Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause
Culture and Family Institute/ Concerned Women for America ^ | 12/5/02 | Allyson Smith

Posted on 12/05/2002 12:41:29 PM PST by Polycarp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-344 next last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: Polycarp
In their minds "persecution" = simple Christian charity in sharing the Gospel Truth, no matter how benign the messenger or gentle the message.

I've gathered that by their posts.

42 posted on 12/05/2002 1:34:45 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
"What's the difference between a 'conservative' and a 'homosexual activist' who savors the death of Mary Stachowicz at any level simply because she's a Christian? No difference - they are the same. Despicable"

Your entire comment, not just the part I quote, was appreciated. It has become common for reverse discrimination to try and deny those who would say that any PC cause is wrong should be denied a place at the table. If this country is ever to be as "progressive" as the enlightened liberals would believe they are, they, too, must learn to allow the dialog to include those who disagree with them, whether on moral grounds or otherwise.

43 posted on 12/05/2002 1:35:53 PM PST by intolerancewillNOTbetolerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
Just so I'm learning the lesson the gays are trying to teach me, we should NOT try to "help" them this way, right? I doubt they'd like my alternative, so I'll keep it to myself.

If I were part of a group that totalled 2% of the population, I'd try NOT to piss off the other 98%.

44 posted on 12/05/2002 1:36:34 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: madg
Of course, nobody “chooses” a sexual orientation.

No homosexual chooses to stick a male phallus in his mouth or have the posterior opening of his alimentary canal penetrated by a penis?

What utter PC garbage you're spouting. And homosexuals don't choose to rub feces over themselves or put gerbils up their rectums either, eh?

45 posted on 12/05/2002 1:36:52 PM PST by UbIwerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: madg
You are the one who 'set up' the argument you wanted to go after by suggesting that they suggest something they never suggested!

Yes, everyday people choose how to behave sexually. Who they will have sex with, how often, where, when, etc. Sex among humans is all about choice. But, we've been around on this issue before, madg. Can I help it if you are a single-issue type? Or that God has already spoken on this matter? Your problem is with Him.

46 posted on 12/05/2002 1:37:02 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: What is the bottom line
But these are essentially the same people and the same sources which supported the Inquisition, witch burning, and sectarian Christian wars in Europe. Do we really want to listen to their latest project?

Just look at history, and the hundreds of millions murdered by anti-religionists in the last century.

The Crusades and Inquisitions pale in comparison to the brutality and sheer volume of sufferings inflicted by the "Freethinking" atheist regimes of the last century.

I'll take my chances with the Christians, thanks.

As this debate rages in this thread, you will see people resort to the Bible or the Catholic Catechism as support for the idea that homosexuality is a sin and should be suppressed.

How about resorting to simple medical data?




Published by Centre Daily Times, Friday, June 2, 2000

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

Parental warning: The following "My View" contains graphic medical terminology about sexual activities that may not be suitable for younger readers.


In her May 12 "My View," Mina Yindra makes many errors, but I would like to correct her statements regarding AIDS and "bigotry."


Promiscuous heterosexual sex carries with it a much higher risk for AIDS, primarily because of the sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) associated with it, causing a breakdown in the natural barriers of both male and female reproductive tracts. AIDS is primarily concentrated among heterosexuals in Africa because of the high rate of female genital mutilation, leading to much higher than average rates of anal and oral intercourse, and culturally-accepted extramarital sexual activity, including widespread prostitution. Rates of STDs are quite high in these populations.


However, AIDS is by far most common among the homosexual population in the United States, primarily because the type and frequency of sexual contact, combined with STDs, is the perfect method of spreading a body-fluid borne virus.


Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.


An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).


A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).


Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary.

These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: "Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person." The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths.

We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature's laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children?

Go to Dr. Kopp's Main Page

48 posted on 12/05/2002 1:39:37 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
Ploycarp posted:

In their minds "persecution" = simple Christian charity in sharing the Gospel Truth, no matter how benign the messenger or gentle the message.

WITBL replied:

Propagandist lie that will help you get your two minute hate on.

LOL!!! You just posted to me as your definition of "persecution":

If someone denied Christians jobs, reviled them for their 'sick' beliefs, knocked on their doors and asked them to renounce their scandalous lifestyles--that would be persecution.

49 posted on 12/05/2002 1:40:39 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
And no true Christian supports the hatred of fornicators or any kind. You won't find that website posted on FR by anyone except single-issue types like yourself.
50 posted on 12/05/2002 1:41:11 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
Thanks for the lengthy response - it's not common to get such effort put into responses so I'm always pleasantly surprised when someone takes/has the time do it.

I agree to a point that people should be allowed to express their opinion. However, as a Christian myself I'm only going to listen to the 'stumping' by certain groups before I recognize that what they are promoting is immoral or a violation of fundamental freedoms important to the well-being of our country. Is it really in our best interest as a moral country to allow immoral behavior to be 'represented'? What do we then do with the paedophile, the beastophile or the necrophile? In our efforts to be more tolerant do we start listening to their 'needs' and 'demands' to exist as a 'divergent' view?

While I certainly could do without the extremes that are promoted by certain individuals on these forums there it is still reasonable to draw a line based on a moral stance and to say that we're not going to tolerate such behavior.

I can't speak for all the Christians on this forum but I can tell you that I too will point to the Bible (if necessary) to make my point but based on the simple rules of logic I don't necessarily have to do so to make the point that homosexuality is not a lifestyle we need to validate or justify in a moral society. It is a stepping stone to further perversion.

Personally I'd say there are definitely two ways we can go. We can choose the path of morality and avoid the destruction that comes from choosing immorality or we can choose immorality and reap what we sow. I think the posted article above demonstrates that choosing homosexuality does not make one socially more responsible. And I'm referring to not just to the murderer - I'm referring to the many horrible comments stated by 'liberals' as exhibited in the post. All they've done is add a deeper level of degenerate behavior to an already immoral lifestyel.

I'm glad you're willing to listen to a reasonable Christian view - I just hope reasonable doesn't imply that they must agree with you.

51 posted on 12/05/2002 1:42:03 PM PST by Frapster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
www.godhatesfags.com--sounds like yet another religion of peace.

Saying the owner of that site represents even a small perecentage of the views of Christians is like saying Neo-Nazi's represent the average gun owner.

If any person tells you "God Hates Fags", that person is no Christian or has a very poor misunderstanding of the New Testement.

52 posted on 12/05/2002 1:42:30 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

To: anniegetyourgun
You beat me to it.
55 posted on 12/05/2002 1:43:04 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
I don't understand. On another thread you claimed to be Catholic (though I find it odd, for example, that you wrote God as G_d; I've never seen a Catholic do that before). If you are a Catholic, you must surely be aware that the Church considers homosexual acts to be grievously sinful. Why, then would a Catholic consider asking homosexuals to 'renounce their scandalous lifestyles' to be persecution, when the Church, in effect, does exactly that?

They say that on the internet no one knows you're a dog. You wouldn't, perhaps, be misrepresenting who you are, just a teeny weeny little bit, would you?

56 posted on 12/05/2002 1:43:04 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I never said "homosexualist" was a neologism. It was the term "pro-homosexualist" I didn't like. As far as I can tell you and I agree completely.

And even if it were a true neologism, it's reasonable to coin a new word to describe a new phenomenon.

I also agree with you on this. However, it appears from what you describe about Waugh's usage that the term "pro-homosexualist" is both a neologism and hopelessly redundant. The word "homosexualist" was already sufficient to describe this phenomenon.
57 posted on 12/05/2002 1:45:34 PM PST by bourbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: madg; anniegetyourgun
I think it’s very clear that CWA was “suggesting” a “duty” about those groups

It is their duty to clearly state that they do not condone the violent behavior of fringe members of their group (if indeed they are fringe) just as mainstream pro-life groups must, and have, condemned any and all violence against abortionists.

What is wrong with asking mainstream homosexual groups to condemn this murder by one of their own of a poor Catholic woman merely practicing her faith?

59 posted on 12/05/2002 1:47:54 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bourbon
As far as I can tell you and I agree completely

Yep. Sorry; I'm just a tad trigger happy these days.

60 posted on 12/05/2002 1:48:51 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-344 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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