Six out of 10 Americans Say Homosexual Relations Should Be Recognized as Legal

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE ^ | May 15, 2003 | Frank Newport

[jde1953]

"... because it's just as unlikely and ridiculous as the 6 out of 10 bullsh*t."

So you have examined Gallup's polling methodology and found it wanting. Could you please give a statistical analysis showing why their conclusions are invalid?

"equating traditional marriages with deviant marriages..."

OK, let's go for *real* traditional marriages, as when women were the men's property. That's a tradition of literally centuries, rather than this recent "women are equal partners in a marriage". Yeah, right. [Yes, that was sarcasm.]

"demand legal recognition and protection is swinging, then bestiality,..."

Already happened. Who needs consenting adults? Bestiality in private is 100% legal in the Great State of Texas. No, that's not a misprint. That's Texas. As in Texas, United States of America.

[CyberAnt]

Exactly!

[Remedy]

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law.... During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed.... Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." W. Blackstone, Commentaries . The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least. Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356.

Hundreds rally for '10 Commandments judge' Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion, repudiating homosexuality on religious grounds, calling it "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

[borntodiefree]

Remedy, please don't take this as a personal attack, I am attacking the absolutly assinine statement from the court you quoted...

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

The above quote continues to show the absolute ignorance of our judiciary and most Citizens... The Constitution does not confer rights to anyone or anything except to the State or Federal government. These entities don't exist without the Constitution (though they are operating as if there is none right now, but that's a different conversation).

Even still, I guess I am changing the subject. To be clear again...Sodomy is wrong, evil, against God, etc.... and the family and the church need to get back to basics...but...

You have just as much right "in reference to the Constitution" to stick your tounge on an electric socket, (excuse the crudity, but I'm trying to get a point across) to put your nuts in a vise, or to perform the (disturbing)act of sodomy.

They are all stupid and wrong, but if I as an individual don't have the "jurisdiction" to enter your property and stop you from doing these things, I can not (in the form of a "government") confer that right to others...

[First Amendment]

There is no proof or argument that would satisfy those bent on promoting acceptance of their decadent lifestyle. It would be "childish and silly" to try. It is only through deceit, subterfuge and a very dishonest and willing press that you've gotten this far.

I'm just replying to your reply to me - I've been away for a couple of hours and haven't read the whole thread... But it sounds as though you are replying to the wrong person. I don't think you could find someone more adamantly opposed to the homo-Nazi agenda than me.

[TradicalRC]

Logically fallacious? Perhaps.

Empirically fallacious? I don't think so.

[Remedy]

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

The above quote continues to show the absolute ignorance of our judiciary and most Citizens... The Constitution does not confer rights to anyone or anything except to the State or Federal government. These entities don't exist without the Constitution (though they are operating as if there is none right now, but that's a different conversation).

• Unalienable Rights originate from God.
• Some claim that they originate from the STATE.

  The Constitution secures rights confered by God. Therefore, WHITE, J., statement that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy is correct and the homosexuals & Court of Appeals, incorrect.

  "After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights."

  Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation? The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible.

[breakem]

Like the subject of many polls, human rights are not subject to the will of the majority. What's the point of polling on this stuff?

[Duckdog]

I think your meter is a little on the low side.

[Remedy]

What's the point of polling on this stuff?

Politics, Politics, Politics. Cite the poll and ram the homo agenda down the throats of everyone.

[breakem]

If the question is having sex with other adults, they already have that right, unless you don't believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness.

I'm am concerned about some of you freepers who are constantly having beliefs shoved down you throat. Be careful.

[Remedy]

You are morally and mentally confused. Read the LINKS in POST#1!

[breakem]

Here is how confused I am. I believe adults have the right to have sex with other adults as they please and you believe the government can outlaw it.

I am talking about what I believe is a human right, not what I think is moral. Can you comprehend the distinction?

It is you who are confused and mentally challenged. And I might ask, what kind of belief is it that the government can outlaw this human activity? Certainly not the belief of someone who believes in freedom.

[Antoninus]

Notice how they asked the question. It wouldn't surprise me if they asked:

Should homosexuals be allowed to love, or be tortured and killed?

A better question would be: Should same-sex relationships be considered the moral equivalent of marriage?

Or: Is anal sex the moral equivalent of intercourse?

What do you think the numbers would look like in surveys like that?

[ladyinred]

Raise your hand if you don't believe this poll!
I am not buying this, not at all. This is more propaganda brought to us by the Gay Lobby IMHO.

[Antoninus]

Wow! Hitler had almost the same idea!

Comparison to Hitler, ffusco. 15-yards and loss of down.

[breakem]

I know you can't call the entire field, but you missed a call on 105. Those nazis references get thrown around a lot huh?

[breakem]

One of my favorite propaganda techniques is calling people nazis. Usually found at the ole FR on the homo threads. Indicative of intellectual bankruptcy.

[breakem]

Last one out turn out the lights.

[First Amendment]

The reason I call homo activists Nazis is for a very specific reason. One of the founders of ACT-UP (Larry something or other) read Mein Kampf for pointers on how to convert society to his liking (i.e. homo-friendly). I have read a list of the original homo activists' methods and plans and they eerily resemble the Nazis in Germany in their methods, terminology, and oddly enough, in their sexual habits. Many of the Nazi heirarchy in Germany were pederasts, and their philosophy was to a large part based on mystic, utopian, hate filled Neitzche-esque homo-erotic garbage. So I use the word because of the connections between the Nazis of Hitler's Germany and the homo activists of today, not because I am slinging names around.