Bill O'Reilly
Posted on 01/03/2003 1:52:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.
Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics."
Fox claims Bennett's use of clips from the interview is a copyright infringement.
Bill O'Reilly |
On the Sept. 3, 2002 program, O'Reilly, a Roman Catholic, called Bennett a "religious fanatic" who wants to "deny people rights" and suggested the minister wanted "all gays to go to hell."
Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse."
O'Reilly is coming on like a "bully," charged Bennett, who still counts himself as a fan of the Fox News nightly show.
 Stephen Bennett |
"He's a libertarian who relishes the fact that he doesn't care what you talk about, but we have to have that right of free speech," Bennett said of O'Reilly. "Yet when it comes to me now speaking out – never saying anything nasty about anybody but just addressing the issues – he does everything possible to silence me."
Bennett said he has nothing against O'Reilly personally.
"This is just an issue the two of us do not agree on," he said.
A recording artist and national speaker, Bennett's Huntington, Conn.-based group, Stephen Bennett Ministries, says that it offers help to people who want to "come out" of the homosexual lifestyle.
Bennett, who is married with two children, also is a spokesman for the lobby group Concerned Women for America, which just prior to the Sept. 3 interview criticized O'Reilly for telling the homosexual magazine The Advocate that he favored homosexual rights.
Lawsuit threatened
Bennett received a letter yesterday from a New York City law firm representing Fox which charged him with copyright infringement for sale of a product that uses "almost all, if not all" of O'Reilly's four-minute interview with Bennett.
In the letter, Dori Ann Hanswirth of Hogan and Hartson warned Bennett that if he does not stop distributing the tape and does not turn over all remaining copies, Fox will file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
However, Bennett's legal defense, the American Family Association, maintains that the tape is legal because it uses excerpts from the interview for the purpose of commentary.
WorldNetDaily sought further clarification from Hanswirth, but after conferring with her client, she replied that Fox News does not comment on pending legal matters.
Michael DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the AFA's Center for Law and Policy, told WND that his reading of Hanswirth's letter is that Bennett cannot use any of Fox's material.
Bennett's tape, part of his group's regular tape-of-the-month series, is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment, DePrimo said.
"Certainly Mr. O'Reilly put it at issue when he called Mr. Bennett a religious fanatic and did not give him a chance to respond," he said.
DePrimo, who vowed to "vigorously defend" Bennett if Fox proceeds with a lawsuit, noted that it would not be legal "if somebody puts effort into a particular product and another person tries to appropriate it and sell it as his own."
That is not the case in this situation, he insists, charging that Fox simply "does not like the fact that Bill O'Reilly has been exposed as a homosexualist."
Bennett called Fox's demand's "ridiculous."
"Of course I can comment on that interview," he told WND. "If the heart of the interview was on cats and dogs, that means I can't talk about cats and dogs?"
After reviewing his tape again yesterday, Bennett said he has a total of about three minutes of audio clips from the Sept. 3 "O'Reilly Factor" interview and 57 minutes of original commentary.
Discussing theology
Bennett described his response to the interview in a column published by WorldNetDaily in September.
He said that in "pre-interviews," hours before the Sept. 3 show, producers called to discuss probable questions related to his Aug. 27 commentary in the Washington Times about promotion of homosexuality in the U.S. media and its effects on children, titled "The Gay Spin Zone." O'Reilly's comments in support of the homosexual rights agenda published in The Advocate also were added to the mix.
But Bennett says the "O'Reilly Factor" interview turned out instead to be "about Bill O'Reilly's theology."
After numerous exchanges in which O'Reilly tried to press Bennett on whether he thought practicing homosexuals would go to hell, O'Reilly said, according to a transcript, "We live in a secular society. You're a religious fanatic, with all due respect."
Earlier in the day on Sept. 3, O'Reilly referred to Bennett as "an idiot" and "religious fanatic" on his radio program, "The Radio Factor."
Bennett notes that one day later, O'Reilly compared his brand of religious belief to that of the Sept. 11 terrorists in a conversation with a liberal Baptist preacher.
Just a few days before the Sept. 3 program, O'Reilly responded on his show to Concerned Women For America's reaction to his Advocate interview.
O'Reilly opened his Aug. 29 program with this introduction:
In the "Personal Story" tonight, more attacks on your humble correspondent on the Internet. Now, I've gotten used to being pounded by both the left and the right, and very rarely do I see anything even remotely accurate on these websites. This time, a conservative group believes I am patronizing gays. Fine. My stance is simple. We're all Americans here. Nobody should be discriminated against. I'll leave it to God to figure out who's going to hell and who isn't. I'm not qualified, and nobody else on earth is either.
John Aravosis of About.com published a defense of O'Reilly in which he said, "What's troubling about this confrontation isn't that militant fundamentalists are angry about what O'Reilly said, but that they chose to respond to a political difference of opinion by questioning the faith of their opponent."
Calling Bennett a "self-proclaimed 'ex-gay," Aravosis quotes the minister commenting on behalf of CWA, "For a man to come right out and say that he does not believe in the Old Testament ? I think that many Catholics across this nation as well as the world are offended by Bill O'Reilly claiming he's an Irish Catholic."
Bennett said that his tape includes Rev. John F. Harvey, a Roman Catholic priest who asserts that O'Reilly is not speaking for the Catholic Church, which views homosexuality as "intrinsically evil."
Harvey, who runs Courage, a spiritual support group in Manhattan for homosexuals, says O'Reilly is abusing his public celebrity platform and promoting a heresy against the Catholic Church. The priest calls O'Reilly "confused" and "filled with pride – putting himself above the Catholic Church."
|
Oh come on. |
Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A."
|
Oh come on. |
AIDS Awareness News: Sharing Disease is Not a Civil Right
First, men having sex with men are practicing anal intercourse, or sodomy. The anus and rectum are not suited to receive the penis. The anus functions to control emission of gases and expulsion of feces from the intestine. The ring of muscles called the anal sphincter serves as a valve, meant to direct one-way expulsion. The excretory system carries waste, putrefying matter, and live disease captured and expelled by the body¹s defenses. These organs are designed wondrously for expulsion, not penetration. When penetrated by the penis, the anus and rectum reflexively contract. But neither of these organs secrete any lubrication, as does the female vagina. Anal intercourse results in minute tears and lesions deep in these delicate interior tissues, causing bleeding and giving disease germs and virus return access to the man¹s bloodstream.
Medical records show that gays have HIV/AIDS and STDs disproportionately higher than the rest of the population. Reported among ³MSM,² men having sex with men, are 82.2 percent of California¹s AIDS cases cumulative 1981-¹95. This includes 8.4 percent gays who were also intravenous drug users (Health Profile ¹96, Department of Health Services, Sonoma County, 85). In 1997 MSM represented the largest proportion (60 percent) of men diagnosed nationally with AIDS (AIDS Prevention Fact Sheet, 1997-1998, Centers for Disease Control). Representing less than five percent of the total national population, homosexuals have been infected with 50 percent of the nation¹s syphilis cases (Atlantic Monthly, J ¹88). This high-risk group carries over half the nation¹s cases of intestinal infections and gonorrhea of the throat. (Kassler, Gay Men¹s Health, 38). A majority, even 90 percent of men having sex with men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes, hepatitis, and genital warts (Ostrow et al, Diseases in Homosexual Men).
In the first decade after the legalization of sodomy, the San Francisco venereal disease rate increased to 22 times the national average. Over a ten-year period, the annual rate of hepatitis A increased 100 percent; hepatitis B increased 300 percent; amoebic colon infections increased 2500 percent. Each year of that ten-year period, the city¹s venereal disease clinics received 75,000 patients; nearly 80 percent were gay males. Twenty percent of these carried rectal gonorrhea. (San Jose Mercury News, Apr 24, 1980), (San Francisco Chronicle/ Examiner, Apr 23,¹79).
Furthermore, homosexual monogamy, particularly among males, is myth. One survey reported to the American Public Health Association that in a lifetime a typical gay may have 49 sexual partners and that 8 percent-12 percent have more than 500 partners in their lifetimes. (McKusick, ³AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Gay Men in San Francisco,² American Journal of Public Health, May ¹85).
Early in the AIDS epidemic, investigative research conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control of Atlanta found the typical homosexual had over 500 different partners. In that same study group, that portion who were diagnosed HIV positive averaged 1100 different sexual partners (reported in Psychology Today, Jan ¹84, 56). An April ¹94 article in gay-oriented magazine Genre concluded that relationships between gays who live with partners are possible because the partners have ³outside affairs.² Psychologist Guy Baldwin, whose practice is largely a gay clientele, says in the Genre article, ³With all the talk about legalizing marriage for gays, there¹s an assumption in the minds of most (gay) people that I talk to that only rarely does that legalization include monogamy.²(34)
Destructive to personal physical health, the high-risk lifestyle is also destructive to social stability. That children learn by example, by imitation, is a well-known fact of child development. It is therefore not in a child¹s best interest to be raised by same-sex couples, who would model a high-risk, disease-prone lifestyle. Such an upbringing would deprive the child of best opportunities to develop male or female identities. Gay men and women may have wonderful personalities and talents to share, but these are best shared as aunts and uncles, not parents. They may make great contributions to society, but raising children best not be one of them. There need not be stigma in acceptance of this simple limitation.
Disease prevention seems an adequate reason that society should deny endorsement of ³sexual orientation² as a protected status. Is the spread of disease a civil right? It is clear anti-sodomy laws were based on wisdom, not prejudice.
Anatomy alone speaks simply, yet eloquently against homosexual expression. The Potter who shaped the Clay and called it good wondrously designed two to become one flesh. The Master Designer also gave prescriptions against homosexuality and sodomy. In His omniscience could He have known what we are learning the hard way? Men having sex with men spawn disease. Women having sex with women cannot become one flesh. Neither gay men nor gay women may produce the fruit of one-fleshness or share in the miracle of procreating life. Those unions are unhealthy, unsound, and unnatural. While society can respect and encourage the bonding and affection that may occur between two of the same sex, these relationships do not warrant sexual expression, let alone constitutional designation as an inalienable civil right.
Got it. Jeez. I think maybe you took my post a little bit too seriously. I agree with 90% of what you say. Maybe 95%. Read mine carefully again and pretend I am not speaking in a patronizing way, because I am not. In no way am I an activist, in fact, I hate most activists. I was merely saying "Hate them if you want." I stated the option, you're free to do what you want too! I just believe in all freedoms in the country, even the ones I don't quite get.... Maybe relax a little when people respond to you. Even now looking at it, I think you misunderstood me... Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.
|
Oh come on. |
Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex with Men... Reasons for the increasing rates of bacterial STD in MSM in King County are unknown but may include an increased frequency of unprotected sex among some MSM. Anecdotal reports by MSM with bacterial STDs suggest that such behaviors are linked to sex with anonymous partners in bath houses, which may be related to improvements in the treatment of HIV infection or to changing patterns of recreational drug use. The age distribution of syphilis cases suggests that in King County, relapse in sexual safety among older MSM is a more important determinant than failure of young, newly sexually active MSM to adopt safer sex practices.
|
We are getting close to the point where no one will be allowed publicly to criticize homosexuality, not even as a bad habit that results in STD much more than other "lifesyles." |
How Hate-Crime Laws Harm Religious Freedom and Lead to Same-Sex Marriage
I believe that they are--for the most part--born and not made. Just like you and me.
Promoting their "lifestyle" however, is another kettle of fish.
|
You are proving absolutely nothing to me. |
Citizens Against Government Waste
Since the first federal resources were made available to state and local health agencies for AIDS prevention in 1985, federal funding, which now includes money for research, treatment, and housing, has skyrocketed to $13 billion for fiscal 2003. As a result of the work of highly mobilized lobbying forces, more is spent per patient on AIDS than on any other disease, though it does not even currently rank among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. In one year, 1998, heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death, killed 724,859 Americans only 6.8 percent less than the 774,767 who have contracted AIDS in the last 20 years.2 Of those 774,767 total AIDS cases, 462,766 have died. During that same period, 14 million Americans 30 times more have died of heart disease.
Research expenditures at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) demonstrate the uneven use of federal resources. In 1996, NIH spent an average of $1,160 for every heart disease death, $4,700 for every cancer death, and a whopping $43,000 for every AIDS death.3 Even though they get far less research money, that year heart disease killed 24 times more and cancer killed 17 times more than the number of people who died from AIDS in 1996, when AIDS was still the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.
In addition to research, the U.S. government spends large amounts on AIDS prevention and social programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spent $795 million on prevention in fiscal 2001. But questions have arisen regarding the misuse of some of that money.
HIV and AIDS prevention and social programs have long been cash cows for politically correct nonprofit firms and government bureaucracies. In their book, Private Choices and Public Health: The AIDS Epidemic in an Economic Perspective, University of Chicago economist Tomas J. Philipson and law professor Richard A. Posner concluded that the AIDS epidemic has been overstated in almost every imaginable way in order to gain more funding. They contended, "pressure from small, but organized, groups [including] male homosexuals, health professionals, government bureaucrats, and moral conservatives has deflected AIDS programs from their efficient path."9
In 1998, heart disease 118,151 people under the age of 65.24 Cancer killed 157,255 people under age 65 that year.25 That is nine times more and 13 times more, respectively, than AIDS, which killed approximately 12,000 people under age 65 in 1998.26 In all age groups, including the under 65 group, the death rates for heart disease and cancer have remained steady while AIDS deaths have been in decline since 1993. Furthermore, a typical AIDS case costs approximately the same amount to treat as a terminal cancer case approximately $40,000 to $50,000 per year.27
In 1998, AIDS ranked 17th in the leading causes of death among Americans, behind, among others, heart disease, cancer, emphysema and asthma, pneumonia and influenza, diabetes, suicide, Alzheimer's disease, homicide, and hypertension.28 Despite this, AIDS receives more funding than any other disease. In 1996, NIH spent 43 times more on AIDS than it did on heart disease and nine times more than it spent on all cancers.29
Some AIDS activists think it could be detrimental that AIDS receives much more money than other diseases. Martin Delaney, founder of the HIV treatment information organization Project Inform says that by giving AIDS so much funding, the federal government makes it "almost an advantage to be HIV-positive."30
After SFDPH worker Seth Watkins admitted in an August 2001 New York Times article that he sometimes went to San Francisco bars and ended up having unprotected sex, Tierney did not reprimand him. Instead Tierney, told The San Francisco Chronicle that his employee's sex life was that employee's business.57 Watkins is not the only AIDS prevention worker under scrutiny for such behavior. In 1999, Luis Diaz, director of the HIV and AIDS program for the Nevada Association of Latin Americans was accused of having unprotected sex with two people without informing them of his AIDS infection.
There are AIDS prevention success stories, but they aren't coming from American "health" organizations like SFDPH. In the 1990s, the prevalence of AIDS in Uganda hung around the 30 percent mark. Today only 6 percent of Ugandans have AIDS. A recent Africa News article says the Ugandan government attributes this drop to programs like the School Health Education Project, which, instead of sex and flirting seminars, include discussion and debate on the reality of living with AIDS. The article says, "More emphasis [is] put on the fact that HIV/AIDS has no cure and that abstinence from sex [is] the best way to avoid the pandemic."59
Upon her retirement as Director of the National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention at CDC, Dr. Helene Gayle said of her progress, "Nearly every adult can tell you what AIDS is and how it is spread." Adult prevention and education programs are wasted in well-educated, urban populations that glamorize the behavior that spreads the disease.
America is at war against AIDS and against terrorism. The waste of federal AIDS dollars does a disservice to taxpayers, and most importantly, to the victims and those at risk of contracting the disease. The nation cannot be expected to win those wars unless it gets serious about eliminating wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive AIDS programs.
|
I believe that it is also impossible to re-orient a gay guy to lust after T&A. |
I realize you're not making the genetics argument here. It just seems like a good opportunity to post some links on the issue:
|
That sodomy should be illegal (a lot of straight people are going to be very upset) because more gay men get diseases? Who cares? |
Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender ... whose targets were males."
"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel's data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."
A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.
"What ... does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals."
The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.
"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."
|
This is a problem with the socialist people who infiltrated our government, not directly with gay people. I can't believe I am defending gay people, but some of you are acting like they are the absolute cause of the nation's problems, not the socialists. |
AN ESSAY ON THE HOMOSEXUAL REVOLUTIONby Michael Swift
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you 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 theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall 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 freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.
Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only 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. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens.
We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find 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; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among 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. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you.
We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.The family unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and aesthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. 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, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.
We shall portray the homosexuality of the 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.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!
Reference. This essay was printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the February 15-21 1987 Congressional Record.
You've got that right. I use to enjoy The Factor, until O'Reilly got his holier than thou attitude and started yelling and screaming at and bossing everything and everyone just about.
Now the best part of his show, is when he reads his e-mail and people tell him what a pompous idiot he is. I think he believes he is going to clean up all the corruption in the world singlehanded. Sometimes O'Reilly just goes off without the slightest idea of what he is talking about.
Maybe he gets paid for acting the way he does, but if not he needs to get a grip.
One of these days he is going to confront the wrong person and that will be the factor.
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.