"Even more posts on homosexuality...i'm curious as to why?"

Catholic Family Association of America/ Free Republic ^ | 5/1/03 | Dr. Brian Kopp, Vice President, Catholic Family Association of America

[breakem]

Unlike you, I don't need a law to legislate against everything I believe to be immoral. You call someone who wants less control of personal behavior by government a fascist and you call be big government. You continue to misapply words by using the opposite meaning.

Also, your logic is flawed, because laws are based upon morality does not mean that all immoral behavior should be outlawed. You can not automatically apply the inverse meaning in a generality. You need to learn about logic, freedom, and the role of government. Then perhaps we can call you a conservative.

[Polycarp]

Shame you don't have the wit to see it.

Pot...Kettle (as they say)

See my last post to you.

[breakem]

sex will be for more than recreation/pleasure, it will continue to be for procreation, that and test tubes. Not that procreation and pleasure are mutually exclusive. LOL!

[breakem]

a lot of wisdom in your 239

[MrLeRoy]

homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature.

This "evidence" is utterly irrelevant to your original claim.

Your reading comprehension and retension skills are woefully deficient. I'll help you with a little review of excerpts from my recent posts:

Free clue: referring to OTHER evidence does not change the fact that the "evidence" I quoted was irrelevant to your claim.

But some (though not all) of your excerpts are indeed relevant to your claim. I'll take a look at them; you might be right---but you don't help your case by mixing relevant and irrelevant data.

[breakem]

Flawgic. xlnt

Since the other poster set up the construct (sorry if I used adult words without your permission) I merely applied it to show the fallacy. The logic was not mine, but the original poster. I notice you attacked me for pointing it out, but not the one who was actually illogical.

[conservonator]

One wonders how you (or Kopp?) saw this so many times.

One wonders why you wonder...

[MrLeRoy]

1)The Gay Report (Summit Books, 1979, p. 275), a survey of homosexual attitudes and behavior by Jay and Young, two homosexual researchers, revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 years of age or younger. [...]
7)In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.

Which is it: 73% or 23%? (Or are these two different works titled The Gay Report?)

[MrLeRoy]

5)The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older.

Is that the same 1948 Kinsey survey of prisoners and mental patients that claimed that 10% of the total population is gay?

[conservonator]

Not that procreation and pleasure are mutually exclusive.

They are for homosexuals.

[breakem]

And seemingly much more difficult, but don't forget the wonders of modern science.

[MrLeRoy]

1)The Gay Report (Summit Books, 1979, p. 275), a survey of homosexual attitudes and behavior by Jay and Young, two homosexual researchers, revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 years of age or younger.

But according to Catholic.net:

"Tim Dailey, a senior fellow for culture studies at the Family Research Council[...] released a report in May detailing the link between homosexuality and abuse of minors and noted that even homosexuals acknowledge the link.

"'In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger,' Dailey said."

http://www.catholic.net/hot_topics/print.phtml?article_id=490

[brownie]

No, you stated that the science on the thread was laughable, and the other posters pointed out that the science on the thread was from such places as the New England Journal of Medicine and asked what, specifically was laughable in your opinion. You still haven't answered or come up w/ any "scientific facts" that homosexuality is normal.

[breakem]

I haven't said homosexuality was normal. Why would I present the science that proves something I have not said. Your reading is incorrect.

[conservonator]

And seemingly much more difficult, but don't forget the wonders of modern science.

Not difficult, impossible: not wonders, abominations.

[breakem]

see 43 for New England Journal opinion by those with whom I was disagreeing.

I attacked the conclusion drawn as opposite the decision to choose and said it means we can rape homo teens and convert them. If you think that's good science or that I am wrong, please elaborate.

My comments about science applies to the various anti-homo threads which appear here regularly. In todays example two anecdotes were cited and now I'm to nominate it for Nobel science prize?

[breakem]

we have friends who have had children by artificial insemination. Is that what you're calling an abomination?

[Jhoffa_]

You refer to judicial activism. What recourse does a citizen have when a legislature or city council retricts a fundamental human right. If that's judicial activism, which is a buzz word I don't agree with, then let's have more of it. You can understand why legislature lobbied by people who believe as you do would attempt to restrict that which we have a right to do. It is the role of the court to stop such tyranny and to protect the rights.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. That's the most foolish, idiotic post I have seen on FR in years. (and that's saying quite a bit)

"Judicial Activism" is when the court writes law, instead of the legislature. It's a coup and at that point you may as well put crowns on their heads and call these 9, almost un-accountable & completely un-elected people in black pajamas the defacto rulers of our nation. As they have completely thwarted the will of the people and their duly elected representatives.

If you want to completely slip the leash on all levels of our government and ignore the Bill of Rights, there's no way faster or more sure than Judicial Activism.

Contrary to what you posted, it's not " the role of the court to stop such tyranny and to protect the rights. " Courts are there to apply the law as it is written, period.

[Egregious Philbin]

One wonders why you wonder...

Wonder no further, and i'm guessing that my assumption of your assumptions are correct. Opponents of the "homosexual juggernaut" seem particularly fascinated with the seediest of homosexual behavior, the minority within the minority, and often take it for the whole.

[breakem]

Contrary to your believe, if a law restricts rights which the government does not have the power to restrict, the court is the last resort of individuals to have the law tossed. If that's activism, then so be it.

What I find amazing is how you characterize my comment, but find it perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate this behavior. What country are you posting from?