Sadomasochistic Roots of Justice Kennedy's Opinion: Decision Based On Fraudulent 'Science'

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Aug 19, 2003 | Judith Reisman

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

The prestigious Journal of the American Public Health Association has devoted a substantial portion of its latest edition (AJPH -- Table of Contents (June 1 2003, 93 [6]).) to the risks associated with homosexual practices.

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS - Scalia

This is Kinsey's legacy, which is anti-marriage, anti-father, anti-mother, and, most definitely, anti-child. The New American - Fighting the Kinsey Fraud - May 24, 1999

The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.

For more than 30 years, homosexual activists have aggressively pursued their vision of an America in which their behavior is affirmed and their critics are silenced. Now, with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, they stand on the verge of total victory. But all is not yet lost. In this providentially timed book, Alan Sears and Craig Osten of the Alliance Defense Fund -- a legal organization that works to defend traditional family values, religious freedom, and the sanctity of human life -- expose the homosexual agenda and its fight for "gay" rights for what it is: an unrestrained, no-holds-barred attack on the family and religious freedom. Using quotes from radical homosexual leaders as well as documented examples of legal battles, entertainment industry complicity and the support of the public schools, they detail not only how much progress has been made to date in achieving the homosexual agenda, but how further progress can be resisted -- even rolled back.

This groundbreaking book reveals:

• Lawrence v. Texas: why the Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning sodomy laws opens the door to the complete triumph of the homosexual agenda -- and the end of free-speech rights for all who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding or supporting homosexual behavior
• The six-point strategy, laid out by two homosexual leaders in the late 1980s, for radically altering America's perception of homosexual behavior. How all six of these points are being carried out in present-day American culture
• How homosexual activists have made progress by infiltrating, influencing and intimidating people in every major power structure -- including the media, education, government, corporate America, and even the major churches
• How homosexual activists are using corporate employment policies to promote homosexual behavior -- and to stigmatize, isolate and silence employees who express opposition
• The myth of homosexual "tolerance": How "gay rights" legislation in many states sets severe punishments for those who do not agree with its demands
• How the homosexual agenda is being pushed to elementary school children, starting in kindergarten
• The National Education Association's little-known proposal to implement a full-scale indoctrination of children to accept and affirm homosexual behavior
• Poll results: proof that the indoctrination in our public schools has been all too successful
• Liberal churches: Why some now exist for little more than promoting homosexual behavior
• How homosexual propagandists have been extremely skillful in portraying anyone who opposes them as sympathetic to, or even complicit in, violence against homosexuals
• How homosexuals have succeeded in "piggybacking" their agenda on legitimate causes such as equal rights for racial minorities
• How Hollywood replaced old stereotypes with new ones that idealize homosexuals and demonize their opponents
• The astounding fundraising power of the homosexual movement. How it all but extorts money from corporations and foundations
• The Lavender Tower: how homosexual behavior and its promotion have become pervasive at colleges and universities
• Why "domestic partner" policies and "civil unions" are aimed at the wholesale destruction of marriage (as one influential homosexual writer actually boasted)
• Homosexuality and pedophilia: clear proof of the link between them
• Homosexual adoption: a devastating critique of the sloppy, poorly-documented studies that helped it gain acceptance

"Clear, irrefutable, convincing, and frightening"

"May well be the most significant religious liberty issue of our times." -- R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR., President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

"Clear, irrefutable, convincing, and frightening . . . This book could be the instrument that will reverse the tide of influence that this devastating vice is having on America today." -- D. JAMES KENNEDY, Senior Minister, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

"Riveting . . . As this book shows through its review of the aggressive march of militant homosexuals through the courts, the legislatures, cultural institutions, and churches, the pretense of homosexuals' 'tolerance' of nonhomosexuals is over." -- The Wanderer

[Atlas Sneezed]

Sorry, but this really isn't about science, and the article dances around too much for my liking.

Why doesn't it simply state the scientific principle relied upon by the decision, then use the scientific method to show that the principle is incorrect?

Maybe I have missed something here, and someone can encapsulate the point of this obfuscatory article.

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

read later...

Choice4Truth

[muawiyah]

What you "missed" is the determination that Kinsey falsified his data, or, in fact, engaged in criminal sexual acts against children.

It must be presumed each and every member of the Supreme Court are aware of these findings, but see no reason to let mere laws stand in the way of their own pleasures.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Lawrence v. Texas is a flagrant, indeed chilling, example of just such a bogus "scientific" revolution, one in which the U.S. Supreme Court is driving the junk science bandwagon, marching America and the world into snake-infested swamps.

Ridiculous and laughable. The issue is about individual rights, not "science". This guy is off his rocker.

[EdReform]

Ping

[sergeantdave]

So which rollicking penumbra in the Constitution allows homosexual coupling. I have missed it. The Constitution seems to be silent on evolving sexual fads and allowed states to decide how to treat the matter.

[RinaseaofDs]

Okay, let's follow your logic for a second.

Individual rights of a homosexual to engage in consensual sex in his bedroom, I think is what you are referring to.

So, what of incest? Beastiality? Even necrophilic beastiality? Same urges, same privacy issues.

Still okay? I have to ask you this question: Can you point to anything in nature, religion, or common sense that endorses homosexual sex as anything other than gratification? For example, can a homosexual make children?

Why is it the same people who won't let me smoke a cigar in a steakhouse is all for letting people bugger each other, or bugger they're kids (over 18), or bugger their neighbors pet?

Individual rights indeed.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

individual rights

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.Amendment VIII: Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes ...

[LiteKeeper]

read later - Sodomites

[HurkinMcGurkin]

So which rollicking penumbra in the Constitution allows homosexual coupling.

What's "homosexual coupling"?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Jefferson owned slaves too, but I don't use that to justify slavery. Many of the founding fathers talked a good talk about rights, and then turned right around and violated the rights of blacks, women and others. They were humans, just like you and I. I do not hold them up as deities.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

So, what of incest?

Unless it involves a father/mother/guardian relative and a minor, its unfortunate, but not a violation of the rights of either party. Somewhat disgusting in my opinion, but not my business.

Beastiality? Even necrophilic beastiality?

Pretty much extremely rare activity. I think the community should refuse contact with or refuse to engage in commerce with anyone who enagages in such activity - if its found out. Jail should be the least of the worries of some dude sticking his wanker in animals.

I have to ask you this question: Can you point to anything in nature, religion, or common sense that endorses homosexual sex as anything other than gratification?

No, and that is completely irrelevant to the fact that consensual sexual activity, regardless of how disgusting you or I may find it, does not violate individual rights.

For example, can a homosexual make children?

Are you seriously asking this? I do not think you are. Now, a supposed "right" for homosexuals, or anyone for that matter, to adopt children, is an entirely different discussion.

Why is it the same people who won't let me smoke a cigar in a steakhouse is all for letting people bugger each other

I don't know that its "the same people", and assume you don't really know that either. But what there is are different groups of people who wish to petition "government" to make laws dictating how people live. Some want homos inprisoned. Some want smoking on private property(like restaurants) banned. Some want guns banned. Some want cars abolished. Some even cross over from group to group. They all disrespect the rights of others and as such, get no support from me. I don't smoke cigs or cigars, but fully support the right of business owners to set their own policy.

[hinterlander]

--Why doesn't it simply state the scientific principle relied upon by the decision, then use the scientific method to show that the principle is incorrect?--


It does say it is "part one of a three-part series." Perhaps your questions will be resolved in future parts.

[ninenot]

Ping. More SCOTUS horsehockey on the loose.

[ninenot]

The Court's decision was based on the Model Penal Code.

The Model Penal Code's underlying assumptions were based on complete and total fraud--perpetrated by Kinsey & Pomeroy.

Volumes of evidence that Kinsey's work is fraud have been published, and more will follow.

Thus, the Court, acting on flawed premises, reached the wrong decision.

I would add that SCOTUS ought to stay out of State affairs.

[John O]

The issue is about individual rights, not "science".

You are wrong. This is about states rights. The people of the state of Texas have determined that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated in their state. The bill of rights (tenth ammendment) guarantees their right to do this. Where in the constitution is the right to sodomy guaranteed?

The USSC is out of line on this. They shouldn't over rule the people of Texas.

[RinaseaofDs]

Actually, I am asking.

I've one adopted daughter, and it wasn't easy. I'll ask again. How do homosexuals make children?

They can't. Nothing in nature provides for it.

The way adoption USED to work, homosexuals could not adopt, and I'd say for excellent reasons. You see, nothing in nature provides for a child like a mother and a father. Two dads, two moms aren't the same - and all the research backs it up.

I know you are going to point to the divorce rate and tell me that marriage ain't what it used to be. I'd actually agree with you. I think feminism and secularism destroyed marriage in the same way that the courts are destroying marriage.

Would you agree that marriage at this point represents little more to legal jurisprudence than a type of corporate structure? We can't bring God into marriage anymore, because I'll have the secular humanists down my knickers in no time.

You make a point - that all of these groups are acting in their own self-interests at dissolving the integrity of what made America great - families.

They nearly all vote for Democrats. They don't share common principals, they just have agendas. Even James Carville once noted to Stephanopolous one time in the 1992 election about Clinton - he drew a box on the table with his finger and said, "What's in here? Where does he stand? What are his principles."

He just thought it would be cool to be President. That's pretty much all he did. Racked up miles on AF One. That was his agenda.

So, you are right. If it were a matter of them staying in the bedroom and buggering each other, I guess that would be one thing. But that's not just what they are doing. They are coming out and saying, "Since the court says its okay to bugger, we want to marry, with all the rights that entails. And we want children. We want to go to work and have special rights because we bugger people."

By the way, you are calling for descrimination against necrophilic beastiality practitioners, you do know that, right. If you do that to a homoesexual, that guy is going to be rich suing you into tomorrow. Why is it okay to now treat another reproductively afflicted class of people differently

How dare you!!! How can you deny the right of these people to adopt, to earn a wage, to marry with other pets - dead pets. You can't NOT do business, or shun these people. They never asked to be this way - it was a mistake of nature.

So, yeah, I am asking. How do homosexuals reproduce in nature?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Good find Ed, this one's a keeper. Yet another smoking gun in the fight for trad values.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

You are wrong. This is about states rights.

States have powers, not rights.

The people of the state of Texas have determined that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated in their state.

Unfortunately, the people didn't and can't. I can't vote away your right to engage in private actions your are interested in, and likewise, you can't vote away my right to engage in activities I have interest in. And even saying "the people determined" is a misnomer. Every single person is part of "the people". Homos didn't "determine" that they couldn't engage in private activities - people who think "its icky" did.