Bible verses regarded as hate literature: Court rules Scripture exposed homosexuals to ridicule

WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ^ | Posted: February 18, 2003 | Art Moore

[JoJo Gunn]

Oh well, I could be wrong too. The admin might also know something we don't, like a familiar e-mail address was used to register, etc.

[rudypoot]

"Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners."

Oh good grief! Sleep around with 1,100 people and call yourself a "victim"? These people are victims of their own ignorance and/or stupidity. It's not like an AIDS virus smashed through their doors and infected them.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Remedy]

>>I'm just curious, how do lesbains come in "12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact"?<<

Family Research Report - May-Jun 2002 Omnisexual -Webster's dictionary4 defines 'homosexual' by "sexual attraction toward [or relations with] a person of the same sex" (p. 464). Yet as both the FRI and the Kinsey studies demonstrate, sexual flexibility rather than a fixed interest in or exclusive performance with members of the same sex is characteristic of 'homosexuals.' Almost all 'homosexuals,' in fact, manage to have sex with the opposite sex.

The term [homosexual]certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of 'homosexuals' exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the 'compulsive' nuances associated with the term 'homosexual' either.

Family Research Council: The Negative Health Effects of ...

Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM

• Many Lesbians also have had sex with men. The homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reported that "the study’s data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men."⁵¹ The study added that "sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV."⁵²
• Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: "Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman’s sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of ‘lesbian’ women reporting sex with (often high risk) men."⁵³ The study found that "the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners."⁵⁴
• A study in the American Journal of Public Health concurs that bisexual women are at increased risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases: "Our findings corroborate the finding that WSMW (women who have sex with men and women) are more likely than WSMO (women who have sex with men only) to engage in various high-risk behaviors" and also "to engage in a greater number of risk-related behaviors."⁵⁵ The study suggested that the willingness to engage in risky sexual practices "could be tied to a pattern of sensation-seeking behavior."⁵⁶
• MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492 homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter "said they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women." Nearly 7 percent of the men in the study were HIV positive."⁵⁷ "The study confirms that young bisexual men are a ‘bridge’ for HIV transmission to women," said the CDC.⁵⁸

[eastsider]

It may not be a natural right ...

Correction: It is not a natural right.

[Remedy]

So yes, at least in the U.S., it's a right.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.

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

[ArGee]

It may not be a natural right but it's a legal right in nearly all states.

With respect to the founding of our nation and the moral support for our form of Government, the real issue is whether it is an unalienable right. The problem is we are attempting to define unalienable rights without establishing the basis for those rights.

Jefferson ascribed the basis of those rights to be "nature and nature's God." The exact concept Jefferson had of G-d is not what one would call "Christian" but he did seem to believe that there was a moral order of the universe aking to the physical order of the universe. Therefore there was a moral authority in appealing to that moral order sufficient to assert our right to declare Independence from Great Britain and form our own government.

There's a lot of room for discussion in this, including whether our government is at all moral given that it has strayed far from Jefferson's purpose of "protecting those rights." But the root point for discussion is, what is the basis of unalienable rights. If we don't answer that, then our children will be reading an article about how a judge ruled quoting Leviticus 18:23 is hate speech.

Shalom.

[johnb838]

Seems to me that placing a similar ad using the quran (a wall shall be made to fall on them) would be helpful... just to see what happens.

[Snowyman]

Third time around, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/842372/posts

[Remedy]

>>>There's a lot of room for discussion in this, including whether our government is at all moral given that it has strayed far from Jefferson's purpose of "protecting those rights." But the root point for discussion is, what is the basis of unalienable rights.<<<

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

Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?

1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in the laws of nature and of nature's God, in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible.
3. The God of the Bible defines true marriage as one man, one woman, one lifetime. [This is the order of creation, the image of God.] The health of society is rooted in this foundation.
4. In human history, no society has ever affirmed both homosexuality and unalienable rights. [So here is an intellectual challenge, to track out history, to find out where unalienable rights are affirmed. And if you can find any society that ever has affirmed homosexuality and unalienable rights together, you won't find it.]

WallBuilders | Resources | The Founding Fathers and Deism The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided-at the government's expense-Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon-founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry-founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King-helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin-a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom-also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson-placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

• Denominational Affiliations Of The Framers Of The Constitution
• Authors Most Frequently Cited By The Founders Of The United States
• Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[Luis Gonzalez]

Can you show me exactly where in the Bible I can find the cartoon in the ad?

The Bible was not found to be hate speech at all, there were no Biblical quotes on that ad. The intent of the ad was probably judged to fall under what the U.S. Supreme Court calls "fighting words", possesing no redeeming social value, and placed there to instigate negative reactions, fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment.

If the person paying for that ad had just had Biblical quotes printed, without the editorial commentary made by the illustration, and the Court arrived at the same conclusion, then the title of this article (posted at least two other times this week), would have closer to the truth. As it is right now, the title is propaganda, and propaganda and spin are bad rgardless of which side is doing it.

[Remedy]

>>So, yes, sodomy is generally understood to be a "right" in the U.S.<<

The penalties for violating sodomy laws in the USA:

Idaho, 5 years to life

Oklahoma, 20 years

Michigan, 15 years

Mississippi, 10 years

Puerto Rico, 8 - 20 years

Louisiana, 5 years/$2000

South Carolina, 5 years/$500

North Carolina, 3 years

Virginia, 1-5 years

Alabama, 1 year/$2000

Missouri, 1 year/$1000

Kansas, 6 months/$1000

Utah, 6 months/$299

Florida, 60 days/$500

Texas, $500

Homosexuals Demand Legalization of Sex With Strangers in Public Parks

Supreme Court Of The United States,No. 99-699 Boy Scouts Of America And Monmouth Council, Et Al., Petitioners V.James Dale

Lawrence v. Texas, 41 SW.3d 349 (2001)

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

[A CA Guy]

Ever since FRENCH has been spoken in parts of Canada, the whole country has been in decline.

[JoJo Gunn]

"Given the trends of the past generation, those four states will soon join the others in getting big government out of people's personal lives."

And given the trends of THIS generation Big Government is intruding into the very lives of Christians (and non), enforcing the wishesof the homosexual militants.

A lesbian sues her doctor, because the doctor refused on religious grounds to artificially inseminate her, instead of the lesbian shrugging her shoulders, acknowledging and being tolerant of the the doctor's beliefs, and finding another doctor. Sounds to me like the people who just want to be "left alone" are getting Big Government involved.

[ricpic]

"...and two classes of females (one abnormal in almost all manner, and the other marginally normal) occurred."


And your point is?

[Remedy]

>> there were no Biblical quotes on that ad. <<

Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 20:13

SEE POST #4

>>The intent of the ad was probably judged to fall under what the U.S. Supreme Court calls "fighting words", possesing no redeeming social value, and placed there to instigate negative reactions, fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment. <<

The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001

[Luis Gonzalez]

Those fines apply to heterosexuals engaging in sodomy as well, right?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Those are not Biblical quotes, those are Biblical verse and Chapter references. The Bible was not quoted in this ad at all, so the Court never made any comments on the Biblical verses at all.