Pride Before The Fall (Horowitz Sticks it to the Fundies!)

Whatever

It's increasingly obvious that you can't argue issues.

"Do you deny the existence of a homosexual agenda?"

I deny it. There is a LEFTIST homosexual agenda that seeks to do many destructive things.

The point the anti-gay folks like yourself seem to be unable to grasp is that not every homosexual thinks alike. Not every gay person wants gay sex taught in schools. Not every gay person wants to sleep with children.

Broadbrushing and stereotyping is foreign to the notion of individual rights and responsibilities.

Good conservatives know that you don't punish every member of a group for the sins of a few. Unfortunately, religious anti-gay fundamentalists can't understand this simple concept.

Trace

So of course I know what you'll find, but you won't even try.

If I stick my hand on a hotplate, I know what will happen also. There's not point in trying it just to see. Get over this obsession of yours.

SODOMY: Brief Of The States Of Alabama, South Carolina, And Utah (S.C.O.T.U.S.& Sodomy)

I The Constitution Does Not Contain an Express or Implied Right to Engage in Homosexual Sodomy.

A. Only activities historically considered beyond the reach of government regulation are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

B. The non-textual fundamental rights that this Court has recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have protected marriage, child-bearing, and the family - not extramarital sex, and certainly not homosexual sodomy.

II. The Choice to Engage in Homosexual Sodomy (As Opposed to the Inclination) Is Not a Suspect Classification Under The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

III. Recognizing a Fundamental Constitutional Right to Engage in Homosexual Sodomy Will Damage the Legitimacy of this Court and Enshrine a Dangerously Expansive Concept of Individual Freedom.

``Gay'' Sedition

``Gay'' strategists choose to employ the biological model of homosexuality for the dual purpose of denying choice and escaping responsibility. In calling for research into a so-called ``gay`` gene, their purpose was never to cure or rectify, but to justify homoerotic conduct and the homosexual identity. ``Gays'' correctly reason that if sexual behavior is a choice, it carries with it both responsibility and accountability. Their insistence that homosexuality is ``not a choice'' functions to bring ever more recruits into the ``gay'' fold and keep them there by discouraging them from seeking change. For many of today's young men, their ability to choose has been hijacked by a sophisticated program of psychosexual sedition and manipulation, largely sustained by the social weaknesses of our time.
To limit the animating source for human behavior to the brain and animal instinct (as many of today's behavioral scientists do) is both reductionist and left-wing regressive. Human motives and actions are, to a significant extent, determined by the vastly greater non-physical aspects of human existence. Inclinations are non-physical, and behavior causes physical change. (Planting the seed of human life in the passage designed for the expulsion of waste not only causes disease, but also exerts a destructive force upon the individual soul and on the value of all human life).
''Gays'' have forgotten that responsibility for personal conduct goes hand-in-hand with our personal dignity and authority. Realistically, we can never dignify something which is profoundly undignified, no matter how hard we strive to.

from the pink swastika.

"I am not 'gay', and detest their lifestyle."

Hey, don't be so sensitive. I was accused by the fundies of being gay long ago.

That's one of the first attacks they pull out if they sense you don't march in lockstep with their biblical views.

My response to the "You're gay!" claim is "You're stupid!"

Trace

There are some politically motivated homosexuals who have a political agenda they wish to see implemented.

And they are the ones trying to pass laws and encourage our kids to try homosexuality, yet the health hazards are never mentioned. That should concern you as it concerns me. Perhaps it does but you don't see or seem to care about the ramifications.

Do you deny that you're categorizing all homosexuals as members of a radical agenda, when you know this isn't true, simply because you detest homosexuals and you want to deny them their basic rights and dignities as a human being?

Yes, I deny exactly that. In no way am I saying all homosexuals are politically motivated. If some lived their lives in peace we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Be back later.

SODOMY : CENTER FOR THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (LAWRENCE v. TEXAS SODOMY BRIEF)

I. THE HISTORIC AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO CRIMINALIZE SODOMY IS WELL-SETTLED

A. Proscriptions Against Sodomy Have Deep Religious, Political, and Legal Roots.

B. The History of State Legislation Reveals That Same-Sex Sodomy Was Uniformly Condemned.

C. The Records of Appellate Courts Do Not Support the Claim That the States Avoided Prosecuting or Condemning Same-Sex Sodomy.

E. Nothing in the History or Text of the Equal Protection Clause Supports a Different Result from This Court's Due Process Clause Decision in BOWERS V. HARDWICK .

B. Legislative Trends Do Not Create New Constitutional Rights.

Unfortunately, religious anti-gay fundamentalists can't understand this simple concept.

No, they understand it very well. But philosophical consistency is just too damn inconvenient.

You whine, as your own words belie you. No "Sucks", I'm not with you.. Thank God.

Sorry to upset you…here’s a hanky.

Nope, it shows that I hold our constitutional principles above personal prejudices.

Aside there being no constitutional principles supporting the practice of perversion outside of legislative law I can understand your revulsion and prejudice. You have to hold your nose while you stink up the 10th amendment.

You 'holy joes' have some line about respecting the rights of the sinner, while rejecting the sin, don't you?

You get everything wrong, don’t you? It’s all about loving the person while not necessarily “respecting” their behavior. And I reserve the right to elect a representative to regulate certain behaviors while still having compassion for the well being of those who’s behaviors need regulating. You know…those “constitutional principles.”

Or is that just more of your pious sanctimony?

Yep that would be my pious sanctimony along with that little thing that seems to constantly elude you called “common sense.” Thank God you Liberaltarians are so irrelevant in politics…Go Harry Browne!

Left-Right Polarities

To understand the pagan mind in this context we must recognize the truth about left-right polarities in the political sphere. With minor discrepancies, all left-wing ideology can be identified as ``regressive,'' and right-wing ideology as ``progressive.'' Left-wing regressives incite mutual plunder, encourage dependency and pragmatically aspire to the lowest common denominator. Genuine right-wing progressive conservatives encourage creativity, inspire mutual affirmation, trust and human productivity. By nature, all socialism falls on the regressive side, in that ``socialism,'' is simply a political ideology which often lacks a true sense of social justice. Evil disguises itself as virtue (e.g., the goal of racial purity) because it has no life of its own (which is why sad bondage wishes to be known as ``gay liberation.'')
Generally, adherents of the Left fail to do what is necessary to guard the dignity of their fellow man. A left-leaning historian, for instance, would fatalistically argue that ``history'' repeats itself, while a conservative like Voltaire could observe correctly how it is instead ``man who always repeats himself.'' No wonder left-regressives cannot learn from history. If history just ``happens'' then little can be learned from it or done to prevent it from happening again. Basing one's decisions on a revised, corrupted or inverted version of history, however, is another matter. Some of man's worst follies are committed because of erroneous or falsified information.
In trying to understand the Nazi phenomenon we often ask ourselves how a gang of murdering thugs could have seized power in such a civilized nation? The truth is that Germany during the Weimar period was one of the most uncivilized nations in the world. Hitler himself referred to Berlin as the whore of Babylon.We consistently err in judging the advancement of human civilizations on the basis of art and technology. The Nazis loved classical music, and they were astute in the use of science and technology. The question we must ask about every society is, to what end is human culture is employed? For left-wing regressives, culture serves destruction and death. For right-wing progressives, culture focuses upon life.
A positive and utilitarian attitude toward homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion would therefore (then as now) be a left-wing regressive orientation, and a typical Nazi profile (with very specific contradictions and qualifications). It bears repeating that the Nazis were first and foremost technocratic, utilitarian pragmatists who believed in the survival of the fittest and the societal goals of physical beauty and racial perfection, Aryans being the ``fittest'' and most perfected, and Jews the least ``fit'' and least perfect. In truth, racial characteristics are irrelevant. Only the morality of a individuals and nations can determine whether they are civilized or barbarians -- builders or plunderers.
How do homosexuals fit into this picture? Although Nazi rhetoric listed homosexuals among the unfit, the Nazis never targeted homosexuals for destruction. To the contrary, unless the homosexual in question was Jewish, or a political enemy, the Nazi organization was often protective of homosexuals. Originally, the SS was founded for precisely the purpose of protecting Viennese homosexuals.

And they are the ones trying to pass laws and encourage our kids to try homosexuality, yet the health hazards are never mentioned.

"Look kids, Big Ben, Parliament. I just can't seem to get out of this circle." - Clark Griswald, National Lampoon's European Vacation

You don't know the difference between the vagina and the anus:

SODOMY : Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association

The CDC has identified men who have sex with men as among the groups that "are most vulnerable to STDs and their consequences . . . ." Id . at 39 (Introduction to "Special Focus Profiles"). One reason that men who have sex with men are at high risk of STDs is the nature of anal sex. Anal sex is not the same as sexual intercourse because of the differences between the vagina and the anus. 10 "The vagina is surrounded by thick muscular tissue which distends and changes shape to accommodate the erect penis during intercourse." Jeremy Agnew, Some Anatomical and Physiological Aspects of Anal Sexual Practices , 12 Journal of Homosexuality No. 1, 75, 91 (Fall 1985). The nature of these muscles make them "capable of protecting against abrasion during intercourse . . . ." Id . In contrast, the anus has a far more limited capacity to expand because it is firmly attached to the tail bone, and it is vulnerable to tears at its point of attachment. Because the anus is surrounded by veins and arteries, any tears may lead to substantial bleeding. See Keith L. Moore, C LINICALLY O RI ENTED A NATOMY 385 (2 nd ed. 1985). Accordingly, receptive anal sex may cause physical trauma to the anus and the rectum:

the lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of [membranous cellular tissue] with numerous goblet [mucous secreting] cells. The function of this thin layer is to promote the absorption of water and electrolytes. In spite of the limited protective capacity of secreted mucus from the goblet cells, the mucosa is incapable of much mechanical protection against abrasion. . . . . . . One of the commonest problems associated with anal sexual activity is tearing of the anal canal. The external anal sphincter is biologically intended to have material pass through it out of the body. The sudden or forceful insertion of objects in the "reverse" direction stimulates the anal reflex and produces a natural tendency of the sphincter to contract to prevent inser- tion. Unlike the vagina, the anus and rectum lack a nat- ural lubricating function, and insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation prior to the insertion of large objects can result in the tearing of perianal and anal canal tissue.

fyi:

Conclusion: The Danger of ``Gay Rights''

Scott Lively

I am writing this conclusion to the third edition on the same day that President Bill Clinton has called for ``hate crimes'' legislation based on ``sexual orientation'' (code words for homosexuality). A few days ago, in an act unprecedented in the history of the presidency, Mr. Clinton aligned himself with the homosexual cause at a fund-raiser for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the ``gay'' movement's largest political action committee. Knowing what it cost this president in 1993 to endorse ``gays in the military,'' I am wondering what ``gay'' leaders might have promised the president in exchange for this new endorsement. Or can it be that public perception of the ``gay'' movement has changed so much that the Clinton administration (notorious for its reliance on polls and ``focus groups'') has decided that it is now safe for the president to identify himself and his office with the ``gay'' political agenda.
This question has personal significance for me, since I was one of the few people to publicly challenge then-candidate Clinton on his support for ``gay'' issues during his first run for presidential office. In response to my questions during a live Town Hall television program (simulcast from Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon), Mr. Clinton said he was against promoting homosexuality as a valid, alternative lifestyle to young people. At that time he also affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude ``gay'' scout leaders.
I raise this issue to contrast the benign public image of ``gays'' with the face of the ``gay'' movement that we have seen in these pages. Those whose perceptions of the ``gay'' movement have been shaped primarily by the popular media may find President Clinton's actions appropriate, even laudable. Such people have been persuaded that ``gays'' are society's victims in need of protection. But the ``gay'' movement I have seen and investigated is neither benign, nor are its members ``victims.'' It is vicious, deceptive and enormously powerful. Its philosophy is Machiavellian and its tactics are (literally) Hitlerian.
What explains the dichotomy of perspectives on the ``gay'' movement? If any of the facts in this book are true, then the image of the ``gay'' movement Bill Clinton would like you to accept cannot be true. Are typical heterosexual supporters of ``gay rights'' simply unconcerned about the association of homosexuality with personal and societal dysfunction and violence? Or have these presumably well-intentioned people been denied complete information?
I have always been cautious of the word conspiracy, yet this is the word which best describes how the ``gatekeepers'' of American popular culture have helped to shape public opinion on this issue. The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party (indeed most information that might reflect negatively on the ``gay'' movement) appears to have been deliberately suppressed. We know that so-called ``gay rights'' has become a virtual cause celebre among the self-styled cultural elites in government, academia and the news and entertainment media. Over fifty years ago Samuel Igra also observed that homosexualism ``had become a veritable cult among the ruling classes'' in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler. I have come to believe that America's cultural elitists, perceiving themselves to be the moral arbiters of our society and the protectors of ``gays,'' have used their power and their positions to protect and shield the ``gay'' movement from all unfavorable publicity. More than this, they have colluded to promote an image of ``gays'' as sterling citizens.
When I initially learned the truths contained in this book, I was first astonished and then angered. Why had this information never surfaced during the many months in which the Oregon campaign to stop the ``gay'' agenda was continually being compared (in the local and national media) to the Nazi regime? The information is certainly not hidden. Anyone with the most basic research skills could easily find many of the two hundred-odd sources we have cited in this book. Are we to believe that the hundreds of trained journalists, college professors and politicians who helped guide the debate on that campaign (and many similar events) failed to discover any of these sources? We must assume that at least some of these professionals knew of these facts but decided not to inform the public. At best this represents an appalling level of arrogance (allowing that they might have disregarded these facts as not credible -- denying ``common'' people the right to make up their own minds). The more plausible (and more frightening) conclusion is that the facts were withheld because of their likely negative impact on the ``gay'' movement.
``Gay'' political power derives in large part from the public perception that homosexuals are victims. As Kirk and Pill so baldly admitted in The Overhauling of Straight America, ``gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.'' What would happen to the protective instinct of Americans if they knew that many of the worst villians of the Third Reich were ``gay''? How closely would America scrutinize the ``gay'' agenda if ``homoeroticism'' were revealed as the very foundation of Nazism? (This is a movement which would not survive such scrutiny). The evidence points to a conspiracy of silence -- a nearly universal self-censorship by the same opinion-makers who mock conspiracy theories and decry any form of censorship.
If the facts in this book are true, and if it is also true that the ``gatekeepers'' of our public information are deliberately keeping these facts from us, can we hope to educate our fellow citizens before the ``gay agenda'' plunges this nation into social chaos? The outcome is uncertain. Surely, however, there have been times in the past when the inevitable repetitions of history were derailed by a few warning voices. It is our hope that the facts we have presented here will penetrate the ``fog'' of media-sponsored misinformation and ``political correctness.''
Have we exaggerated the urgency of our task? I think not. The future of America, indeed of civilization itself, depends upon the preservation of the natural family -- God's model for effective human society and the training ground for healthy human relationships. Yet the goal of the ``gay'' movement is the devaluation of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic (monogamous heterosexual family-centered marriage) and its replacement with a ``gay'' affirming pagan alternative.
The ``gay'' movement in America (as contrasted with the German version) is different in style but not in substance. It remains characteristically selfish and hedonistic, but more importantly it continues to be defined by what it is against: Judeo-Christian family-based society. This ``gay'' vision for America is best defined in a widely circulated satirical essay written by a homosexualist under the pseudonym ``Michael Swift'' (probably to remind us of the political satire of Jonathan Swift). Although the writer intends to discredit this view of the homosexual agenda, its very eloquence (in the context of our study) belies this attempt. Echoing from the ancient Spartan culture, from the Teutons, from the Knights Templar, from the SA under Ernst Roehm, and now from the American ``gay rights'' movement comes this, our final glimpse into the fascist heart of homosexualism:

This essay is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed dream of being the oppressor.
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools [Project 10], in your dormitories [forced homosexual roommates], in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups [Wandervoegel , Boy Scouts], in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses [``gays in the military''], in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
Women, you cry for your freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy [radical feminism, lesbian separatist movement]. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of men. Then go ahead and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked [anti-discrimination ordinances, minority status based on homosexuality]. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men [graphic ``pro-gay'' sex and AIDS education, mandatory ``sensitivity training,''].
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially [the muli-faceted and powerful ``gay rights'' movement]. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy [suppression of internecine conflicts and other negative information about homosexuals by the homosexualist dominated media].
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead puny bodies [``hate crimes,'' speech codes, fines].
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man [the play Bent and a multitude of others; the lesbian counterpart in the television show, Ellen]; we will make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens [Hollywood promotion of homosexual ``love-making'' and of the ``gay rights'' agenda in movies and television]. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas [public funding of homosexual pornography by the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Broadcasting Service]. The museums of the world will be filled only with the paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers will make love between men fashionable and de rigeur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles [invention of ``gay-speak'' -- ``gay,'' ``homophobia,'' ``diversity,'' ``sexual orientation'']. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule which we are skilled in employing.
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals [outing]. You will be shocked and frightened when you learn that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere [a commonly used bumper-sticker]; we have infiltrated your ranks [strategic ``surprise'' announcements by ``conservative'' homosexuals, e.g. Mel White, former ghostwriter for Christian leaders]. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less [Brand/Friedlander, Fuehrer principle]. Those who oppose us will be exiled [the ``Femmes''].
We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you [Rossbach and Roehm, Frederick the Great]. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers [Plato's Banquet ].
The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished [homosexual ``marriage'' and adoption]. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated [Plato's Republic]. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants [Sparta].
All churches who condemn us will be closed [attacks on the McIlhennys, St. Patrick's Cathedral]. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated [Kummerlings]. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination [Nietzsche, Hitler]. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets [Adolf Brand, Stefan George, Plato's ``philosopher-kings'']. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society will be indulgence in the Greek passion [pederasty]. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence [SA leadership]. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
We shall rewrite history [Holocaust revisionism, extravagant claims that historical figures (like Lincoln) were homosexual], history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man [Hans Blueher].
We shall be victorious because we are filled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages [victim-plunder strategy]. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution [ACT-UP, Queer Nation, blood terrorism].
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

(By Michael Swift, ``Gay Revolutionary.'' Reprinted from The Congressional Record . First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987).

B'' H

Thanks but no thanks. I have no interest in reading your strangely fetishistic, digustingly graphic links about the anus and bodily functions. You have a pathological obsession with that stuff.

I'm guessing you're not a doctor, but you play one on Free Republic.

Atrocities

Fortunately, America has not experienced the wide-scale atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany, but the actions of certain male homosexuals in recent history are reminiscent of the worst SS butchers. As noted in a January 21, 1984 editorial in The New York Times, ``Many of the most violent multiple murders have been commited by homosexual males.'' Clowes cites some alarming statistics showing that eight of the top ten serial killers in the United States were homosexuals (below) and that homosexuals were responsible for 68 percent of all mass murders (Clowes:97). The following is a list of nine leading homosexual serial killers, eight of which were among the top ten most prolific killers as of 1992. Clowes' sources are listed in the text and are reprinted from Debating the ``Gay Rights'' Issue:

Donald Garvey: 37 Murders...[a] nurse's aide [who] was convicted of 37 murders in Kentucky and Ohio. Psychologists testified that ``Harvey said he was a homosexual.'' The New York Times, August 20, and August 17th, 1991.

John Wayne Gacy: 33 Murders...[a] professed homosexual ...who killed 33 young men and boys and buried them in his basement. The New York Times, February 22, 1980.

Patrick Wayne Kearney: 32 Murders...The New York Times described him as ``an acknowledged homosexual'' and ``...perpetrator of the `homosexual trash bag murders.''' The New York Times, July 27, 1977.

Bruce Davis: 28 murders...killed 28 young men and boys after having sex with them. The New York Times, January 21, 1984.

Corll, Henry and Owen: 32 Murders. Dean Corll, Elmer Wayne Henley, and David Owen Brooks were the members of a Texas homosexual torture/murder ring that captured and mutilated 27 young men. The New York Times, July 27, 1974.

Juan Corona: 25 Murders...an admitted homosexual, killed 25 male migrant workers. The New York Times, October 4, 1972.

Jeffrey Dahmer: 17 Murders...a convicted child molester and practicing and admitted homosexual, lured 17 young men and boys to his apartment, had sex with them, then killed them and dismembered them. He ate parts of his victims bodies...Dahmer was active in ``gay rights'' organizations and had participated in ``gay pride'' parades. Michael C. Buelow. ``Police Believe Suspect Killed 17.'' The Oregonian, July 26, 1991, pages A1 and A24. Also: ``Relative in Dahmer Case Sues.'' USA Today, August 6, 1991, page 3A. Also October 1991 Focus on the Family Letter.

Stephen Kraft: 16 Murders...killed at least 16 young men after drugging, sodomizing and torturing them. Robert L. Mauro. ``The Nation's Leading Serial Killers.'' The Wanderer, October 31, 1991.

William Bonin: 14 Murders...tortured and killed 14 young men...had sex with his victims before and after they died. Robert L. Mauro. ``The Nation's Leading Serial Killers.'' The Wanderer, October 31, 1991. (Clowes:96)

William Bonin was executed by lethal injection at California's San Quentin prison on February 23, 1996. As reported in the Orange County Register, February 22, 1996, Bonin, the so-called ``Freeway Killer,'' killed at least 21 boys and young men and dumped their bodies along California freeways (our original source mentioned only 14). After having been jailed in the early 1970s for raping boys, Bonin had vowed that in the future ``there will be no witnesses.''
Although various stories reported that Bonin had raped men at gunpoint in the army and had been engaged in sex with a man at the time of his final arrest, the media failed to identify Bonin as ``gay.'' Standard ``gay'' rhetoric denies that male on male child molestation qualifies as homosexual conduct. Here, the perpetrator clearly was homosexual in his adult sexual relations as well, but the ``gay'' label was scrupulously avoided.
Thomas Hamilton of Dunblane, Scotland, is Britain's worst mass-murderer in modern history. Hamilton killed 16 children at an elementary school on March 13, 1996. According to The New York Times, Hamilton was obsessed with boys. Ousted from the Boy Scouts in 1974 for ``complaints about unstable and possibly improper behavior following a Scout camp,'' Hamilton later formed his own boys' club. Once again, children complained that ``he was overly familiar, made them take their shirts off and was obsessed with photographing them.'' Upset that he had been branded a ``pervert,'' Hamilton apparently took his revenge against the town of Dunblane by killing their children.
In a spree of ``gay-on-gay'' violence not seen since Nazi Germany, one homosexual man, Gaetan Dugas, was directly responsible for killing over a thousand homosexual men by deliberately infecting them with the AIDS virus. Indirectly he may be responsible for tens of thousands, eventually perhaps hundreds of thousands of AIDS deaths. One of the first known AIDS carriers, Dugas was known as ``Patient Zero'' because he caused so many of the earliest infections (Clowes:97). Even after his diagnosis Dugas ``justified his continued sodomy with the excuse that he was free to do what he wanted with his own body. Even when he was in the final stages of AIDS he would have anonymous sex with men in homosexual bathhouses, and then show his sexual partners his purple Kaposi's Sarcoma blotches, saying, `Gay cancer. Maybe you'll get it''' (``The Columbus of AIDS.'' National Review, November 6, 1987:19).
As reported in the Marin Independent Journal, February 5, 1996, the first known murder connected to the Internet resulted from a homosexual encounter between two men in East Windsor, New Jersey. After meeting ``through an online chat room, an electronic gathering place for gay men'' they decided to get together. ``But their offline meeting Jan. 4 turned deadly, police say, when George Hemenway shot Jesse Unger in the head, as a 15-year-old boy looked on.'' According to the story, the last homicide in this Trenton suburb of 22,000 was 10 years ago and also ``stemmed from a homosexual `street encounter,' police say.''
Other major news stories have had a homosexual element that assumes greater significance when viewed in the context of the homo-fascist connection. For example, just days after du Pont fortune heir John E. du Pont attracted national attention for his role in a shooting and a dramatic police standoff at his Pennsylvania mansion, details of his bizarre private life began to emerge. A single man who lived with his mother until her recent death, du Pont used his personal fortune to support his hobbies,which centered on traditionally ultra-masculine themes: collecting guns and military artifacts (such as an armored personnel carrier he drove around his estate) and collegiate-style Greco-Roman wrestling.
A Gannett News Service report published in the January 30 edition of the Marin Independent Journal contains allegations that du Pont was a homosexual who used his wealth to recruit others into the homosexual lifestyle. ```You really don't want to hear the whole truth. It would blow you away,' said Andre Metzger, a wrestling coach who sued du Pont for sexual harassment. Metzger said du Pont used the Foxcatcher training facility to gain access `to kids and adults' for homosexual relationships.''

heading to an oklahoma holiday inn are you...

If I stick my hand on a hotplate, I know what will happen also. There's not point in trying it just to see. Get over this obsession of yours.

To use your own words, as soon as: "some politically motivated homosexuals who have a political agenda they wish to see implemented" stop their agenda.

"Look kids, Big Ben, Parliament. I just can't seem to get out of this circle." - Clark Griswald, National Lampoon's European Vacation

As soon as the politically motivated homosexuals drop their agenda...

Here's one for the archives that I forgot I had:

From Michael Swift in the Gay Community News Feb. 15-21,1987

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theatre bathrooms... Wherever men are together... Our only gods are handsome young men...