Posted on 03/22/2002 7:55:50 AM PST by codebreaker
Great in depth article, Tom Burnett's wife also says that before getting on the plane September her husband was having 'visions' of varoius sites in Washingtom including the White House.
Burnett, a devout Catholic took it as a sign from God that he would be called on to somehow serve his country in the nations capital.
Surely you can do better than that.
I want you to think hard and long about the following
proof you are ignorant of the world around you.
Sodomy has always been against the law in the United States and your alarmist speech is without substance and lacks rational thought. It is however as twisted as you have to make it in order to defend the indefensible. The Bible which is 100% accurate and true, tells us that you are no better than the sodomites you defend and will be held accountable for your folly. You live in a country that does have sodomy laws and this country has never been as you have tried to describe countries with sodomy laws. You are so intent to have you're childish toy that in your selfishness you disregard reality altogether.
One cannot be a sodomite, or defend them and be right.
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)." (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
Crimes against nature as defined by natures GOD.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186
If you think homosexuality is not against the law you had better think again. The following laws are on the books and are valid even this day. This very hour.
Criminal sodomy laws in effect since 1791:
Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672).
Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719).
Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981).
Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975).
Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785.
New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in
New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7.
New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792).
Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977).
South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect since 1868:
Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867).
Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865).
Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858).
California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865).
Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868).
Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866).
Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893).
Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892).
Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867).
Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869).
Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845).
Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855).
Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860).
Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856).
Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840).
Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860).
Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860).
Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846).
Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859).
Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857).
Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856).
Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866).
Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194]
Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45.
New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815).
New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847).
New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859).
North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855).
Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874).
Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872).
South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837).
Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858).
Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860).
Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779).
Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868).
West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868).
Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorrent, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.
Thank you FF578
Hold on there before you get so nasty and spiteful. Just because you misunderstood what I said doens't mean it's incoherent or that I'm wrong or inconsistent. Perhaps if I rephrase the statement that set you off, it'll clarify things.
Judging by your reaction you interpreted my statement as: 'Libertarians believe Thomas Jefferson would be a libertarian if he were alive today' and that's not what I was saying, although it's probably true.
What I was saying was this: The values and beliefs that Thomas Jefferson held are consistent with those of libertarians today. That's a fact.
And I suppose my reponses to Khpera propmted that "you like to insult people" bit. Well, read his statements. He's maniacal almost to the point of irrational. I'm not pointing that out to be insulting. It's just the way I see it.
You forgot to mention the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
Doesn't God give a man his whole life to repent before facing judgment? Why are you trying to preempt God?
That's just silly and you know it, with all due respect. Thomas Jefferson wrote volumns while he was alive, in letters, diaries, essays, etc. It's not difficult at all to infer what political philosophy most closely matches his today.
That's like saying you're not sure Mt. Vesuvius went off in 79 AD and killed everyone in Pompeii because they're not here to ask them.
"I'm not obsessed, just concerned. If Bingham was a hero on that plane, I'm glad he was, but that does not change the apparent fact that he was leading an abhorrent lifestyle, apparently to his end in a Pennsylvania mountainside, right?"
Concerned? Why? What business is his lifestyle of your's? Were you aquainted with him? Friends? Co-Workers?
It's kind of interesting your choice of Handles, considering your apparent desire to limit someone else's "Freedom". Isn't the basic tenet of Freedom begin with "Mind your own Frigging Business". If Bingham was indeed a hero in his final moments, isn't that enough?
I'll say it... with one modification. Maybe not down the middle, but certainly not way over on the far extreme to where I'm about to fall off the cliff.
The way I see it, you can either deal with strict ideology or you can deal with reality. Those who advocate an extreme right/authoritarian position are choosing to see life in purely ideological terms, but fail to keep something in mind. You're alienating your allies!
Conservatives may make up about 50% or more of this country. We'd like to think it's more than that, but looking at the voting totals in the last presidential election would tell us otherwise. Political affilitation, like most things, is on a bell curve. If you graph it out,you would have the biggest number of people gathered around the middle, sloping off as you get toward the edges. That is to say, there are more people like who are middle-of-the-road, like it or not, rather than on the far sides like Tom Daschle on the left or Pat Buchanan on the right.
As young people today start growing up, they will probably get more conservative. However, seeing people on the extreme far right is likely to turn them away from conservative politics. So, take your pick. Would you rather stick with the hardline and alienate would-be conservatives turned off by such draconian beliefs, or would you rather present an inviting sort of conservatism.
I know the answer for many is "stick with the hardline and d@mn them all if they don't agree." However, you don't win elections that way and you certainly don't foster freedom or the notion of individual liberty. Like it or not, we are still a free country, which means people are free to do things you disagree with. A peaceful balance of interests comes when we respect each other. If someone commits a crime, force, or fraud against you, then prosecute them. If not, leave them alone to live in peace.
Haven't you read the Bible?
They want the government to go along with whatever they believe, and anybody who disagrees, to be locked away. Some of the things they want want the government to do, would remove any and all privacy and what little freedom is left, from the citizens.
This country was founded by people getting away from governments that dictated what they should believe, and how they should practice it.
People are foolish to think that it'd be alright to lock away all homosexuals, and that it would stop there. It wouldn't. Pretty soon, the atheists, then the agnostics, the wiccans, the scientologists (actually that might not be a bad thing, they are a cult of nutcases), then the Jews, the Catholics, and so on. Governments, once they get started doing things, generally don't like to stop, especially if it gives them more power/control.
The Nazi's started out small, trying to "clean" society from the "dirty" groups. Six million Jews died. Today's youth probably isn't taught that. (after all, those with German ancestry might be offended)
Among the 500-600 plus commandments God gave Moses (We always refer to the Ten Comandments, but there were actually around 600, it's been a few years since I read upon it).
Some of the ones I remember :
You cannot wear any clothing made from more than one textile material.
Women should not wear men's clothing.
You cannot eat fruit from a young tree
You cannot charge interest on a loan, nor receive a loan that has interest charged
You cannot sow a field with mixed seeds
You cannot have a tattoo because it defiles the body
You cannot eat foods such as shrimp and pork
You cannot shave or get a haircut (men)
The Ten Commandments are in fact a 'summary', if you will, of the around 600 laws that God passed on to Moses.
Now the laws that we all point to as prohibiting homosexual conduct, are side by side with the laws that prohibit us from eating pork, eating shrimp, cutting our hair, shaving, wearing any polyesters (or other clothing that is made up of more than one type of material), planting flowers in our yards, and women wearing any kind of pants.
So, in essence, unless any of us are Orthodox Jews or Christians, who follow the nearly 600 laws (actually, at the time I read about this, the Pastor said that fewer than 300 could actually relate to us in this day and age), if we are going to condemn homosexuals based on the Bible (especially Leviticus), then we had better not be wearing polyester, pants/jeans (if your a woman), eating shrimp and lobster, planting gardens, cutting our hair, etc., otherwise we are hypocrites and are going to hell along with the homosexuals.
Triva note: This from a Jewish friend, I never actually verified it, but maybe somebody else can, there was no Hebrew word for 'homosexual', that was introducted by people who translated it into English later on. Make of that what you will.
btw, this all feeds into why I don't condemn homosexuals on a Biblical scale like many of you do. Like I said, I frown upon them, like I do PETA, liberals, NOW, etc. I find the act distasteful. But I don't condemn it on a Biblical scale, because to do so, I would need to stop shaving (which I did this morning), cutting my hair (which I did yesterday), eating pork (which I am going to tomorrow), wearing polyester (which I am now).
I accept that there is a slight chance that I could goto hell for breaking any of the 300 or so laws which could still apply to us today, but I live by the Ten Commandments, and I hope that's enough. I'm not going to pick and choose selective laws from the 300 or so to follow. It's not my place to do so, nor is it any of ours'.
I do not approve of the lifestyle, nor do I believe any sexuality has any place in schools. That said, I also do not believe it is government's role to imprison or punish people for their sexual orientation. That is because, as a practical matter, a nation cannot preserve liberty when it picks and chooses unpopular groups to imprison.
Approval/disapproval is a totally separate issue from governmental action/inaction. Something people often forget.
I've got an idea for you, that might help clear up this obvious obsession. Get yourself a hobby that has nothing to do with homosexuals, you know, something that doesn't require you to get your knickers so completely wadded up over what someone else is doing, and allows you to put your focus on, well, let's just say for starters, yourself.
I will borrow from a friend.
All Old Testament Jewish Law is not required to be carried on after The Sacrifice that Almighty God provided for Us with his Son.
Laws that protect the moral fabric of society are to be applied however.
Homosexuality is immoral, it destroys the fabric of society. The same for other sexual sins, (fornication, adultery, ect..)
The Puritans had a good standard of laws. For that matter The laws that were in place in 1789 would make our country a better place today.
Fornication, Blasphemy, Adultery, Homosexuality, Pornography, Prostitution, Ect... Were all outlawed and punished.
The major problems started with the 1960's and everyone wanting to do what was right in their own eyes. (Libertarians, Democrats, Liberals, Greens, Feminists, Sodomites ect...)
Let us look at the reason Old Testament Jewish Law is no Longer in effect.
What was the Reason for the Old Testament law, over 600 commandments? The reason was to show the Jewish people that there was no way to keep the law on their own, they had to have a savior. If you broke one commandment one time, then you broke all the laws. Old Testament law could not be kept, all human beings failed the test, that is Why God Sent his Son, to become the Perfect Sacrifice for his Chosen Elect.
You seem to think that privacy is a defense for something.
The Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania 1815, in the case of The Commonwealth V Jesse Sharpless and others, rendered the Grand Jury Indictment as follows:
Jesse Sharpless... John Haines... George Haines... John Steel...Ephriam Martin...and Mayo... designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires ... in a certain house there ... scandalously did exhibit and show for money ... a certain lewd ... obscene painting representing a man in an obscene ... and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth and other citizens of this commonwealth...offending [the] dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Defendant argued that his acts were in private and protected. The Court Disagreed. Judge Duncan Delivered the Verdict.
The defendants have been convicted, upon their own confession, of conduct of great moral depravity...This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society...
Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
The defendents are charged with exhibiting and showing...for money, a lewd,... and obscene painting. A picture that tends to excite lust, as strongly as writing; and the showing of a picture is as much a publication as selling a book...
If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of a city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. In the eye of the law, this would be a publication, and a most pernicious one.
In demonstrating the strong feelings of the court on this issue, a second Justice, by the name of Judge Yeats, added to the pronouncement of the courts decision.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
The Corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most Injurious consequences...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
As for how Homosexuality causes problems in society.
Homosexuality is unnatural. It is immoral, indecent, and violates the laws of nature and nature's God. It is a sin that is Forbidden in the Old and New Testaments. Just like other sexual sins, it perverts the thing that God created, and turns it into a filthy perversion. Other Sexual Sins do this as well.
God intended Sex to be something to be shared between one man and one woman who were Married. It was not meant for two teens who think they are in love, it was not meant for two women, or two men. These things are perversions of what God Created.
Every Civilized Society dating all the way back to the Roman Empire have had laws forbidding homosexuality for that reason. By embracing and accepting a perversion you destroy the thing that the perversion attempts to emulate.
The laws that ban homosexual behavior all refer to this fact.
For Example, Alabama uses a phrase that harkens back to the natural law -- "crime against nature" -- to refer to homosexuality. (See § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975.)
This Principle of Natural Law and crime against nature are what make up common law. The Basis of law in our nation.
Natural law forms the basis of the common law. Natural law is the law of nature and of nature's God as understood by men through reason, but aided by direct revelation found in the Holy Scriptures:
"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." (1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 42.)
Blackstone's Commentaries explain that because our reason is full of error, the most certain way to ascertain the law of nature is through direct revelation. The ultimate importance of this law and its influence upon our law cannot be understated.
"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There is, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former." (1 Blackstone, Commentaries 42.)
There are impeccable American sources for the above proposition. James Wilson, Associate Justice on the first United States Supreme Court and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, said:
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine .... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." James Wilson, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation," in 1 The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, 104-06 (Bird Wilson ed., Bronson and Chauncey 1804).
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and coauthor of the Federalist Papers, declared:
"[N]o sovereign ought to permit those who are under his Command to violate the precepts of the Law of Nature, which forbids all Injuries ...." John Jay's Charge to the Grand Jury of the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, May 22, 1793, Richmond, Virginia." The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, at 386 (Maeva Marcus, ed., Columbia University Press 1988).
I am sure that you are aware of the definition of Moral Turpitude. If not: "'Moral turpitude means something "immoral in itself. ... It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. ... It is the nature of the act itself, and not its legislative characterization or punishment which must be the test in determining whether or not it involves moral turpitude."'"
Homosexuality Fits this definition, it always has and always will. Every Civilized society has accepted this fact.
I am sure you are also aware that For years Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness.
The American Psychiatric Association ("APA") has for years debated the harmful effects of homosexuality. Apparently, the answer rests upon who makes the most noise and has the most supporters at the APA's annual meetings. For many years, the APA regarded homosexuality as a pathological mental disorder. However, in 1973, the APA voted to declassify homosexuality as a disorder.
"In 1970, ... gay activists confronted their tormenters at the [APA's] annual convention in San Francisco. They wanted to remove the characterization of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder .... Irving Bieber, then the leading antigay psychiatrist, was laughed off the stage by gay protesters.... The crowd ... erupted in pandemonium at the conclusion of the [presentation]. While some psychiatrists clamored for air fare refunds, others called on the police to shoot the protestors.
"Dr. Kent Robinson, a psychiatrist, ... negotiated a panel at the 1971 APA convention, which would include gay representatives. Robinson contacted gay activist Frank Kameny to organize the panel. Despite securing an official panel at the 1971 convention in Washington, D.C., the activists ... continued to organize street protests. On May 3, 1971, gay activists stormed the stately Convocation of Fellows at the APA Convention, and Kameny seized the microphone to deliver a diatribe against the profession: 'Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.' Gay activists later went on to conduct their panel. At the end of the convention, Kameny and his fellow panelists demanded that the APA revise its diagnostic manual to delete references to homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. "Two years later, after continued pressure from gay activists, ... the APA's Nomenclature Committee was poised to accept the change."
(William N. Eskridge, Jr., Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and Gay Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 817, 934-35 (1997).
One prominent psychiatrist analyzed the APA's decision as follows:
"The APA could only take the action it did by disregarding and dismissing hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports that had been done on homosexuality over the previous two decades .... The APA ignored the science, and, for reasons that were nothing but political, 'cured' homosexuality by fiat."
Charles W. Socarides, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far 74 (Adam Margrave Books 1995).
Thus began the "scientific" endorsement of homosexuality. There have even been attempts to prove that homosexuality is genetically determined. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard's famous study of twins is one such attempt. J. Michael Bailey & Richard Pillard, A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation, 48 Archives of General Psychiatry 1089, 1090 (1991). Commenting on Michael Bailey's study, Anne Fausto Stirling, a developmental biologist at Brown University, criticized: "It's such badly interpreted genetics." D. Gelman et al., Homosexuality: Genetic Aspects, Newsweek, Feb. 24, 1992, at 46.
See, e.g., Theo G. M. Sandfort et al., Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, 58 Archives of General Psychiatry 85, 88 (table) (Jan. 2001) (homosexuals are three times more likely than heterosexuals to suffer from mood disorders); 58 Archives of General Psychiatry at 88 (table) (homosexuals are five times more likely to have suffered from bipolar disorder); J. Michael Bailey, Homosexuality and Mental Illness, 56 Archives of General Psychiatry 883, 884 (Oct. 1999); 58 Archives of General Psychiatry at 88 (table) (homosexuals are twice as likely to have suffered from major depression, neuroses, eating disorders, and phobias within their lifetime). Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States, 275 JAMA 1357 (1996); Joanne M. Hall, Lesbians Recovering from Alcohol Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Experiences, 43 Nursing Research 238 (1994); Anne H. Faulkner et al., Correlates of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in a Random Sample of Massachusetts High School Students, 88 Am. J. of Pub. Health 262 (Feb. 1998) (homosexuals run a significantly greater risk for substance abuse); Curtis D. Proctor et al., Risk Factors for Suicide Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth, 39 Social Work 504 (Sept. 1994) (homosexuals run a much greater risk for suicide); Journal Watch, 31 Nation's Health 18 (July 2001) (reporting that homosexual youth were more than twice as likely to commit a violent crime and were at a higher risk of being attacked by others); and Gary Remafedi, Adolescent Homosexuality: Psychosocial and Medical Implications, 79 Pediatrics 331, 334 (March 1987) (noting that nearly one-half of all young homosexuals have been arrested, placed in juvenile detention or arraigned in juvenile court on at least one occasion).
Homosexual activists have proffered that many, if not all, of the mental problems associated with homosexuals are not due to homosexuality; rather, they argue, these problems are due to a "homophobic" and "intolerant" society. Eskridge, supra, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1378. However, recent studies appear to contradict this proposal. See 18 Harvard Mental Health Letter 4 (Aug. 2001) (reporting that in the Netherlands, "a country that is especially tolerant of homosexuality," homosexuals continue to exhibit a much higher incidence of mental health problems).
Certain sociologists seem to have no compunction encouraging such experiments or "natural laboratories":
"When researchers downplay the significance of any findings of differences [between heterosexual and homosexual parents], they forfeit a unique opportunity to take full advantage of the 'natural laboratory' that the advent of lesbigay-parent families provides for exploring the effects and acquisition of gender and sexual identity, ideology, and behavior." (Stacey & Biblarz, supra, at 162-63.)
There are effects upon children of parents who practice homosexuality:
"This reticence [of the researchers] is most evident in analyses of sexual behavior and identity -- the most politically sensitive issue in the debate. Virtually all of the published research claims to find no differences in the sexuality of children reared by lesbigay parents and those raised by nongay parents -- but none of the studies that report this finding attempts to theorize about such an implausible outcome. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents."
Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Official Journal of the American Sociological Association 159, 163 (April 2001). Stacey & Biblarz are quite candid in their belief that homosexuality is a healthy and moral lifestyle.
FF578
This is true, and something I learned while attending a conservative Bible college. There was no word 'homosexual' in the Bible until the King James version was translated in 1611. Makes you think maybe old King James might have imparted a little Khpera-style bias against homosexuals into his version.
And speaking of, I hope on his next checkup, the doctor might up Khpera's meds a little.
There is none that is righteous, no not one. Only he can make us righteous. He loves us all, his mercy is new every morning, and he is the final judge.
We can certainly conclude that you’re the “these people” to whom you speak. Conservatives are socially conservative, not just fiscally conservative. You are not a conservative, now just crawl back down that Liberaltarian hole from which you exist.
…alright to lock away all homosexuals, and that it would stop there. It wouldn't. Pretty soon, the atheists, then the agnostics, the wiccans, the scientologists (actually that might not be a bad thing, they are a cult of nutcases), then the Jews, the Catholics, and so on.
Did you bump your head before you wrote this? Why would these things be the natural progression of events if we keep the sodomy laws in place? Why haven’t you addressed the fact that the US still has sodomy laws and always has? How do you stand living here, you’re the hypocrite. This kind of incoherent drivel only shows your incapacity for reason.
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.