chicago since 1986. He has developed over 24 industrial cleaning products that are manufactured in Chicago and sold nationwide. He has two degrees in Pastoral Theology and a Ph.D. in Philosophy in Religion.
[snip]Dr. Kaifetz has published numerous articles over the years and has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Chicago Sun Times, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, Fox, The Associated Press, NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates in Chicago. He has also been a columnist for The Times and the Post Tribune in Northwest Indiana. He is a past recipient of The Sword of the Lord Award for Evangelism.
So Kaifetz is a religious commentator. And his qualifications to discuss suicide statistics? Zilch (unless maybe someone used a cleaning product).
It’s really unethical to claim an anti-gay columnist’s guesses as factual, Nancy. That’s bad even by Exodus standards.
78% of homosexuals have one or more STD
Nancy’s source? Enrique Rueda, “The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy,” (Old Greenwich, CT: The Devin Adair Company, 1982), 53.
Father Rueda was a Catholic priest who railed against the Church’s dawning acceptance of gay persons into the fabric of spiritual life. I’ve not read the book but I have my doubts as to whether Father Rueda was a good source on STD rates. Not even 24 years ago.
Perhaps Nancy was more confused than usual and didn’t intend to footnote this claim with Rueda’s book. It sounds very similar to a Paul Cameron claim. Or perhaps she thought no one would really notice – and if you’re using bogus “statistics” does it really matter where they came from? It’s all about throwing footnotes on a page to appear credible when spouting hateful mistruths.
Nancy ends her document of deception with a list of diseases gay people can get. While it’s a nice scare tactic, none of them is specific solely to gay people. She might as well have included halitosis and West Nile Virus while she was at it.
But in a classic move of making a claim that simply is not true – not kinda true, not for-all-practical-purposes true, not yeah-but true – Nancy lashes out at gay men and women with this accusation
The sexual activities engaged in by homosexuals inevitably lead to a whole range of viral and bacterial infections that can result in sterility, cancer and death [emphasis added]
I can see little reason to lie in such a way unless you are motivated by hatred and bitterness. And, though it’s only speculation, I can guess the basis for that hatred and bitterness.
Using Paul Cameron, fake journals, and white supremacists. Really classy, Nancy, you should be proud.
Jim Burroway contributed significantly to this article
Tim
I looked for “Medical Journal of Homosexuality” in World Cat, the online catalog of every major library in the world, including almost every university in America and Europe… and nothing.
What this tells me is that there has not been any publication since the 1970’s (when electronic cataloging caught on), and if it existed before, no research library has bothered to catalog it.
Which makes me think it doesn’t exist.
Sure it does. My 500 lovers, none of whom lived past the age of 45, recently took a break from stalking me and drinking straight grain alcohol to assure me that it does exist. Then half of them committed suicide while the rest lamented their viral infections and cancers. It’s been quite a night.
Boo,
Are these the same 500 lovers that arrived this morning to bring you up to your required average?
It’s been quite a day for you.
All I can say is, I’ve become a big fan of Gatorade.
Just last night I was at the gay bar engaged in the homosexual lifestyle. A guy was at the bar who was celebrating his 42nd birthday. So I said to him “Wow, guess you didn’t get AIDS huh?” He said, “Yeah, sure have enjoyed the last three years.” Then he fell over and died. The end.
(Warning: The preceding post may be entirely fabricated and drawn from poorly referenced sources. However, as my desire is to obfuscate and slander rather than to inform, it’s ok. Just call me Nancy Brown, k?)
I don’t know anything about Nancy, but there are plenty of sobering statistics about sodomy between men in the United States:
1. Gay men are 1.4% of the U.S. population,
(the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994))
yet constituted 63% of new HIV infections in 2003.
(U.S. Centers For Disease Control, Morbidity And Mortality Weekly Report, June 24, 2005)
2. The standard medical advice for sodomitically-active men is to be screened for numerous STDs every 3-12 months, undergo periodic anal pap smears, and be vaccinated against all amenable forms of hepatitis.
3. Newly-mutated STDs in foreign lands continue to be imported and spread across the U.S. by sodomitically-active men.
(Two examples: (1) In October 2004 the Center for Disease Control warned doctors and clinics across the U.S. to be prepared to diagnose and treat gay and bisexual men infected with Lymphogranuloma venereum, a rare and dangerous strain of chlamydia that had broken out in the Netherlands. (2) In April 2004 the CDC significantly revised its recommended treatment for gonorrhea in gay men. CDC tracked the development of drug-resistant gonorrhea from the time it appeared in Asia. CDC recommended replacing fluoroquinolones with other drugs for all cases of gonorrhea in Hawaii in 2000, and in 2002 extended that to California. As of April 2004 CDC recommends that all men who have sex with men be treated with ceftriaxone and cefixime, regardless of where they live in the U.S.)
4. Depression and emotional distress haunt gay men – even in the Netherlands where gay men are most accepted – suggesting that the cause is something other than societal homophobia.
(Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91 (January 2001))
“Fields was co-founder of the America First Party, a white supremacist political party.” Not surprising.
The Fields bone’s connected to the EXODUS bone,
The EXODUS bone’s connected to the FOTF bone,
The FOTF bone’s connected to the NARTH bone,
The NARTH bone’s connected to the Schoenewolf bone…
I think the happy slaves sang that…
Mark Brown’s comment is incredibly naive:
“4. Depression and emotional distress haunt gay men – even in the Netherlands where gay men are most accepted – suggesting that the cause is something other than societal homophobia.”
He’s implying that the depression must be the result of being gay. The fact that more people in the Netherlands may be more accepting does NOT mean that gays living there do not experience societal prejudice. There are racists and homophobes in every country — even the most liberal. He is making too big a leap to say “the cause is something other…”
Mark Brown said:
2. The standard medical advice for sodomitically-active men is to be screened for numerous STDs every 3-12 months, undergo periodic anal pap smears, and be vaccinated against all amenable forms of hepatitis.
Who says this? Where is your reference? And are you expecting anyone to believe that two people in a monogamous relationship are in constant danger of contracting STDs of any sort? If you mean people who have open, multi-partner, indiscriminate sex, then say so. That is a sub-set of people and that kind of behavior would present a greater danger to anyone, heterosexual or homosexual.
Is “sodomitically-active” even a real term? Did you make that up?
1. Gay men are 1.4% of the U.S. population…
yet constituted 63% of new HIV infections in 2003.
I don’t think there’s been any real dispute about this here or elsewhere. Of course, this only takes account into the Americo-centric view that ignores the vast, vast majority of HIV infections occur heterosexually.
2. The standard medical advice for sexually promiscuous individuals is to be screened for numerous STDs every 3-12 months, undergo periodic anal pap smears, and be vaccinated against all amenable forms of hepatitis.
Fixed it for you. Paul Cameron really has done a number in convincing everyone gay men have sex with every man they meet (how else do we reach 1000 partners a year?). Anal cancer is indeed more common among men who have sex with men, especially those who are HIV-positive and it is well-correlated with HPV/anogenital warts. It is a fairly unusual cancer though. The far more common HPV-related cancer is, you guessed it, the HPV that is heterosexually spread, leading to cervical cancer.
3. Newly-mutated STDs in foreign lands continue to be imported and spread across the U.S. by sodomitically-active men.
There’s that gay men travel all over and have sex constantly thing again. Gotta work some pseudo-Biblical condemnation in there too, don’t ya?
4. Depression and emotional distress haunt gay men – even in the Netherlands where gay men are most accepted – suggesting that the cause is something other than societal homophobia.
(Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91 (January 2001))
This is where I really like being on a campus with near universal electronic journal access – I took the opportunity to look up this study. It actually appears to be fairly well done, although like all self-reporting cross-sectional studies it has flaws – the authors themselves stated they felt their homosexual sample was a little on the small side and that it may have been that straight men were simply less willing to self-report mental illness symptoms. Also, interestingly, in their entire gay & straight sample – ONE person had HIV: a heterosexual female. Oh, and the average age of the straight and gay men in the study was 40 and 39.2, respectively – NOT significantly different. Guess all the gay men DON’T die young like the popular meme still states.
As is typical for those such as Mr. Brown, lesbians get entirely ignored in their pursuance of their anal sex phobia. The study showed that lesbians actually show non-statistically significant (due to poor study power) PROTECTION against several mental disorders compared to straight women. Only drug abuse was evident in excess (as opposed to gay men, where NOT ONE GAY MAN reported drug abuse compared to 1% of straight men.)
Mr. Brown, aren’t these studies more interesting when you actually read them for information rather than searching for information to condemn people with? Of course, I doubt you actually read it and probably just lifted the quote and reference from some other web site without checking it out yourself. Poor scholarship, that.
Not to make this thread about Mr. Brown, but he is an attorney from Texas who has a habit of dropping these little statistics around the web. He does illustrate the attitude of Nancy Brown quite well, however.
In a letter to an Episcopalian Bishop (read summary here), Mr. Brown makes essentially the same statements he made here, adding that “gay sodomy is addictive.” The comment that really shows where he is coming from is:
…spiritual reality of the 21st Century is that there remains a demonic spirit which identifies itself as homosexuality.
That’s not a metaphore, he means a real demonic spirt. When you start with that assumption, you end up with Mr. Brown, and Nancy Brown.
As is typical for those such as Mr. Brown, lesbians get entirely ignored in their pursuance of their anal sex phobia.
Hey, quit drawing attention to my pursuance of my anal sex phobia! Or else my 2200 sex partners, my demonic spirit (which identifies itself as “Gertrude”), and I will import more sodomitically active men with new-mutated STDs from the haunted Netherlands.
Mr. Brown speaks of a “…spiritual reality of the 21st Century is that there remains a demonic spirit which identifies itself as homosexuality.” Does it have a high-pitched sissy kind of voice and like to re-arrange furniture too?
Where does he get this? It reminds me of the Highley’s “L.I.F.E.” ministry (featured in the “Under Nation Under God” documentary) in which exorcist Joanne Highley gleefully reports that she “binds demons in the name of Jesus” and casts them out of “mouths and throats and anal canals — anywhere there has been an unclean deposit of semen” due to “rolling around on the floors of gay bars having gay sex”. Where are these bars?
Nowhere does the Bible indicate that homosexuality is a demon. If anything, sexual sins are described as works of our own flesh, not demons.
“Gay men are 1.4% of the U.S. population…”
That may be the numer who will identify themselves as “gay” to a stranger with a clipboard. Of course, the number of men who have had sex with men is significantly higher. In the last CDC study (which was posted on this site), half the men who’d had sex with men called themselves “straight,” and that doesn’t even count the ones who called themselves bi or refused a label.
*****Smart-Aleck Comment Alert*****
Well, we’d better ratchet up the worries about the heterosexual lifestlye, to match the ratcheted up worries about the homosexual lifestyle.
For example, the U.S. birth rate for teenagers in 1997 was 52.3 live births per 1,000 women age 15 to 19. Teen pregnancy would seem to be a heterosexual problem.
Also in America, 54 percent of new HIV/AIDS infections are among heterosexuals. This isn’t even addressing that the incidence rates for sexually transmitted diseases chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea and human papilloma virus — within the entire adolescent population in the United States have increased dramatically in the past decade. For example, 40 percent to 50 percent of all sexually active females have had a previous HPV infection, now known to account for most cases of cervical cancer.
Lastly, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 2003 marriage rate in the United States was 7.5 per 1,000 total population, and the divorce rate 3.8 per 1,000 population. This apparent 50.7 percent divorce rate statistic highlights a heterosexual problem, as the US government doesn’t collect data on same-sex marriages.
When one cherry picks one’s information, one can “prove” just about anything. Here, I believe I’ve just “proved” how dangerous the heterosexual lifestyle really is. Perhaps heterosexual people need reparative therapy to become homosexual or asexual.
Mark Brown & Nancy Brown….Hmm… Doesn’t anyone else see a connection here?
Fairly obvious that these Xtians are now waging war upon the truth and that they are nothing but hate-mongers.
Indeed we must, Autumn.
Bloggers:
I love every one of you.
I presented some sobering facts on sodomy in an earlier post, and so far no one has refuted any of them.
I think the problem with most blogs, of ANY STRIPE, is the development of a one-sided “mob” mentality, where folks respond emotionally instead of analytically.
The world needs more light and less heat, wouldn’t you agree?
Best wishes,
Mark Brown
Dear Bloggers:
Earlier I posted some sobering data on sodomy, and while there have been many reactions posted, thus far the data has not been refuted.
For the blogger asking WHO it is that recommends frequent STD testing for gay men, I omitted any sources because this is well known. One source would be the Centers For Disease Control:
https://www.cdc.gov/STD/treatment/1-2002TG.htm#MenWhoHaveSexwithMen :
“Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines 2002
….
The following screening recommendations are based on preliminary data; these tests should be performed at least annually for sexually active MSM:
* HIV serology, if HIV-negative or not previously tested;
* syphilis serology;
* urethral culture or nucleic acid amplification test for gonorrhea;
* a urethral or urine test (culture or nucleic acid amplification) for
chlamydia in men with oral-genital exposure;
* pharyngeal culture for gonorrhea in men with oral-genital exposure; and
* rectal gonorrhea and chlamydia culture in men who have had receptive anal intercourse.
In addition, vaccination against hepatitis is the most effective means of preventing sexual transmission of hepatitis A and B. Prevaccination serologic testing may be cost-effective in MSM, among whom the prevalence of hepatitis A and B infection is likely to be high.
More frequent STD screening (e.g., at 3–6-month intervals) may be indicated for MSM at highest risk (e.g., those who acknowledge having multiple anonymous partners or having sex in conjunction with illicit drug use and patients whose sex partners participate in these activities).”
I think most folks will agree that the greatest defect in blogs, of ANY STRIPE, is the one-sided “mob” mentality that often develops in the bloggers that encourages emotional, instead of analytical, responses, so that unpopular information never gets rationally considered.
Best wishes,
Mark Brown
Mr. Brown, to define the word refute:
‘prove to be false or incorrect’
This definition comes from google.com, which thereby draws it from wordnet.princeton.edu. Given this, your statement of
‘Earlier I posted some sobering data on sodomy, and while there have been many reactions posted, thus far the data has not been refuted.’
has not been met and can be taken as false. I admit that not all your statements have been refuted, but then again you’ve given us less than 24 hours to do so and most of us actually have day jobs. I refer you to the comments above by:
Anonymous, M. J. Wise
Who posed statements in contradiction to what you stated previously that detail either the inadequacy of your logic or correct your inacurate and misleading quoting.
Indeed, you seem to make a severe habit of cherry picking and manipulating your fact as your latest quoting of the CDC is. The article you linked is sexual health guidelines for all groupd, covers male and female condoms, and many other facets of proper sexual practices. It covers primarily heterosexuals in vaccination, use of condoms, etc, and has groups who have special concerns. By your logic in using this document, perhaps you recommend that we prevent people from being pregnant, or from being adolescants as well? They have special considerations too.
Mark,
Why are you so obviously looking for a fight or perhaps victimhood here? Do you presume us to be supporters of promiscuity? Most people who get STDs, especially MSM, engage in egregiously unsafe acts, like completely unprotected anonymous sex and random street hookups. The CDC makes generally good recommendations – of course, I would recommend that people simply not have sex promiscuously (I can still count the number of my lifetime sex partners on one hand and I don’t intend on exceeding that).
And what IS with this obsession with gay men’s anuses? I’m gay and I’m not this obsessed with them! Why don’t you post some heterosexual HPV, Gonorrhea, and Chlamydia statistics and REALLY scare people?
Nah, I’d say the greatest defect is still trolls.
And my 11,390 alcoholic sex partners all agree.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines 2002
Mark, if you scroll up a bit on that same page you provided, it says:
The most reliable way to avoid transmission of STDs is to abstain from sexual intercourse (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal sex) or to be in a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. [emphasis mine]
The cautions you have mentioned involved people with open, promiscuous sexual encounters, not people in closed relationships. This has been mentioned already in response to your original post but you have ignored it. This is not a place for you to monologue, but for us all to dialogue. Part of that means you don’t simply repeat statements over and over without addressing others’ responses. It also means you address people by name, not “Dear Bloggers” or “the blogger.”
I think the problem with most blogs, of ANY STRIPE, is the development of a one-sided “mob” mentality, where folks respond emotionally instead of analytically.
That you make such a statement is evidence that you have not spent any time evaluating this site. The only thing we are uniformly against here are lies and deception. The only mob mentality expressed in this thread came in with you. I find your comments here disingenuous and in 2 posts you have framed yourself as a martyr.
People here spend a lot of time and effort responding to articles and posts. If you can’t put forth the effort to respond in kind, don’t post here. Civil, honest debate is invited, troll like behavior is not. We have guidelines which you you have apparently ignored. If you wish to continue posting here, clean up your act.
The only thing for which we can thank you is your personification of the attitude the original article illustrates in Nancy Brown.
Darren Mitton said:
Fairly obvious that these Xtians are now waging war upon the truth and that they are nothing but hate-mongers.
Darren, making such a blanket statement is entirely unfair. Also, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on why you use this, but to many the non-standard “Xtians” abbreviation, especially used as you did with “these Xtians” is considered an insult. In that respect, this is no better than when others say “the homosexual” or “these sodomites.”
A fair percentage of our readers are Christian (full disclosure, myself included), and we respect that, just as we do those who are not. It may be accurate to say that Nancy Brown and Mark Brown are waging war upon the truth, but the rest is a bit hateful. Whatever your beliefs may be, try to avoid blanket comments and generalities that don’t really add to the discussion. Thanks.
Mark Brown said “Bloggers: I love every one of you.”.
You’ve bastardized the word love. Love means you look forward to being with someone, that you get great pleasure out of being in their presence. As you do not know any of us you cannot love us. You don’t mean love as most people understand it. In your twisted language “love” means for your own selfish satisfaction you wish to dominate and control us in order to prevent our love and sex lives.
Spare us your twisted and disingenous claims of “love”.
David,
You stated ‘”Xtians” abbreviation, especially used as you did with “these Xtians” is considered an insult.’ For risk of thread hijacking, I’ve never heard of this being considered an insult before. I’ve always considered ‘X’ to be shorthand for Christ, I’ve never really known why the shorthand developed (I’ve always seen it as X marks the spot, or such a great figure a single letter could represent them and all the meaning would be known) Such as in the abbreviation Xmas.
Now that a vaccine has come on the horizon for HPV, it’s been recommended that females as young as 11 be vaccinated against this virus.
Of course, the usual reactionary suspects see it as an open door to more irresponsible sex.
Right.
Well, if these dopes went into certain inner city neighborhoods, the incidents of underaged females and older male sexual activity would boggle their minds.
The men aren’t held accountable nearly as much as they should be.
Atlanta, Georgia has become a sex trade destination. Females on the street, range in age from adolescent to late teens.
They make up a large, the largest percentage of those engaged in this trend.
The MALES however, run a far greater age gamut.
The reason, as is true in most countries, isn’t promiscuity on the part of the FEMALE.
It’s an economic issue with females. It’s a matter of promiscuity on the part of the MALES.
Married men, after all will frequent prostitutes.
Let’s just say, that with all this talk about gay male sex lives the religious conservatives concern themselves with, they aren’t checking their hetero brethren with nearly the same fervor.
Even if their statistics were true about the short life spans of gay males-the life expectancy for young black males is a lot lower.
And not due to disease, but violence.
If these people are going to open their mouths, I really wish they’d get some sensible perspective on the subject.
Heterosexuals are obviously, even by THEIR numbers make up a much, much, larger segment of the population.
We’re ALL engaged because this is a welfare state. Because the institutionalized CHILD of heterosexual consequence will one day grow up and move to another institution: the penal system.
In any case, these bogus public health numbers they give doesn’t help anything but prejudice against gay folks.
Which is clearly why they bother.
Far be it that they engage in reportage that would make heterosexuals realize THEIR role in the break down of society and public health standards.
We see why it keeps happening…no one who SHOULD be talking about it, has the will to.
You’ll find higher rates of violence, family breakdown, STDs and other social dysfunctions amongst Afro Canadians, African Americans, Inuit and Natives and they have the advantage of coming from supportive families which try to nurture their relationships.
It doesn’t prove there is anything inherently dysfunctional with being African, Native or Inuit, but says a lot about what being socially marginalized does to people.
And men who have sex with man and gay men are definitely two different groups of people. Other countries make that distinction. It’s about time that the US does too.
And men who have sex with man and gay men are definitely two different groups of people. Other countries make that distinction. It’s about time that the US does too.
Let me clarify. MSM covers everything from prison rape, to married men seeking male sex to gay men.
It makes sense for the CDC to use this from a medical/biological perspective; it’s a huge mistake to use this to draw sociological conclusions.
ragarth said:
For risk of thread hijacking, I’ve never heard of this being considered an insult before. I’ve always considered ‘X’ to be shorthand for Christ…
Oh yeah 😉 Occasionally one will run across someone who explains it by saying “x in Latin means Christ, etc” and so it’s just an abbreviation. However, I’ve rarely seen it used when the person using it wasn’t trying to at least make a passive aggressive jab at Christians. You can get an idea by taking a look at the usages that turn up in a Google search for the word.
A lesser form of this aggression comes through when someone insists on using lowercase “god” or “christ” as though capitalizing them is out of honor; it’s just proper English. Satan is also capitalized 😉 Since I don’t know Darren I gave him the benefit of the doubt to some extent, but explained the issue anyway as most posters here do not use gratuitous insults and would want to know if something they say comes across that way.
I don’t honestly care about the term one way or the other myself, but I try to keep the atmosphere respectful for everyone who posts here. I’ve seen this used a few times in recent months and thought it was time to make a comment. I didn’t mean to take up so much space to do so.
Actually X is the Greek letter Chi, the first letter of Christ, and has always been used as shorthand within the Church. (My priest uses it on all his notes.) The earliest Christians were often crucified on a St Andrew’s Cross, which is an X and that developed as a symbol of resistance.
In Anglican, Catholics and Orthodox churches you’ll see the symbol X overlaid with P on altars. XP are the first two letters of the word Christ Χριστος.
The only people who seem offended are those who are unaware of its history and usage within the liturgical church who seems to see it as some secularist conspiracy. But for the majority of Christians, it is no insult at all.
As toujoursdan explained, X is a long accepted abbreviation within the Church (I believe that I’ve read that it goes back to the Early Church). But it is also seldom used in the evangelical side of Christianity and is often viewed with suspicion (“It isn’t X-mas, don’t take Christ out of Christmas”).
Interestingly, I think a good case could be made for using lower case c in christ. Christians believe that Jesus was the christ (the “annointed one” or the messiah), not that His last name was Christ. As such, perhaps it would be more theologically sound to say “Jesus the christ” rather than “Jesus Christ”. Alternately, keeping the capital C, it might be better to say “Christ Jesus” as one might say “Queen Elizabeth” … Just a random thought.
Now back to regularly scheduled comments
Gay men are 1.4% of the U.S. population,
(the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
It’s a minor point, folks, but when listing your “sobering statistics” try not to contradict yourself.
And one more comment regarding Mark’s posting.
I live in Québec which probably vies with Holland as one of the most gay friendly places on earth. We have had anti-discrimination laws in place since the mid 1970s; we were the first jurisdiction within North America to have civil unions; our courts approved gay marriage before the federal government of Canada did and it has the strongest support here: 67-75% of the population. Our provincial and federal government poured millions of dollars into the Outgames and it was carried live on the French TV network Radio-Canada (as are the annual Diver/Cité parades.) And our next (probable) Premier (governor) Andre Boisclair is openly gay. All the political parties here are in favour of gay equality and the Catholic clergy have openly challenged the Vatican on this.
But that friendliness doesn’t take away from the fact that coming out is still a painful and difficult process that can lead to great pain. Even in the most tolerant society, parents have a vision of what their kids are going to become and when their kids turn out differently, it leads to conflict and possible rejection. Those who are in favour of gay rights as a concept may still struggle when their daughter or son reveals themselves to be gay.
That societal friendliness also doesn’t change the fact that few of us had proper gay rolemodels growing up.
Also (and this may be less of a problem or exhibited differently in the Netherlands), if you live in rural or isolated areas (or pretty much anywhere outside of Montréal, Gatineau/Ottawa and Québec City), meeting people can be difficult and gay men and women outside of these urban centres struggle with lonliness and isolation.
We have had anti-discrimination laws in place since the mid 1970s; we were the first jurisdiction within North America to have civil unions; our courts approved gay marriage before the federal government of Canada did and it has the strongest support here: 67-75% of the population.
This mirrors in many respects the civil rights gains for African Americans in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Would any of us propose that there is now no discrimination or marginalization for them? Society may make a course correction, but this does not mean the changes are instantaneous. In fact, one could argue that those who believe this is so are the greatest barrier to true change.
Bloggers:
This thread started with Timothy Kincaid blasting Nancy Brown for saying that 74% of AIDS cases originated with homosexual contact. In the US the 74% figure is probably true, if not low, so where’s the beef?
I’ve added some statistics, which still no one has refuted. The only response seems to be that not all gay men contract STDS, but this is a straw man response because no one on this thread has said that all gay men contract STDS.
To Randi Schimnosky regarding the various definitions of love: Randi I can say, quite genuinely, that I love all the bloggers on here without having met them. That is a small example of the breadth of the love of God.
God loves us all and wants each of us to have life in abundance. Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit to supernaturally fill us with that kind of unconditional love for every human being.
However, unconditional love for someone does not bar me from pointing out the self-delusion involved when a gay rights advocate condemns someone named Nancy Brown for supposedly stating that 74% of AIDS cases originate from homosexual contact. If she was talking about the US then she was in the ballpark. To quote global statistics does not refute her point.
And regarding Mr. Kincaid’s question of my sobering statistics, please note that 2.8% of the male population is roughly 1.4% of the total (male and female) population. So there is no contradiction.
And as for ad hominem references to me, I’m told I’m a hatemonger AND a martyr? Is that possible? I don’t see either of those in my comments.
Best wishes,
Mark Brown
Mark Brown said:
This thread started with Timothy Kincaid blasting Nancy Brown for saying that 74% of AIDS cases originated with homosexual contact.
No, it did not. This thread started with a rather extensive article by Timothy which exposes numerous problems with what Nancy Brown has written. The 74% comment was only a very small part of that article. For the sake of argument, let’s say you are correct about the 74% figure, what about the rest of the analysis?
You have largely ignored my request that you correct your behavior on this site. Much of what you write looks like cut-and-paste and you still address everyone as a group (bloggers) in a “you against them” fashion. And frankly, your attitude is troll-like. For instance:
The only response seems to be that not all gay men contract STDS, but this is a straw man response because no one on this thread has said that all gay men contract STDS.
That’s hogwash and you know it; your response itself was the straw man. Many people have commented on what you wrote and you keep repeating the same line each time. Re-read my earlier post to you Mr. Brown and follow it, or you will not be welcome to post here again. We all follow these rules, you are not going to be the exception.
I’m giving you a chance to participate in honest debate here, whether you take it or not is up to you.
gay rights advocate condemns someone named Nancy Brown for supposedly stating that 74% of AIDS cases originate from homosexual contact. If she was talking about the US then she was in the ballpark. To quote global statistics does not refute her point.
Of course it refutes the point.
Why would someone take US figures (74%) over worldwide figures? The US only has 4% of the world’s population.
Gay people are found around the world and if one is making the case that homosexual acts somehow leads to disease at a much higher rate than heterosexuals or that being gay is somehow more dangerous from a medical p.o.v., the figure should be the same worldwide, but it is not.
And I see no strawman except for yours. The counter argument is that promiscuity may lead to disease, not whether the contact is homosexual or heterosexual. You have not refuted that point.
Mark Brown said “I can say, quite genuinely, that I love all the bloggers on here without having met them.”.
No you can’t. You couldn’t be more disingenous. The love I have for my boyfriend is deep and wonderful and fills me with joy. This is not what you are talking about when you cheapen and bastardize the word by using it indiscriminantly and in a way that means control, not an intense like. It is not possible to love someone without knowing what they are like – it is impossible to love someone you have never met. That you would make an absurd statement like that makes everything you say less than credible.
Do you believe there is a loving god who allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and then eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise?
Randi said:
Do you believe there is a loving god who allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and then eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise?
I think you are a tad off topic.
It is not possible to love someone without knowing what they are like – it is impossible to love someone you have never met.
There are different kinds of love, but again we are off topic. We’ve discussed this before Randi, this isn’t the place to debate the legitimacy of a particular faith or faith in general. If you believe Mr. Brown is being disingenuous, that’s fine but don’t use your animosity toward religion as the basis.
Mark,
You keep coming here and saying that no one is “refuting” your statistics. Well, that’s mostly because they don’t have a point. There’s nothing there to refute. No one is rushing off to check you “statistics” (but if you post in the future link to your sources) because there’s no substance to your argument.
You’re like an annoying child that tells another, “you’re adopted, ha ha, you’re adopted!” And when the other child says, “yeah, so what” all he has to respond with is “see, you didn’t refute me, you’re adopted, ha ha, you’re adopted”.
We’ve more or less said, “so what” but you still think your “sobering statistics” mean something.
They don’t.
We know that HIV is a problem, we know sexually promiscuous people need STD testing, we know a tiny number of rare STDs were contracted, and we know some people are driven to depression by people like you.
So what.
We also know that Exodus and Nancy Brown willfully and gleefully post “Answers” on their website that are hateful and not based in fact. And that is the point of this thread.
M. J.:
Regarding your comment on Nov. 18, your discretion is remarkable for anyone, regardless of their orientation. I applaud your discipline.
Best wishes,
Mark Brown
Mark Brown said: “However, unconditional love for someone does not bar me from pointing out the self-delusion involved…”
How about the self-delusion of calling oneself exgay even though such a person may still have ONLY gay attractions and NO heterosexual attractions?
The fact that HIV has hit the gay community hard does not therefore mean that there is something wrong with being gay. Breast cancer hits women hard. Sickle cell anemia hits blacks hard, etc. The virus is NO respecter of persons. It doesn’t make moral judgements. It’s a VIRUS. It doesn’t care if you are Christian, non-Christian, gay, straight or somewhere in between.
Mark,
You keep saying that no one has refuted your “sobering” stats, yet I have seen on this thread where all of them have been either refuted or pointed out to be weak.
Perhaps, I am missing something, or maybe you are, but it seems all of your facts have been refuted, so why are you making the claim they haven’t when anyone with two eyes can read this series of comments and find the refutes for themself?
Do you somehow think no one will notice you keep saying this when it is clearly untrue? Why would you continue to say something that is so obviously a lie?
Please explain this to mean, I am very curious of your reply.
Correct me if I’m wrong, since I’m straight but pretty piseed of at the right, but didn’t the whole AIDS spreading come from the fact that, in the 1970’s, gays where becoming more accepted and sexually active, and at the same time most people were having unprotected sex. So isn’t more kinda incidental that gays have a high infection rate, since so many contracted it during that time and continue to spread it?
Where pray tell is the direct causal link between AIDS and Homosexuality? Last time i checked, gay men do not produce the AIDS virus.
USing AIDS statistics would imply that there is something morally wrong with being African, since the incidence of AIDS are so high in that continent.
Thank you for this informative, well-researched page and for helping to debunk the misguided pseudo- science and misdirected spirituality of the Exodus crowd.
Andy