Soldiers say they'd leave military if 'gay' ban lifted

Excerpts from an article from OneNewsNow explaining potential problems if the 'gay' ban in the military is lifted. For more information on potential problems with Homosexuals openly serving in the military - read this past post

"The annual survey was conducted by the Military Times, which once again asked active duty personnel if they oppose the effort led by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-California) to repeal the 1993 law -- Section 654, Title 10 -- which clearly states that open homosexuals are not allowed in the military.

Approximately 58 percent of the respondents indicated that they were in favor of continuing the ban. But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, is more astonished at the response to a question that had never been asked on that survey before.

"In essence, what would you do if the law is repealed?" she relates that question. "The Military Times found that 10 percent of respondents said they would leave the military, and an additional 14 percent said they would consider ending their careers," she points out. "Now, even if half of those numbers turned out to be an accurate prediction, that would be devastating to our volunteer force. It would pretty much destroy the military as we know it."

Is HIV/AIDS a male homosexual disease?

This is a very interesting article on 12 facts about AIDS/HIV and its prevention in the U.S. from the site: American for Truth. All references from CDC for this study/article are posted on that site as well. There are several other interesting articles on HIV/AIDS and its relationship to homosexual males that I came across earlier - they are posted here: Is AIDS a gay disease? Other interesting facts/articles I came across about homosexual promotion in the public schools are posted here: Homosexual Promotion in the schools. The Americans for Truth site is a very comprehensive site, if one wished to learn the truth about homosexuality such as: health/science issues related to it, government promotion of it, media promotion of it, corporate promotion of it, targeting youth and schools, gay marriage, homosexual parenting, etc. Again, this site is very comprehensive and a great resource if one wishes to learn the truth.

"On World AIDS Day, 12 Astounding Facts about AIDS in the U.S.

December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.

In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.

Here are some facts to consider:

1. Over 1 million people now have HIV in the U.S.(a)

2. Almost half of HIV cases (just under 500,000) are known to involve male homosexual behavior.(b) This is a highly conservative figure. Male- to- male sex is a contributing factor in other transmission categories as the Centers for Disease Control defines them. A more realistic actual figure is around 60-70%.

An estimated 300,000 males in the U.S. have died of AIDS as a result of male homosexual sex.(c)

3. In 2006, 53% of new HIV cases were attributed to MSM (males who have sex with males). Another 4% falls into the category of MSM plus IDU (injection drug use).(d) And many of the cases in the category of “high risk heterosexual” (31%) originate with the homosexual behavior of the partners of the heterosexuals who contract HIV. There are also cases classified as “unknown” in origin, and many of these are likely to involve MSM.

4. In certain states, the percentage relating to male homosexual sex is much higher:

• In California, at least 67% of HIV/AIDS cases are directly linked to male homosexual behavior, with another 9% involving the combined risks of MSM and IDU.(e)


• In Oregon, 66% of AIDS cases are attributable to male-to-male sex, with another 10% involving the combined risk factors of MSM and IDU.(f)


• In Ohio, 58% of AIDS cases are caused by male homosexual behavior, with another 6% transmitted through MSM and IDU.(g)

5. The number of cases involving men who have sex with men is increasing while other transmission categories remain stable or are declining.(h) Safe sex is not working. Homosexual men know about condoms, but they often don’t use them.

6. Between 2001 and 2006, HIV among teen and young adult males who have sex with males rose over 12 % per year. Let’s repeat that—in the age group 13 to 24 years of age, HIV rose over 12% per year for six years.(i) Teen boys encouraged to enter the ‘gay’ lifestyle, are being enabled to enter a world of danger. Affirming homosexual behavior in schools should be viewed in this light.

7. California, where a faction wants to legalize homosexual relationships as “marriage,” has experienced 69,000 HIV/AIDS deaths due to males who have sex with other males since the beginning of the epidemic. Allow us to repeat this number: 69,000 dead due to male homosexual sex in California alone.(j)

8. In California, nearly 62,000 people are now living with HIV or AIDS.(k) Applying the current trend that at least two-thirds of these cases result from MSM, that means approximately 41,000 infected males who have sex with males might be eligible to legitimize this epidemic through “marriage” if the California Supreme Court rules against the voters’ decision on Proposition 8.

9. We are spending $3 billion federal dollars annually in the U.S. on a disease that is largely preventable.(l)

10. As of the end of 2006, approximately 566,000 deaths have occurred among people with AIDS, including 14,627 in 2006.(m)

11. The lifetime medical cost for an HIV patient is around $600,000.(n)

12. The top five deadliest states to live in regarding AIDS are the District of Columbia, New York, Maryland, Florida, and Connecticut.(o)

Conclusion: Does America benefit from male homosexual behavior? No. Along with unmarried heterosexual behavior,male homosexuality should be discouraged as much as possible to responsibly address the HIV/AIDS epidemic." (from Americans for Truth)

What I find interesting is that there are many anti-smoking campaigns - because smoking is dangerous for ones health. "The facts are that a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer. ..You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die"...

However the facts are that "between 13% and 23% (of homosexual males) have HIV/AIDS. ...This is how it's calculated -(click here) -This figure understates the percent of gay men who will become infected with HIV/AIDS, because many gay men who don't currently have it will become infected if they continue their lifestyle. I think it would be fair to approximate that a third of men who lead a gay lifestyle will become infected with HIV/AIDS."

Smokers have a lower risk of getting lung cancer than homosexual men do of getting AIDS/HIV, yet there is a huge campaign to stop people/teens from smoking, but no campaign to stop the promotion of homosexuality as a way to decrease HIV/AIDS. If any other activity, besides homosexual sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease as this, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal, but ironically enough instead government, media, schools, corporations promote this activity.

Now why do I bring this up and blog about this topic? I think it is important to find out the truth and to learn what is actually happening if we honestly seek as a society to reduce HIV/AIDS.

Homosexuals serving in the military

"A conservative pro-family leader believes the Obama administration will move sooner rather than later to attempt to repeal the law that forbids homosexuals from serving in the military.

... The Washington Times reported that president-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to repeal the ban. The paper quoted two sources who advised the Obama transition team about the potentially explosive issue.

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, gives credence to a story published in CNN that the policy could be overturned this year.

"I was told by a reporter, [from] a very respected media institution, that the number-three priority on the list of the liberal activists who are very excited about Mr. Obama taking over the White House...is indeed [the] repeal of the law regarding gays in the military," she explains. ..."

excerpts from & to read the rest of the article click here: OneNewsNow - Chad Groening

Gay advocates state:

"Thousands upon thousands of courageous troops -- who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are in our National Guard, who patrol our coasts and our skies, who can undoubtedly be found in every area of the armed forces -- aren't afforded the rights and dignity bestowed upon their fellow soldiers simply because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual," said former Human Rights Campaign leader Elizabeth Birch on the 10th anniversary of the military's ban.

Other "Experts" who knew nothing of the military experience have spouted psychobabble about the military's "need" to overcome its "homophobia." The media also did their part by parading homosexual commissioned officers (whose experience is hardly representative) who claimed that they performed their duties well and that what they did in private harmed no one.

Maybe you have wondered what's the problem with Gays serving in the military -

Read these articles below. They are very informative, and discuss potential problems.

-excerpts from and to read entire article click here: about.com gays in the Military...

"Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the military no longer asks a person's sexual preference when that person enlists (it used to be a question on the enlistment forms). The military no longer investigates claims that a person is homosexual (they can, and do, however, investigate allegations of homosexual CONDUCT). Homosexual CONDUCT is still grounds for discharge (honorable). CONDUCT includes, not only homosexual acts while on active duty, but also includes telling others that you are homosexual (That's the "Don't Tell" part).

What bothers me is that most of the people who criticize the policy either have no significant military experience, OR, their military experience is limited to the relatively luxurious privileges of the commissioned officer.

Single commissioned officers who reside on-base are authorized to reside in single rooms. That makes all the difference in the World. But, what about the poor, low-rank, enlisted person, who is forced to live in the barracks with a roommate? Isn't anyone concerned at all about the privacy rights of the single, low-ranking heterosexual?

I will be the first to admit that homosexuals have served in the military for generations. I will also stipulate, that most have served with honor and distinction. I will further admit that the relatively minor problems which would arise in the workplace, could be effectively handled.

What I fail to understand is exactly how the military would be expected to house openly-admitted homosexuals, in an environment where we force people to room together, without seriously violating the sexual privacy rights of the heterosexual majority, or causing major problems with morale.

I have 13 years experience as an Air Force First Sergeant. The First Sergeant, as the representative for the Commander for all enlisted matters in the unit is the primary individual who would have to make any new policy work. I can foresee the scenario going something like this:

Commander: Well, Top, the new policy is in effect. From now on it's "Don't Ask, but You can Tell." It's up to us to try and make the new policy work.

First Sergeant: Should be no problem, sir. After all, I can't see where being gay would affect anyone's duty performance.

Commander: That's the attitude! I'll leave it in your hands to make it work.

---

(One week later)

Airman Jones: Sir, I've got a problem.

First Sergeant: What's up, Jones?

Airman Jones: It's my roommate. He's Airman Thompson.

First Sergeant: So?

Airman Jones: Well, he's gay, Sir. He told me so.

First Sergeant: We briefed you on the new policy. Gay service people are no different from anyone else. Airman Thompson does just as good a job as you do.

Airman Jones: Yes sir, but he keeps staring at me when I shower or change clothes and stuff. It's really creeping me out.

First Sergeant: I can see how that might bother you. I'll have a talk with him.

---

(Later, that same day)

First Sergeant: Airman Thompson, we've got a problem.

Airman Thompson: Yes sir?

First Sergeant: Your roommate claims that you keep staring at him when he undresses. He feels uncomfortable with this.

Airman Thompson: Oh, no sir! I'm not looking at him. He's not even my type.

First Sergeant: Okay. Just do me and your roommate a favor. When he undresses, make sure you look in another direction. Give his privacy rights a little break, okay?

Airman Thompson: Sure sir! No problem.

---

(Five days later)

First Sergeant: We've got a problem, Jones. Your NCOIC says this is the 2nd time you've been late for work this week. What's going on?

Airman Jones: I'm sorry sir, but I can't sleep at night. Now, every time I even reach for my zipper, Airman Thompson stares at me and gives me a "wolf-whistle." I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm about ready to smack him.

First Sergeant: No. No. You can't do that. I'll have another talk with him. Don't you even think about harming him. Got it?

Airman Jones: Yes, sir.

---

(Later)

First Sergeant: Thompson, your roommate claims you've been staring and whistling at him. That's sexual harassment, and we won't tolerate it. Understand?

Airman Thompson: I haven't been looking or whistling! He's just lying because he doesn't like homosexuals! Most people in the military don't like us, and they'll lie in a heartbeat!

First Sergeant: Look, you're not the only one that I'm having a problem with in implementing this policy. How about if I move you into a room all by yourself?

Airman Thompson: Sure!

---

(Two weeks later)

Commander: First Sergeant, we've just received an Inspector General Complaint. It claims that you've given all the homosexuals in the squadron a private room?

First Sergeant: Yes, sir. There were some serious problems developing between them and their heterosexual roommates. I thought it best to get them split up before someone got hurt.

Commander: I understand, but we can't give them special privileges. We don't have enough space to give everyone a single room, and you can't single out the homosexuals as getting a benefit that isn't available to the others. Now, fix it!

First Sergeant: Yes, sir.

---

(One week later)

Airman Pizaz: Airman Tippy is my girlfriend.

First Sergeant: That's nice. What can I do for you.

Airman Pizaz: Well, she wants to room with me.

First Sergeant: (spitting coffee) You know we can't room a male and female together in the barracks.

Airman Pizaz: Why not? You roomed Airman Thompson and Airman Eckers together.

First Sergeant: So?

Airman Pizaz: Come on, Shirt! Everyone knows they're going together. If Thompson gets to room with his boyfriend, how come I can't room with my girlfriend?

First Sergeant: Well.....I guess that makes sense. Okay, I'll approve it.

---

(Two weeks later)

Commander: (Storming into office, blowing steam out of his ears) What in the Hell are you doing, First Sergeant?

First Sergeant: Sir?

Commander: (Face turning blue) The Wing has just received a slew of Congressional Complaints about you from concerned parents! It appears as if you are allowing their young sons and daughters to shack up in my barracks. Is that true?

First Sergeant: Well, yes Sir....but.....

Commander: (Having a kiniption) No buts!!!!!!! Not in my Air Force!!!!!! People don't shack up in Military Barracks!! Is that clear???

First Sergeant: Yes Sir.

Commander: (Jumping up and down) Fix this, now!!!

---

First Sergeant (Thinking): How in the World do I fix this?

(After much thought)

I know! I'll room male homosexuals with female heterosexuals, and female homosexuals with male heterosexuals!

---

(One week later)

Commander: (Blood pressure rising like a steam boiler) First Sergeant, what in the blazes is going on in my squadron?

First Sergeant: Sir?

Commander: Every single male in the barracks now claims he's homosexual, and wants to move in with a heterosexual female!

First Sergeant: Well, Sir, I guess the studies were wrong. Maybe it is possible for one to change their sexual orientation."

Here's another perspective (from within the military) on the military ban.

-excerpts from and to read full article click here: James M. Wallace - The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals

"Junior EMs are usually billeted in roughly 300 square foot, four-man rooms; junior NCOs get similar sized two-man rooms. They all share common latrine and shower facilities. These people are the bulk of the services; they are the military. Having risen through the ranks from Private First Class to Sergeant, my experience as an enlisted soldier is particularly informative.

There was a time (even as late as one year into my enlistment) when I would have argued for lifting the ban. I have always been somewhat sympathetic towards homosexuals. Having come of age as an atheist in the Bible Belt, I know what it is to be a member of a reviled minority. ...

... As a student here at UNCG, I definitely went to school with homosexuals. In Spring 1985, as a member of the Student Senate Judicial Committee, I helped push impeachment proceedings against a fellow senator who had disrupted our meeting after we had voted $50 for refreshments for a talk on lesbian nuns sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Student Association.

In my last civilian job prior to joining the Army, my manager and three of my four coworkers were homosexuals. One of my coworkers had been voluntarily separated from the Navy due to homosexuality. I was "open-minded" enough to put up with his vain, and in vain, attempts to seduce me before I went back to school.

In basic training, during an equal opportunity class given by our company's senior drill sergeant, one of my fellow recruits asked, "Isn't the Army's policy against homosexuals discriminatory?" The big NCO allowed himself a moment of humor and enthusiastically and gleefully replied, "Oh, yeah!"

We all laughed, but I remember thinking how narrow-minded and ignorant he was. As an "enlightened" college boy, I arrogantly assumed my own moral superiority. But theory and practice are often very different, and I received my comeuppance in the fullness of time.

During the middle of the second year of my enlistment, I began to suspect that two of my roommates were having a homosexual affair. They were keeping it out of the barracks, so I wasn't sure.

Other soldiers had begun to take notice as well. I was often asked what was up with them. I would feign ignorance and answer, "I don't know; what do you mean?" I knew full well what they meant, and their suspicions lent credence to my own.

I returned to our room late one night and discovered the two of them asleep in the same bunk. They were under the covers, in each other's arms, face-to-face, with very contented expressions on their faces. I no longer had any doubts. They were starting to awaken so I decided that it would be best just to go to bed as if I had seen nothing. As I turned out my lamp and settled into bed, the one scurried back to his own bunk.

The next morning, wanting to determine what I had seen, they asked me when I had gotten in the night before. I didn't want them to know that I had discovered them. In the Army, your roommates are fellow squad members and naturally your friends as well. If they knew that I knew about them, I risked alienating them because they would view me as a threat who might not keep his silence. If I did indeed keep my silence after affirming that I had seen them, I would become complicitous in their violation of Army regulations and would be in violation myself because I would have failed to report a known violation. Neither alternative seemed particularly desirable. To buy more time and to protect myself, I claimed that I didn't really remember due to the effects of good German beer.

They became emboldened and continued their affair in our room which they turned into their own love nest. For three weeks, I endured being locked out of my room and interrupting whatever it was that they were doing so that I could get in. Obviously, I knew what they were about, and just as obviously, they knew that I knew.

I finally decided that I had no choice but to inform our superiors. I asked our platoon sergeant how to get a couple of homosexuals out of the Army. He knew to whom I was referring. The command was informed of the situation, but it was determined that nothing could be done legally as it was a case of my word against theirs.

I wanted to move into another room, but there was no extra space. Anyway, the problem would be partially solved when one of my roommates was transferred back to the States during our upcoming field exercise, but I was stuck with them both for ten days. When I was in the room, they would have the vilest conversations about me as though I wasn't even there. They did everything they could to make me feel uncomfortable in my own room. My sleep was light, fitful, and brief; I often woke up several times a night in order to check on my well-being. I spent as little time as possible in my room, and I was never so glad to go to the field.

The presence of known homosexuals is disruptive to the good order and discipline of military units. When my roommates became a couple, they ceased to be members of our unit in a social and emotional sense. They became so obsessed with one another and their relationship that they couldn't or wouldn't fulfill their responsibilities to the rest of us. Their commitment to one another negated the required loyalty to the Army and to their fellow soldiers. They willfully violated the regulations and policies of an organization that they freely joined. Not only were they abusive to me, they were defensive and confrontational with other members of our unit. They acted as though we and the Army were the ones who were wrong. For our part, we others couldn't and wouldn't accept their relationship. This exacerbated the situation and turned it into them against us. This state of affairs was intolerable.

Barracks life is highly communal, and privacy is very limited, but these conditions foster the camaraderie and the unit cohesion that is vital to the proper functioning of a combat-ready force. In the military, respect and loyalty between members is powerful enough to transcend almost every animosity. One is constantly aware of the fact that the SOB down the hall could very well be the SOB who comes between you and death. One disrupts the process at the risk of needlessly lost lives when war becomes a painful necessity. Males have a natural discomfort for homosexuality and intuitively know that they are not to relate to one another in that manner. In the close quarters of the barracks, this discomfort becomes a vital animosity which cannot be transcended.

The advocates for lifting the ban assume that homosexuals would "check their sexuality at the door" of their barracks. The opponents of lifting the ban and the militant homosexuals seeking an end to it agree that this is ludicrous. The advocates' assumption requires that homosexuals remain celibate because any expression of sexuality will probably end up in the barracks. The extreme promiscuity of male homosexuals makes this an inevitability. ...

...The real objective of those seeking to lift the ban is not the end of some perceived injustice but the normalization of homosexuality. This is entirely unacceptable. While a society can tolerate some deviancy on its fringes, it cannot accept it within its mainstream. Homosexuality represents a threat in that it creates an inappropriate sexual outlet that corrupts the natural relations between men and women. If increasing numbers of men and women opt out of child-bearing and child-rearing and choose "alternative" lifestyles instead, our society increasingly will be unable to renew and maintain itself and will ultimately founder. Those who choose the "traditional" lifestyle will find their task made more difficult by a disintegrating social structure.

As an aside, opposing the normalization of homosexuality is not advocating violence against homosexuals. One of the functions of society is create a sense a personal security for its members. Individuals who engage in "fag-bashing" are criminals and should be treated as such.

The military is not a suitable subject for experiments in social engineering such as the normalization of homosexuality. Our armed forces exist for the sole purpose of defending our country and our way of life. Anything that interferes with this function is a threat to our society and must be opposed vigorously.

The outrage expressed by veterans such as myself is well justified. We sacrificed part of our lives and part of ourselves by serving in our country's armed forces. We gave up far too much to stand by idly while those who "loathe the military" attempt to destroy that which we made part of ourselves, that which we will always love."

Homosexuals banned from promoting their 'way of life'

Homosexuals here in America favor Obama and socialistic ways - but yet under a socialistic government (as seen in Russia), the homosexuals may be one of the first to lose all their "freedoms and rights". Gays and Lesbians may have to rethink their vote once they see what really happens in a socialistic country.

Moscow has now officially banned promotion of a high risk behavior that leads to a high risk deadly infection. - Doesn't sound too insensible -- does it?

Moscow has banned gays and lesbian from promoting their homosexual lifestyle because of it is a high risk for spreading AIDS... and also because the homosexual lifestyle promotes the extinction of the human race and Russia is short of children.

"Moscow has banned gays and lesbians from promoting their way of life because they can help spread HIV/AIDS, the Russian capital's 72-year-old mayor was quoted as saying on Thursday by RIA news agency.

Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, speaking at an HIV/AIDS conference in Moscow, also said there was no scientific proof that condoms provided full protection against sexually transmitted diseases.

"We have banned, and will ban, the propaganda of sexual minorities' opinions because they can be one of the factors in the spread of HIV infection," Luzhkov was quoted as saying by state-owned RIA.

"Some home-grown democrats consider that sexual minorities are a major indicator and symbol of democracy but we will continue to ban the spread of their views," Luzhkov said.

Luzhkov's administration has banned several gay rights marches in Moscow in the interests, it argues, of ensuring security and preventing public disorder. ...

While still president, Vladimir Putin quipped that his approach to sexual minorities was guided by Russia's demographic problems. The country is short of children. ...

And his comments came as no surprise to Gay Russia, a Moscow-based gay rights group. "We have to remember that the mayor of Moscow is one of the most homophobic politicians in Russia," the group said in a statement."

from: Reuters AlertNet

You may think what other homosexuals think - that AIDS isn't a gay disease anymore and anyone who thinks so is being homophobic ... however don't dismiss this question - Find out for yourself if AIDS/HIV is really a gay disease or not??? Look at the studies that are done.

The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has recently declared that HIV/AIDS is a Gay Disease to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population. To read more articles and studies done by the CDC on AIDS/HIV and the gay population click here: Is AIDS a Gay Disease?

"When one third of gay men will contract HIV/AIDS during their lifetime, how can we say that this is an activity that can be made safe? The infection rates are so high that one can more properly say that gay sex is an inherently unsafe activity. If any other activity, besides gay sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal.....

But because of the powerful pro-gay lobby which strongly influences the mainstream media and has an even greater control over Hollywood, the truth about the huge risk of gay sex is ignored, and anyone who says otherwise is accused of being "homophobic"... Even the supposedly conservative Supreme Court has ruled that this dangerous sexual activity is a constitutionally protected right."

quote from: Half Sigma

More than one way to interpret the gay penguin story...

Heard about this story yet??

"Roy and Silo were a Chinstrap penguin couple in New York's Central Park Zoo.

The pair were observed trying to hatch a rock as if it were an egg. When the zoo staff realized that Roy and Silo were both male, it occurred to them to give them the second egg of a mixed-gender penguin couple, a couple which previously had been unable to successfully hatch two eggs at a time. Roy and Silo hatched and raised the healthy young chick, a female named "Tango" by keepers. Their story is the basis for the children's book And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell and illustrated by Henry Cole.

Tango is now a healthy young female penguin. She has formed a relationship with Tazuni, another female penguin. The two have paired the last two mating season."

info from: wikipedia

All this information on the homosexual penguins was quickly turned into a Children's book and trumpeted by the LGBT community as a shining, timeless, beautiful example of a "natural" homosexual relationship.

Here is a summary of the book:

"The Central Park Zoo is home to all kinds of animal families. But Tango the penguin's family is a bit different -- she has two fathers. This heartwarming story will open the minds of readers, resonating long after the story has finished."

And here are some comments about the book:

"A touching and delightful variation on a major theme." -- Maurice Sendak

"This wonderful story of devotion is heartwarming proof that Mother Nature knows best." -- Harvey Fierstein

"Charming! And Tango Makes Three proves that all kinds of love can create a family." -- Wendy Wasserstein

"A little miracle for children. Funny, tender, and true, the story of Tango will delight young readers and open their minds." -- John Lithgow

"Cole's pictures complement the perfectly cadenced text...Those who share this with children will find themselves returning to it again and again... for the two irresistible birds at its center and for the celebration of patient, loving fathers who "knew just what to do." -- Booklist, starred review

"In this true, straightforwardly (so to speak) delivered tale, two male chinstrap penguins at New York City's Central Park Zoo bond, build a nest and -- -- thanks to a helping hand from an observant zookeeper -- -- hatch and raise a penguin chick...Readers may find its them of acceptance even more convincing for being delivered in such a matter of fact, non -- preachy way." -- Kirkus Reviews, starred review

"[A] heartwarming tale. Older readers will most appreciate the...larger theme of tolerance at work in this touching tale." -- Publishers Weekly, starred review

"This joyful story about the meaning of family is a must for any library." -- School Library Journal, starred review

"And Tango Makes Three is bound to raise eyebrows, but for those of us eager to encourage our children to include, rather than exclude, it's a welcome addition to the library of families. The well -- written, perfectly placed text is delivered with a deft touch...Happily, and surprisingly, And Tango Makes Three rises above the message it carries and becomes the rarest of birds, a 'message book' that's also a really good story." -- New York Times Book Review

What a wonderful way to help "young readers and open their minds" and to help "encourage our children to include, rather than exclude" and to help older readers "appreciate the...larger theme of tolerance at work in this touching tale."

Ahhhhh.... "Being gay is okay" is the message in this book that we want to teach our children. -Never mind the fact that approximately one out of every three gay men practicing the lifestyle will acquire HIV/AIDS - being gay is "healthy" and "natural".

When one third of gay men will contract HIV/AIDS during their lifetime, how can we say that this is an activity that can be made safe? The infection rates are so high that one can more properly say that gay sex is an inherently unsafe activity. Advising men on how to have safe gay sex is, therefore, like advising people how to safely drive drunk, or how to safely smoke crack. The only responsible advice for gay people is not how to make such a dangerous activity safer, but that that they shouldn't engage in this activity at all.

If any other activity, besides gay sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal. We would be bombarded by public service announcements like the "just say no" to drugs campaign. Just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk," people shouldn't let anyone they care about participate in gay sex. But because of the powerful pro-gay lobby which strongly influences the mainstream media and has an even greater control over Hollywood, the truth about the huge risk of gay sex is ignored, and anyone who says otherwise is accused of being "homophobic." Movies and TV shows now routinely depict the gay lifestyle as perfectly moral and no more dangerous to one's health than the heterosexual lifestyle. Even the supposedly conservative Supreme Court has ruled that this dangerous sexual activity is a constitutionally protected right.

info above from: half sigma


Now let's find out some more facts:

• "Roy and Silo were kept in an unnatural environment, namely a zoo enclosure with no females. Still having the instincts for pairing up, Roy and Silo took the only choice afforded them - another male. ...

• The zoo staff had to provide a spare egg from a heterosexual couple in order for Roy and Silo to ‘reproduce’. After all, quite clearly, purely homosexual couples cannot produce offspring. If homosexual preference really is all in the genes, the trait will quickly disappear from the gene pool, as no offspring will ever be produced from a homosexual pairing. How does that help show that homosexuality is ‘natural’?

• Further undermining the theoretical notion (not the ‘indisuptable fact proven by science’ as some may argue) that homosexuality is all in the genes, Roy and Silo’s ‘daughter’ Tango grew up to display homosexual preference as well, this time in a female-female pairing. Now as you have seen... Tango is in no way related to Roy or Silo. She has none of their genetic material - not a single line of DNA from them. So where did she get her ‘gay genes’ from? Or could it be more likely that, being raised by two homosexuality-displaying parents, she was influenced by them - an environmental cause, not a genetic one?

• And to demolish the March of the Gay Penguins altogether, after 6 years of partnering together, Roy and Silo separated. Roy remained single, while Silo, gay icon and shining example of the alternative lifestyles of nature… Paired up with a female named Scrappy."

excerpts above from Burning Hot


These are a sampling of some questions for discussions that the LGBT community would have you discuss with your children:

• "'Family' is a prominent theme in And Tango Makes Three. Discuss the concept of a "family." What constitutes a family? Tango's family is different, but how is it the same as any other family in the zoo? In the world?

• Roy and Silo are a little bit different from the other penguins in the zoo. What does it mean to be different? Why is it sometimes good to be different?

• The Central Park Zoo, where And Tango Makes Three takes place, is home to all kinds of animal families. But Tango's family is unlike the other families in the zoo. Tango has two fathers instead of the traditional mother and father. Do you have a nontraditional family, or do you know someone who does? Do you think that Tango is missing out by not having a mother?

• Mr. Gramzay, the penguin keeper at the Central Park Zoo, is very sympathetic to Roy and Silo. He is accepting of their differences and wants to help them become a family. How can you learn from Mr. Gramzay's actions in the book? Who else is accepting of Roy, Silo, and Tango in this story?

• Mr. Gramzay decides to give Roy and Silo an egg to hatch in their nest. Why do you think he does this? What does he see in Roy and Silo that makes him decide that they would be good at raising a baby? Do you think that Roy and Silo are good parents? Why?"

Well, these questions below should ALSO be discussed with our children if we really want to discuss ALL of the facts:

• Is homosexual preference really a ‘preference’? Would Roy and Silo have chosen males over females if they had been given the choice during their formative, adolescent and mature ages - instead of being confined in an all-male environment?

• Is homosexuality ‘natural’? Considering that if nature were allowed to run its course, homosexual behaviour would die out within the short span of ONE GENERATION from lack of propagation - as it produces no offspring to carry on the so-called ‘gay genes’? Unless, of course, the homosexual individual ‘cheats’ and mates with a member of the opposite gender…

• Is homosexuality really 100% genetically determined and 0% influenced by upbringing and surroundings? Tango did not inherit any ‘gay genes’ from her adoptive parents, but grew up continually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle of Roy and Silo.

• If upbringing and environment can influence a child’s sexuality, what does it say about homosexual marriages and adoption and raising of children in a homosexual household? If genes are not the sole factor, then this is one way to ‘propagate’ homosexuality.

• Should the sexual and familial behaviour of animals be at any time used as an example or a guide for human behaviour? We are, after all, PEOPLE - the very definition of which excludes being beasts controlled solely by base and bestial impulses."

(questions from Burning Hot)

While Homosexuals condemn Mormons unfairly - Christians, Jews, and Others Defend Mormons

Excerpt below taken from a letter by Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association

"The Mormons played a vital role in the Prop 8 battle, and traditional marriage would have lost had it not been for their support. While other churches were also involved in the battle to protect marriage - including Catholics and evangelicals - the homosexuals have singled out the Mormons as their target of anger.

I urge you to sign the petition thanking the LDS for their good work in the marriage battle. Several nationally known leaders have already expressed their support. In addition to myself, the list includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of Free Congress Foundation, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Gary Bauer of American Values. We will forward the petition to LDS leaders.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has offered "prayerful support and steadfast solidarity" to the LDS church for its efforts on behalf of Proposition 8."

Take Action! Sign the Petition NOW!

Article below written from Rabbi Shifren -

WE ALL ARE MORMONS....by Rabbi Shifren

"We are living in an era of insanity! Witness the latest attempt to remake the nature of our country, founded and established on certain principles that have been the envy of the entire world. The latest assault on our country and its values comes in the form of vicious and criminal violence against the Mormon church in Westwood, California

Interesting how the selective self-righteous indignation on the part of the radical Gay activists is played out here: they bewail the blow to freedom and justice! But I thought we just had elections, where the majority of Californians expressed their views in a free and open manner. Are we not a nation of laws? Dare we relive the McCarthy era, where Americans were harassed and threatened with the loss of their jobs for believing in a certain way? If the Gay radicals should have their way, untold numbers of Americans would live under the threat of the Gay-Lesbian "thought police," where individuals that reject the Gay lifestyle would be sought out and have sanctions brought against them.

It's bad enough for those working in the entertainment industry here in Los Angeles, where a fog of political correctness and a bending over backwards to accommodate, even promote Gay lifestyle is in full gear. Let none dare say that this type of activity is anathema to our country, our morality, and the debauchery of our young people.

Let it be stated unequivocally: The radical Gay attack on the Mormons is the shot over the bow against the United States of America. There was a time when what a man did in his bedroom was sanctified between himself and G-d. Now we are being served an "in-your-face" smorgasbord of smut and licentiousness as being between people who only "want their civil rights."

Hogwash! We are dealing with the equivalent of a moral takeover of the country that has as its bedrock a belief in G-d and His promise for humanity. They don't want civil rights! What they desire is quasi Gay/Lesbian hegemony, where a huge "bookburning," reminiscent of the Nazis, will purge any remnants of the "Christian, White, mainstream America" that has given ALL AMERICANS the most profound scope of freedom, liberty, and justice that Mankind has yet to experience.

People have perhaps wondered: why the Mormons? Answer: they are a small, yet vocal Christian minority. They have been selected by the mobs as vulnerable, a group that might not have such massive support among America's Christians.

We who are friends of the Mormons, their patriotism, their family values, will not falter in our continued support of these dear Americans. Let us recall the Christian minister Niemoller, whose admonition during those dark years of Nazi Germany moved us to our core:

"When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic......then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me."

My fellow Americans, in the coming battle for the heart and soul of America and everything we cherish, may this call to arms be the mantra of every concerned patriot:

'WE ALL ARE MORMONS!'"

Excerpts below from Kathryn Jean Lopez, Townhall.com:

..."nothing justifies the concerns of anxious Mormons like the current controversy over Proposition 8 in California. This initiative protecting traditional marriage won by the same margin as Barack Obama did in that state -- getting the support of some Obama voters, in fact. Its victory has led supposed agents of tolerance to blatant acts of bigotry; gay-marriage advocates are blaming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for their electoral defeat. ...

A piece in the Boston Herald proclaimed "Mitt Romney's kin put faith in pa$$ing Proposition 8." The story detailed how some Romney relatives, along with other prominent Massachusetts Mormons, contributed cash to the pro-8 campaign.

And so? While some reports claim that Mormon contributions accounted for a whopping 70 percent of total donations to the pro-8 cause, it should also be noted that 70 percent of black Californians voted for the initiative. The backlash -- which has included white-powder scares and bomb threats at Mormon temples and offices -- is both wrong and unfair. (Outside Denver, a Book of Mormon was lit on fire and dropped on the doorstep of a Mormon temple.) Catholics, Orthodox bishops and evangelicals also supported the initiative.

A law professor at the purportedly Catholic Georgetown University, who is also a gay activist, argues that the cause of gay marriage is simply in conflict with religious liberty; he's "having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win." (Never mind, again, that the victory of Proposition 8 in California was not the result of an edict from Salt Lake, the Vatican or any one religion, but the free and fair vote of California citizens, some informed by their religious belief, as they are free to be so motivated.)

Surely we don't have to be Mormon to be outraged. I make no statement about their recruitment strategies when I say, watching California, "We're all Mormons now." Next time the violent backlash may be in response to a brave Catholic bishop teaching responsibility at the voting booth. Next time it could be an online evangelical dating service hauled into court by a state "civil rights" office for not providing same-sex matchmaking. Oh wait, that already happened in New Jersey.

Now I know why Mormons were so nervous. They were warning the rest of us. Our freedom to believe is at hazard, and it's time we all had the Mormons' backs."

Is AIDS a gay disease?

I was told I was being hateful several times today and yesterday in several comments by one commenter. I guess posting "articles that report facts" is considered hateful.

I posted an article about the RED CROSS - The Title of Article was: "Student unions ban blood donation advertising posters... because they discriminate against gay men"

I posted excerpts from the article and the only thing I personally stated was this: "Yes this is for real... If you think you heard everything and can't be shocked - read this"

The article stated this was the reason that gays were not allowed to give blood:

"Mrs Olley, from Houghton-Le-Spring, Tyne and Wear, added : 'The blood service needs more people to donate blood. It wouldn't stop an entire group from donating without good reason.

'In order to assure the continued safety of the blood supply, we currently ask that those in groups shown to have a particularly high risk of carrying blood-borne viruses do not give blood.

'While safer sex through the use of condoms does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether'." too see original post click here

The commenter on my blog so graciously informed me: "AIDS is not a gay disease. It is not 1986 anymore..."

I never stated that AIDS was a gay disease. The article never stated that AIDS was a gay disease.

However, That is an interesting question: Is AIDS a gay disease?

I will not attempt to answer that question and risk being accused of spreading "hate" speech. Read the articles below and decide for yourself.

I just researched the topic and found some very interesting articles that I quoted below. These articles were not written by me. Don't send me hate mail go to the original source - I am just trying to post information, you think about it and come to your own conclusions.

First I looked on the American Red Cross Site found at: http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

This is what they said about AIDS/HIV:

"HIV/ AIDS

You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you:

• have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
• are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
• have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
• have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
• received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
• were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
• since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
• had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found."

Now why would the Red Cross prohibit males who have had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977 from giving blood?

These articles below will answer that question as well:


"California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is "Gay Disease"

"LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Los
Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual
activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout
Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”

A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity." from: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/306aed8b60a9bafb?pli=1

Here's another article:

One-Third of HIV-Infected Gay Men Have Unsafe Sex: CDC

"MONDAY, Dec. 3 (HealthDay News) -- Two new U.S. studies of gay and bisexual men who know they are infected with HIV show that more than one-third have recently had unprotected intercourse.

In many cases, these men are engaging in unprotected sex with other HIV-infected men -- a practice called "serosorting," where partners with a similar, HIV-positive blood test status decide to forego condoms.

However, "we also found that almost a third of the men -- 31.4 percent -- said that they had had unprotected anal intercourse with at least one partner of unknown serostatus, and almost a quarter had unprotected intercourse with a partner who they knew was HIV uninfected," said the lead author of one of the studies, Dr. Kenneth Mayer, medical research director at Fenway Community Health, in Boston.

He and other researchers in HIV/AIDS presented their findings during a teleconference Monday, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National HIV Prevention Conference, in Atlanta.

"There are now more than one million people estimated to be living with HIV in the United States, more than ever before," said Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.

He also noted that half of all U.S. cases of HIV infection still occur among "men who have sex with men" (MSM), the CDC's umbrella term for gay and bisexual men, as well as men who may not identify as such but engage in male-male sexual activity.

And, Mayer added, unsafe sex was strongly linked to the use of recreational drugs, particularly methamphetamine, and was 60 percent more likely among younger men than older men.

The HIV epidemic in the United States may, in fact, be on the rise. According to recent media reports, sources close to CDC statisticians say that the annual rate of new HIV infections in the United States may soon be bumped up by 50 percent -- jumping from 40,000 new cases annually to up to 60,000." from: http://www.forbes.com/health/feeds/hscout/2007/12/03/hscout610571.html

and here is yet another article on the subject:

WHAT PERCENT OF GAY MEN HAVE HIV/AIDS?

"The answer is between 13% and 23%. This is how it's calculated -(click here)
This figure understates the percent of gay men who will become infected with HIV/AIDS, because many gay men who don't currently have it will become infected if they continue their lifestyle. I think it would be fair to approximate that a third of men who lead a gay lifestyle will become infected with HIV/AIDS.

As I demonstrated from the statistics above, gay sex is 160 to 290 times as likely to lead to HIV/AIDS as heterosexual sex. So yes, gay sex is risky and straight sex is relatively safe. That's what the numbers tell us. I'm not trying to justify any "revulsion towards gay sex," I'm just explaining the truth of the numbers.

When one third of gay men will contract HIV/AIDS during their lifetime, how can we say that this is an activity that can be made safe? The infection rates are so high that one can more properly say that gay sex is an inherently unsafe activity. Advising men on how to have safe gay sex is, therefore, like advising people how to safely drive drunk, or how to safely smoke crack. The only responsible advice for gay people is not how to make such a dangerous activity safer, but that that they shouldn't engage in this activity at all.

If any other activity, besides gay sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal. We would be bombarded by public service announcements like the "just say no" to drugs campaign. Just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk," people shouldn't let anyone they care about participate in gay sex. But because of the powerful pro-gay lobby which strongly influences the mainstream media and has an even greater control over Hollywood, the truth about the huge risk of gay sex is ignored, and anyone who says otherwise is accused of being "homophobic"." from: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/06/gay_sex_inheren.html

and another article:


"Researchers at the conference released several new studies confirming reports of increased STD risk behaviors and infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) in certain U.S. cities. Several researchers noted that STD increases among MSM might be due to increased risky sexual behavior following the success of anti-retroviral therapy for treating HIV/AIDS and the perception that HIV is no longer a serious problem. Many researchers also called for new and effective approaches to prevent STDs among MSM.

Valdiserri also noted that CDC is studying ways to expand access to effective prevention programs for gay and bisexual men. These programs will address the unsafe sexual practices and complacency that have resulted, in part, from advances in treatment, and help men to establish and maintain safer behaviors over a lifetime." from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press_Releases/STDGay2000.htm

and another:

"Over the past few years, unprotected anal sex, sexually transmitted infections (STI), and HIV incidence has increased among men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco [1,2] and urban MSM communities elsewhere in north America, Europe, and Australia [3-7]. In our previous studies, trends in sexual risk behavior were analysed combining both MSM exclusively and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) [1,2]. Although without conclusive evidence, a 'bisexual bridge' has been a cause for concern in the past because of the possible spread of HIV into the general population [8]. In the present report, we update our sexual risk behavior data and compare trends in MSM with MSMW in San Francisco."from: http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200407230-00019.htm;jsessionid=JhNJnSSspTK2tcXg8BTvqxQrNvl90z1ZfCF2Tpk6G6K4J1rcB8gv!-628279283!181195628!8091!-1


and thanks to another comment - another article:

Alarming finding on HIV in gay men - Most in U.S. study unaware of infection

"The vast majority of young gay and bisexual men in the United States who were found to be infected with HIV in a new study were unaware of their infection, according to findings reported at the International AIDS Conference on Sunday. The rates of unawareness among minority gay men age 15 to 29 in the study were staggeringly high. Among those studied, 90 percent of blacks, 70 percent of Latinos and 60 percent of whites said they did not know they were infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Most of these infected men perceived themselves to be at low risk of being HIV-positive, despite having engaged in frequent high-risk sex like unprotected anal intercourse, said Duncan MacKellar, an epidemiologist from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which conducted the study.

The study involved 5,719 men who were interviewed at dance clubs, bars and other places frequented by gays in six cities: Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Seattle. The study tested the men for exposure to the AIDS virus, finding that 573 had HIV. Of those, 440, or 77 percent, said they thought they were not infected. The results of the HIV tests were available to the men, but it is not known how many sought the results or learned that they were infected". " - from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/08/MN98335.DTL