Posted on 05/01/2003 2:41:23 PM PDT by Polycarp
Even more posts on homosexuality...i'm curious as to why? (Click link for background.)
--Dr. Brian Kopp
Vice President, Catholic Family Association of America
5/1/03
A friend of mine is sitting in jail right now, having lived a life of severely self destructive behavior for many years. His current incarceration is for DUI.
From the time he was 13 to 15, he had a steady girlfriend, and was a quiet, well adjusted, normal kid.
At age 15 he was sexually molested by three male homosexuals, and in the process was introduced to drugs (need those whip its to open up a virginal anal sphincter, you know) and heavy alcohol abuse. He has lived a self destructive homosexual lifestyle ever since, a lifestyle induced by molestation and coerced drug and alcohol use at an early age.
I'm personally helping arrange his counseling and legal representation in the lawsuit against his homosexual molestors.
His life has been destroyed by these homosexual predators, yet many here and elsewhere have the unmitigated gall to castigate those of us battling this homosexual juggernaut, especially in regards to the efforts of the GOP to court the homosexual vote.
This type of predatory sexual abuse of young teenage boys is typical chickenhawking homosexual behavior. I've seen it so many times its enough to make me vomit.
And I guarantee if any of them ever touches one of my boys, there will be no trial, only a burial.
Furthermore, the credibility of my entire Church has been undermined by homosexuals who infiltrated its priesthood and systematically buggered its teenage altar boys for years.
And the same types who would criticize the Church for this buggering, also criticize the Church for being so "intolerant" of the homosexual agenda.
The homosexual juggernaut presents a clear and present danger to this Republic and the institution of the family upon which all decent societies are built.
The homosexual juggernaut presents a clear and present danger to our children, as chickenhawking is an integral part of its culture. Homosexuals do not reproduce. They are not "born that way." But they do recruit. They are actively trying to recruit your children and mine.
The homosexual juggernaut presents a clear and present danger to our health system.
Mankind has spent several millenia developing effective and sanitary methods of disposing human waste.
Mankind knows that human waste is the source of deadly diseases.
Mankind knows that highly promiscuous sexual behavior of any kind brings with it high morbidity and mortality. Homosexual behavior is inherently promiscuous, as every single sociological study on the subject has repeatedly proven.
Male homosexual behavior is essentially desirous of methods to literally and figuratively swim upstream to the sources of that human waste, with as many different partners as humanly possible.
Therefore, homosexual behavior is deadly and definitely decreases the homosexual's life expectancy, and the visceral repulsion it engenders is a natural, wholesome, and common sense response.
Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.
An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
This is my answer to the question, "Even more posts on homosexuality...i'm curious as to why"
As long as this homosexual juggernaut looms over us, pro-family and all men of good will, desirous of defending and spreading the Culture of Life, will engage the battle and fight this integral and insidious piece of the Culture of Death.
Couldn't be further from the truth. It is your side that wants a strong central government legislating from the bench rather than government closest to the people whose principle is embodied in the tenth amendment.
My dog humped my leg once. Ever since...
The idea that the right to privacy protects any criminal activity is idiotic. If you have to ask the above question then you missed the boat a long time ago..and nothing I can say will help you.
Jorge, you lost the argument when you failed to answer the question.
I know where you're going and I will disagree all the way along. You believe in big government and government control of morality. I don't, yet you ascribe this belief to "my side." Why not admit that it is your side that needs government control of people. It very obvious.
Can states legislate against incest between consensual adults?
Can states legislate against prostitution?
Can states legislate against wife beaters whose wives are OK with being beaten?
Does Santorum merely think that states should have the right to criminalize sodomy among other consensual adult sex acts because there is no constitutional right to privacy, even though he does not endorse such criminalization, or does he actually think such criminalization is a good idea? IMO, he implies the latter, and has not subsequently suggested otherwise, despite great controversy, which suggests my interpretation is correct.
Of course, as you suggest, he does not go into the twilight zone, and argue for criminalization of homosexual attraction and thoughts as opposed to acts. That is really beside the point.
In short, Santorum got in trouble with me and others not because he thinks states have the constitutional right to criminalize sodomy (a perfectly respectable position as Andrew Sullivan among others have acknowledged, although in the end IMO quite arguably incorrect), but because he actually endorses such criminalization. What do you think?
On the third question the assault and victim approval is not easy to determine. That is why the police can arrest the assaulter without the victim assistance. The third wuestion is different than the other two.
I believe the government can regulate prostitution, but not prohibit it. A person has the right to engage in such trade.
Incest is abhorrent to me and I belive society can speak out against it. Just don't know the purpose of the law. It is not necessary for the government to try to control the behavior. They can't do it anyway.
By your questions you have ignored my previous response. You apparently do not believe in this human right and need the government to control these behaviors. Why not admit that you are for bigger government than "my side" contrary to your first accusation. You'll feel better when you clarify this and can then attack me more directly.
You mean the ninth amendment?The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"Morality" laws have been around since the beginning. There hasn't been a state law invovling this subject overturned by the SCOTUS in 227 years.
Historically speaking, you're on shaky ground if your arguing that their is a Constitutional right to incest, prostitution, sodomy et al.
I agree with you that big intrusive goverment is not sanitized from a policy perpective just because it comes from states or localities rather than the feds. But government has to legislate animated by moral considerations, because moral precepts are closely tied with policy considerations, because making policy from an amoral perspective is the road to perdition. Thus, IMO broad sweeping nostrums such as yours, and those on the other side, don't move the ball much. It is all in the details, and in the merits of the particular issue, which to properly weigh requires a prudent evaluation of all the competing considerations. I guess I am more of a micro rather than a macro guy when it comes to government policy in general, although of course there are exceptions to every rule.
You don't believe in this right and you believe the government should make people act right. I don't
I would prefer that states and localities let the people who live their address those and let those who can't abide them pursue happiness elsewhere.
So who actaully is seeking freedom breakem?
Recognizing the right of a person to choose how and whom they has sex with does not make the law amooral. It makes it the responsibility of the citizenry to be moral. Some will and some won't and some will define there morality differently than you and I.
I don't need the law to protect me from two guys on the next street having sex. Why do you?
You would make George Orwell proud. You have defined the absence of a law in recognition of a right as big government and claim that the passing of laws to restrict behavior is smaller government. Kudos on your ability to twist the meaning of obvious concepts.
The purpose of the law is to dissuade people from doing it of course. But if you don't know the purpose of the law to dissuade it, why is it abhorent to you?
You see abhorence, like many things is in the eyes of the beholder. Homosexuals find incest abhorent but it is a consensual act between adults. Others find homosexuality an abhorent act and like incest, it is also a consensual act between adults.
In the eyes of the law, what's the difference?
Such as in California and Connecticut? You know, there is a policy issue here. Do we really want all the fruits and the nuts living on certain coasts, and moral fundmentalists all living in certain fly over zones? I am not sure over the very long term such balkanization is healthy. Just look at our Congress for a leading indicator. The place gets less permiable as time goes by. I am not overly worried, however, because I don't really think your vision will ever really achieve critical mass, and that is a good thing. In the end, a national decision will often be made.
As a sidebar, just think of the chaos over time if some states legalize gay marriage, and others do not, in our still mobile society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.