Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"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

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.

This chickenhawking is an integral part of the homosexual subculture, and tacitly and explicitly accepted by the entire movement. Thus the call for lowering the age of consent for homosexual sex across the board by the homo movement.

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; homosexualagenda; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 581-599 next last
To: breakem

Oh, now THAT'S RICH.. Coming from the FR's own, self proclaimed posterboy for "Judicial Activism"

You really need to re-think this.. and you should apologize to JWalsh.

321 posted on 05/02/2003 12:20:20 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: breakem
No, but I've never seen any scientific evidence (journal, etc.) that shows homosexuality to be "genetic". Therefore, I am unwilling to accept it as such and give it "approval" by government. By this I do not mean that we should outlaw homosexuality or harass homosexuals, I am just against confering status as a minority (i.e. under Title VII, EEO) or teaching it in school, or finding a right to homosexual sex in the constitution, or pandering to homosexuals by worring about "offending" them, etc.
322 posted on 05/02/2003 12:21:29 PM PDT by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
If I am the poster boy for judicial activism for human rights, then you and walsh are the poster boys for big government, as he has been able to explain away. Wear your title proudly and be glad your government is trying to control your neighbor's immoral sexual behavior.
323 posted on 05/02/2003 12:22:14 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: breakem
that would be "unable"
324 posted on 05/02/2003 12:23:02 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: brownie
two out of three ain't bad, we agree. The right to homosexual or heterosexual is implied by the constitution. All rights are not ennumerated. If you think the government has the right to control your sexual behavior with adults, that's your problem.
325 posted on 05/02/2003 12:24:37 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: 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."

-- I don't believe the Constitution provides a "right" to sexual relations with someone of the same gender. Simply because a law may be unjust, unfair, or unwise does not make it unconstitutional.
326 posted on 05/02/2003 12:24:47 PM PDT by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Is it not true that those who are molested by members of the same sex as youth are also just as likely to inflict physical violence on homos (gay bashers, if you will) when they become adults.

Is it not true that a large population of the adult male prison population were molested as children? Is it not true that this is one of the main reasons that homos and effeminate men are victims of rape and assualt in prison?

327 posted on 05/02/2003 12:24:51 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: breakem

No. The court isn't there to write law, you're completely incorrect.

They may rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the minute they engage in "Judicial Activism" they deviate from the law as written. That's not their job and it's how we got an all powerful Federal Government to begin with.

As I said, you need to re-think this. Because those same "judicial activists" you're cheering today will be goring your ox tomorrow.

I am posting from the United States, where I live. Where are you posting from?

You claim that local government cannot regulate within the confines of a person's home? What gave you that impression?

And don't tell me it's the vagaries of the ninth.

328 posted on 05/02/2003 12:25:21 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger

Its all a matter of which words you want to emphasize, isn't it.

Which is it: 73% or 23%?

Given the fact that all the other references consistently report 73%

I think it would be a safe assumption that 23% was a typo. I'll try to track down a copy of the original.

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

Smuck. You took one excerpt of one post and tried to infer that all my evidence failed to support my claim, when it was obvious I was posting both evidence from mainstream homosexual publications/activists as well as objective sttistics and studies to prove my thesis.

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.

How gracious of you.

Too bad you're the only one having difficulty following the points of this debate.

329 posted on 05/02/2003 12:26:26 PM PDT by Polycarp ("He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: brownie
the constitution only lists some civil rights and does not intend to ennumerate all human rights. Perhaps they should have included the right to decide what to have for breakfast or is that reserced for the states? The constitution delineates the power of the federal government. So, where does it say it has the power to control sexual behavior? Corrolary: what gives the state a right to restrict human rights. Don't bother, nothing.
330 posted on 05/02/2003 12:27:24 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I do believe that the constitution does not provide a right to same-sex sex. I dare you to argue that the founders intended there to be a constitutional right to same gender sex. Apparently, you don't believe in the constitution as written, but believe it is a "living, breathing document" which our wise jurists, such as Ginsburg, can devine with forked sticks.
331 posted on 05/02/2003 12:28:29 PM PDT by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: breakem

You're incorrect, again.

You support Federal powers that are to be found exactly no-where in the constitution.

And you dare to call me a supporter of "big government" for supporting laws on the State and Local level? Laws which have been on the books for centuries and have been upheld repeatedly as Constitutional and within the power of the State?

LOL!

332 posted on 05/02/2003 12:28:57 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Unfortunately, that depends entirely on what you define as "Human rights" which is defined by each generation through going to the polls and voting. That is called federalism. The constitution only restricts government from doing those things that are specifically enumerated - "all other powers are reserved to the states"

You are reading things into the constitution that simply are not there. Homosexuality is not a human right.
333 posted on 05/02/2003 12:30:34 PM PDT by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
You misunderstand. I did not say anything about the home. I said the locals can't restrict that which you have a right to do.

The court is perfectly correct to throw out a law violating human rights. Why you think that's "writing law" is a weird chacterization. I understand your need to call it activism and paint it negatively, because the implication of my being right creates a dissonance in your brain. A dissonance that is clearly based upon your willingness to allow the legislative branch to restrict your rights or the rights of your neighbors.

334 posted on 05/02/2003 12:31:15 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger

Its all a matter of which words you want to emphasize, isn't it.

No, the point is that since the stated age range includes non-minors, the figure gives us no way of knowing how many of that 73% had sex with minors.

Smuck.

The word you're looking for is "schmuck".

You took one excerpt of one post and tried to infer

The word you're looking for is "imply".

that all my evidence failed to support my claim

Liar---I did not imply (or even infer) anything of the sort.

335 posted on 05/02/2003 12:31:51 PM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: brownie
Moreover, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was not originally intended to apply to the states, only to the federal government. The S.Ct. "found" that specific rights from the bill of rights limited state government through a process called reverse incorporation - during the period between 1900 and about 1970. Therefore, any historical argument for the founders intending to provide for a right to homosexual sex is simply without foundation.
336 posted on 05/02/2003 12:33:29 PM PDT by brownie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: breakem
boys and girls, thanks for the lesson on the powers of big government and using government to prohibit your neighbor from engaging in immoral sex.

I must call our little session to a close. But feel free to stay after for extra credit.

337 posted on 05/02/2003 12:33:42 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
You're still saying that chickenhawking doesn't happen.
Regardless, that is what you're saying.
Now, maybe if you CLARIFIED it by saying whta you REALLY believe - Then we'd be getting somewhere!
338 posted on 05/02/2003 12:35:32 PM PDT by Darksheare (Nox aeternus en pax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Negative.
I pointed out your flawgic.

Now, how about responding to what was said, instead of doing a Clinton two step.
339 posted on 05/02/2003 12:36:47 PM PDT by Darksheare (Nox aeternus en pax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: breakem
FACT: When the courts don't follow the law as written and they make up their own, they are engaging in "Judicial activism"

This is extra-constitutional and dangerous to the extreme.

The difference here is, in this case you don't have a problem with it..

If it were an out of control EPA, Federal Gun Laws, WOD, forehead chips or anything else you would probably be screaming your head off and asking: "but, but.. where is the federal authority to do this in the Constitution? I can't find it.."

Remember, the court that makes a law today will gore your ox tomorrow. And what will you do? Write the SC Justices and petition them? Shake the Constitution in their faces? Make non-sense arguments based on your own emotion and bias?

LOL!

340 posted on 05/02/2003 12:37:03 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 581-599 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson