Dangers of homosexual lifestyle - Part 1

The homosexual lifestyle has been gaining legitimacy in the Western world over the past 20-30 years. The previous Liberal government contributed massively to this trend. With the legalization of same-sex marriage and the amendment of the hate-crimes legislation, the Liberal government sent a powerful message that the homosexual lifestyle should be regarded as "main stream" and must be endorsed by everybody. Stéphane Dion is a strong supporter of this position.

I think Canadians need to take a fresh look at this issue. This post is the first of a series of articles that will leave moral and religious considerations on the sidelines, in order to focus on the medical evidence and research regarding the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I will be presenting the straight facts, as reported by world-class researchers and rigorous scientific journals.

I am not seeking to condemn homosexuals. However, I recognize the fact that everybody has the power to choose their lifestyle. As such, I want Canadians to realize the risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle and the monumental mistake made by the Liberals in trying to legitimize this lifestyle. For the sake of the common good of our country, we should not be legitimizing behaviour that is very unhealthy.

For example, Canadian society is now aware of the health risks of smoking. We have many programs to help people quit and the government runs hard-hitting ads to convince people to kick the habit. As we will see, medical research has revealed that the homosexual lifestyle is even more dangerous to health than smoking. So why are we legitimizing this behaviour?

No doubt people will accuse me of being intolerant, hateful, homophobic and closed-minded. By doing so, they will in fact prove that they are the closed-minded ones, because they are unwilling to consider solid scientific evidence and reconsider some of their beliefs.


Exhibit #1: Study finds homosexual lifestyle to be more dangerous than smoking

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 the lifespan by 24 years. These results were presented by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23, 2007.

• According to their data for Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 years, while the partnered gays died at an average age of 51. In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77, compared to 52 years old for the married gay men in the study.

• With respect to women, Danish heterosexual married women died at an average age of 78 years, compared to 56 years for the lesbians studied. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81, compared to 56 years for lesbians.

According to Dr. Cameron, "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant. 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."

This has important implications for the debate on homosexual adoption. If the parents are likely to die young, is it advisable to allow them to adopt children? Is this in the best interests of the child?

New Blogs Aggregator

There is a new Christian blog aggregator on the Net, called Canadian Cross-Bloggers. Check it out!




.

Abortion when the woman's life is in danger

Some people ask: "Why don't pro-lifers accept abortion when the woman's life is in danger? Are they anti-woman?"

First of all, I would like to extend my sincerest sympathies to any couple which is faced with a pregnancy where the mother's life is in danger. That's a very difficult situation. My heart and prayers go out to them.

Obviously, when the life of the mother is at risk, it is justifiable to intervene, even if the baby dies. That is what pro-lifers believe. Only a thin veil separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers when the health of the mother is in danger. The nuance between the two is this: pro-lifers recognize that the standard abortion procedure is not the appropriate surgical intervention to be made in such a case. Another approach should be used that doesn't seek to kill the unborn baby so directly. Yes, it may have the same result of killing the baby (as a secondary effect), but you wouldn't use the standard abortion procedure (which is simply a seek-and-destroy mission against the unborn child). For pro-lifers, the intention is not to kill the baby but to allow surgeons to access fix the mother's health problem. If anything could possibly be done to save the mother while also saving the baby, it would be done. But if the two are mutually exclusive, it is justifiable to take an action that would save the mom and have a secondary effect of killing the baby.

Intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society. For example, intention makes all the difference between first degree murder and self-defense. Likewise, if you need to put your sick dog to sleep, you would choose a means of action that results in the least amount of suffering possible for your dog. I'll say it again: intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society.

Medical research has shown that there is no health condition of an expectant mother that absolutely requires the standard abortion procedures in order to save the woman's life. None. There is always another way to save the woman's life, a way that is more respectful of the unborn baby, even if the baby has to die as a secondary effect. That's the basic reasoning of pro-lifers. That's why pro-lifers believe that all forms of abortion can be banned without the risk of criminal prosecution in the case where a woman's life is in danger.

Pro-lifers are not anti-woman. We just want to make sure that no abusive measures are taken against the unborn child. So contrary to what some other bloggers may claim, pro-lifers accept that a mother's life may be saved, even if the unborn child dies. Moreover, abortion can be banned without having women worry about criminal prosecution if the pregnancy is ended because their life is in danger.

Big Blue Wave provides another intelligent and accurate discussion of this topic.

Take care.


.