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

Skip to comments.

Bush Says He Could Back Gay Marriage Ban
MyWay News ^

Posted on 12/17/2003 6:34:02 AM PST by Happy2BMe

Dec 16, 9:45 PM (ET)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

(AP) President Bush waves to reporters after attending the Diplomatic Corps Holiday Reception on...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as "a very activist court in making the decision it made."

"The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court," Bush said. "It did the job of the Legislature."

(AP) President Bush talks to ABC News host Diane Sawyer, not shown, in this image made from television...
Full Image
Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states "undermine the sanctity of marriage" and could mean that "we may need a constitutional amendment."

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," he said. "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

Bush said he believes his view on the topic does not make him intolerant.

"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage ... but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person," he said.

His remarks drew criticism from gay rights groups.

"It is never necessary to insert prejudice and discrimination into the U.S. Constitution - a document that has a proud history of being used to expand an individual's liberty and freedom, not to take them away," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.

The president also said that he - like any politician - could lose his next run for office, next year's bid for a second term in the White House.

"Everybody's beatable in a democracy," Bush said. "And that's the great thing about a democracy. People get to make that decision. I know how I'm voting."

Bush said he has not decided who would be in his Cabinet and other top administration posts - other than retaining Vice President Dick Cheney - if he is "fortunate enough" to win.

Bush reiterated that he doesn't read newspapers and prefers getting the news - without opinion, he said - from White House chief of staff Andrew Card and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. First Lady Laura Bush, who appeared briefly during the interview, said she does read the papers and often discusses them with her husband.

The president also said he doesn't watch reality television, but the Bushes both watch lots of sports on television and are hoping to see the movies "Something's Gotta Give" and "Elf" over the holidays.


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: bush; culturewars; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; legilatingsin; marriage; marriageamendment; prisoners; protectmarriage; romans1; sin; vicenotvirtue; westerncivilization
In the not to distant past, a man marrying another man and having it codified by the USSC was unthinkable.

Now, even in the ranks of the "conservative" Republican party . .

1 posted on 12/17/2003 6:34:03 AM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; Viking2002; Willie Green; JCEccles; WOSG; little jeremiah; pyx; 185JHP; SJSAMPLE; ...
Bush Says He Could Back Gay Marriage Ban ping!
2 posted on 12/17/2003 6:40:14 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
You've got my vote Mr. president!!!!!!!!!!!
3 posted on 12/17/2003 7:02:16 AM PST by sarge4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Anybody backing Gay Marriage is certainly not a conservative or a true Christian. Wsy to go Mr. President.
4 posted on 12/17/2003 7:03:07 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
This *is* a bad idea. The purpose of the Constitution was to *limit* federal power in the face of protecting liberty. Bush is two-faced in saying he's a states rights fan on one hand while championing a federal constitutional change which would effect each and every state.

"Sanctity of marriage" is a laughable cliche. The sacramental tradition of marriage in some faiths, of some Americans, is *not* the domain of the federal government. Sorry, W.

A government's business in marriage records is all about inheritance, property and other issues. There's no point in maintaining separate law for homosexuals to duplicate the rights, privileges, burdens and penalties of marriage law. I find no rational justification for coming down opposed to any two legally responsible individuals being able to "marry" with all the good and bad of that legal status.

You can't argue "it will destroy the family" since marriage is a legally binding status accepted by publicly witnessed choice. Persons already pro-create outside of marriage and there's no forcing the mother to identify the father let alone forcing them to marry. Where is your right to prevent two random adults from marriage be they gay or living in sin or what have you? Separate contracts can and have been fought in courts by "disapproving" family members at times when their loved one is unable to speak for himself or herself. If that's not an assault on that individual's liberty, I'm not sure I know what is.

I think it's pretty clear we need to get over ourselves and allow and encourage homosexual Americans to court, marry, support one another and be faithful to their spouses. This societal acceptance and support of monogamous lives among gays can and would have a tremendous positive impact on the spread of STDs including HIV. It would be *good* for the society at large.

I think there's an irrational fear about a sudden increase in homosexuals "coming out" if they were allowed to marry. People are afraid their children will experiment in ways they perhaps don't already, afraid their kids might "choose" to be gay simply because that kind of marriage would be an option. There might well be a few more homosexuals who are comfortable enough not to become deceivers and live depressed and loveless lives in phony heterosexual marriages. Better than the heterosexual spouse be able to find someone who can love him or her fully than be lulled into a lie whether it would be a union which produced children or not.

Bush is wrong on this issue: a ban of this kind has no purpose in the US Constitution.
5 posted on 12/17/2003 7:18:10 AM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Conservatives hate liberty? I thought conservatism was about how *you* live, not how you tell everyone else to live using government edict.

American is a nation ruled by Christianity? Which denomination?

What about Jews, Muslims, et al.? Have you banned them from your America?

Who are *you* to get between someone else's moral choices, a gift given by God, and their relationship with God? Hmm?
6 posted on 12/17/2003 7:22:29 AM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sarge4
Mine too but not because of this issue.

BTW, I believe churches should be allowed to refuse to conduct homosexual marriages or unions should they ever be legal since I believe it is not the roll of government to tell any church how to conduct its affairs of faith.
7 posted on 12/17/2003 7:25:11 AM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey; MeeknMing
"BTW, I believe churches should be allowed to refuse to conduct homosexual marriages or unions should they ever be legal since I believe it is not the roll of government to tell any church how to conduct its affairs of faith."

Georgie wants to marry Stephan ping!

8 posted on 12/17/2003 7:33:39 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
If the courts would do THEIR jobs and let the Legislature do THEIR job, this wouldn't be an issue. But, NOOOOooo ! The Liberal judges over reach and Legislate from the bench !

Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states "undermine the sanctity of marriage" and could mean that "we may need a constitutional amendment."

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," he said. "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

Bush said he believes his view on the topic does not make him intolerant.

"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage ... but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person," he said.

His remarks drew criticism from gay rights groups.


9 posted on 12/17/2003 9:03:30 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (Hillary is a TRAITOR !!: http://Richard.Meek.home.comcast.net/HitlerTraitor6.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sarge4
You've got my vote Mr. president!!!!!!!!!!!

That was easy.

10 posted on 12/17/2003 9:10:09 AM PST by Protagoras (Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
You got that right!
11 posted on 12/17/2003 9:13:44 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (Libertarians are LOOOOOOSERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
If it wasn't right, I wouldn't have said it.
12 posted on 12/17/2003 9:25:59 AM PST by Protagoras (Demented and obsessed people are loooooooooooooooosers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Anybody backing Gay Marriage is certainly not a conservative or a true Christian. Wsy to go Mr. President.

I think there is a big difference between claiming to be willing to sign a bill and actually doing something about gay marriage. This is what I'm watching very closely.

13 posted on 12/17/2003 9:28:27 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
He "could" back it? It's a huge pity that he won't UNEQUIVOCALLY back it! This is just more evidence of the moral slippage in the GOP. Very disappointing.

To all Christians in the GOP: Come out of her my people!

14 posted on 12/17/2003 9:28:57 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Let us not forget that Bush recently praised teh Metropolitan church (gay church) in Los Angeles. This man speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
15 posted on 12/17/2003 9:30:39 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
He did not use the word "could". that's the reporter's word, not a quote. I saw the interview and he did not equivocate in his defense of the sanctity of marriage. If there was any reticence it could be due to the fact that until the recent court decisions many Christian leaders were arguing against the Federal Marriage amendment on the basis that it was not necessary. I think that Lawrence and the Massachusetts case has changed that.
16 posted on 12/17/2003 9:49:01 AM PST by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
This *is* a bad idea. The purpose of the Constitution was to *limit* federal power in the face of protecting liberty.

Well, if the SCOTUS is going to sodomize the Constitution by finding the right to kill unborn babies, and now the right for homosexuals to sodomize each other in that august document, we need to fight fire with fire.

Bush is two-faced in saying he's a states rights fan on one hand while championing a federal constitutional change which would effect each and every state.

He is not two faced, he is fighting fire with fire. If you are in a street fight, and you opponent pulls a knife, and starts kicking you in the ba!!s, are you going to still follow the proper rules of no-contact sports?

There's no point in maintaining separate law for homosexuals to duplicate the rights, privileges, burdens and penalties of marriage law.

No need to. Any two people whoever they are can already make whatever legal arrangements suitable for them.

I find no rational justification for coming down opposed to any two legally responsible individuals being able to "marry" with all the good and bad of that legal status

There is a wealth of information right here on FR explaining exactly why homoseuxal behavior is:

1. Not normal, natural or beneficial for individuals

2. That homosexuals are not "born that way" but become that way due to childhood difficulty, often molestation or early seduction/molestation and

3. To promote homosexual behavior as equivalent to marital sex is to destroy the natural family; as is the stated objective of "gay" activists.

I think it's pretty clear we need to get over ourselves and allow and encourage homosexual Americans to court, marry, support one another and be faithful to their spouses..

I think it's pretty clear that you have bought the homosexual propaganda hook, line and sinker. There is mine of information here on FR you can read and educate yourself. I advise you to do so before you continue with your ignorance shilling for the homosexual activists.

There is so much evidence that homosexuals are wildly promiscuous even in "committed" relationships - you think some legal stamp is going to change the very nature of perverse and unnatural sexual desires?

People are afraid their children will experiment in ways they perhaps don't already, afraid their kids might "choose" to be gay simply because that kind of marriage would be an option.

What wise parents are afraid of is that their children will be recruited into homosexual acts by "gay" teachers, counselors, and older kids. This is the stated goal of homosexual activists, and this is why they are trying to (with a lot of success) getting clubs in schools, and getting pro-homosexual sex ed in schools, as well as seeping into many other areas of education.

There might well be a few more homosexuals who are comfortable enough not to become deceivers,,,

There is help for people who feel same sex attraction and want to change. They don't have to deceive themselves that they "are gay" forever. It isn't an unchangeable identity, like race or ethnicity. Many kinds of therapy and other means (such as prayer and spiritual help) have helped former homosexuals now become either normal sexually or at least celibate. Check scripter's profile page - he's got hundreds of links.

17 posted on 12/17/2003 9:58:05 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Bush praised the Metropolitan Church???? Gackk!! When was that?

Those whackjobs have sex-ed classes in their"churches" explaining how to use electricity, bondage and torture during their "romantic" encounters!
18 posted on 12/17/2003 10:01:43 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Go to hades bud. I said none of the things you stated. You are the personification of the new-age wussified man.
19 posted on 12/17/2003 10:08:35 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You can find the article here:

http:// www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.aspARTICLE_ID=35539

Bush is trying to please everyone at the expense of TRUTH.

He also said that muslims and Christians worship the same God - which is logically impossible. Our leaders must be held accountable for their words and actions.

20 posted on 12/17/2003 10:27:33 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: almcbean
Okay, I accept your explantion and will give Bush the benefit of the doubt, however, it is no secret that the GOP now sucks up to the homosexual lobby. Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and the log cabin republicans have more influence in the GOP than ever. The GOP is morally imploding - at light speed! It's time to start a new party where Christians can be truly represented. The GOP is not that party.
21 posted on 12/17/2003 10:29:52 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: almcbean
If there was any reticence it could be due to the fact that until the recent court decisions many Christian leaders were arguing against the Federal Marriage amendment on the basis that it was not necessary. I think that Lawrence and the Massachusetts case has changed that.

What Christian leaders? If you mean the ones from the National Council of Churches or any of the old mainline churches, no true Christian pays attention to those apostates. They are Christian in name only.

22 posted on 12/17/2003 10:49:53 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Throughout history, the major civilizations major religions condemned homosexuality.1 Until 1961 homosexual acts were illegal throughout America.

Gays claim that the "prevailing attitude toward homosexuals in the U.S. and many other countries is revulsion and hostility....for acts and desires not harmful to anyone."3 The American Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association assured the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 that "no significant data show that engaging in...oral and anal sex, results in mental or physical dysfunction."4

What Homosexuals Do

The major surveys on homosexual behavior are summarized below. Two things stand out 1) homosexuals behave similarly world-over, and 2) as Harvard Medical Professor, Dr. William Haseltine,33 noted in 1993, the "changes in sexual behavior that have been reported to have occurred in some groups have proved, for the most part, to be transient. For example, bath houses and sex clubs in many cities have either reopened or were never closed."

Homosexual Activities (in %)

		US16 US13  US    US18 Denmark20 US19  London27  Sydney/London26                                                            Canada25                                                      
		1940s1977 83/84  1983  1984   1983    1985       1991                       
		ever ever  ever in yr in yr  in mo   in mo   last 6mo                                                                                  
oral/penile       83   99  100/99  99    86             67                 
anal/penile       68   91   93/98  95    92     95     100                 
oral/anal         59   83   92/92  63           69      89       55/65       
urine sex         10   23    29/                                              
fisting/toys      22   41/47 34                                       
fecal sex-eating        4     8                                                       
enemas        	       11    11                                               
torture sex       22   37    37                                              
public/orgy sex   61   76    88                                               
sex with minors   37   23    24/                                          

ORAL SEX Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B). Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners17,27), and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1105 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.

RECTAL SEX Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,3 gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.

Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient's own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present),7 rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.

Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with "fisting," where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when "toys" are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum--bottles, carrots, even gerbils8). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such "sport" is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey's time that he didn't think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to diapers for life.

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." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever,9 herpes, and cancer.27 About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in feces]. The San Francisco Department of Public Health saw 75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80 per cent are homosexual men....An average of 10 per cent of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported...because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5 per cent of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed."10 In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco.10 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays.11 A 1982 study "suggested that some transmission from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred."12

URINE SEX About 10% of Kinsey's gays reported having engaged in "golden showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted,13 23% admitted to urine-sex. In the largest random survey of gays,6 29% reported urine-sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays,14 only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced "fisting," 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.

OTHER GAY SEX PRACTICES

SADOMASOCHISM as the Table indicates, a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun. Sex with minors 25% of white gays17 admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study,30 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engage in homosexuality31). Depending on the study, the percent of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14%16 to 41%13 to 66%,6 9%16, 60%13 and 67%5 reported sex in gay baths; 64%16 and 90%18 said that they used illegal drugs.

Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin15 reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick14 reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain32 the average was 42/yr. in 1989.

Medical Consequences of Homosexual Sex

Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70%25 to 78%x,13 of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25%18 to 39%19 to 59%.20 As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.21 The Seattle sexual diary study3? reported that gays had, on a yearly average:

  1. fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
  2. exchanged saliva with 96;
  3. experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
  4. ingested fecal material from 19.

No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A during the 6-month study.

Effects on the Lifespan

Smokers and drug addicts don't live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical life-span of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking nd as dangerous as drugs.

Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers.23 The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity; the medium age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide--and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.

Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident--a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.

The Gay Legacy

Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a plague that gives every indication of destroying most of them. Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers,21 but also from TB and new strains of other diseases.24 Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.24 Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.24 Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics...If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them."28 At least 8, and perhaps as many as 30 29 patients had been infected with HIV by health care workers as of 1992.

The Biological Swapmeet

The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story --imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis. Often these encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high, and/or in an orgy setting. Further, many of them occur in extremely unsanitary places (bathrooms, dirty peep shows), or, because homosexuals travel so frequently, in other parts of the world.

Every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit another country.20 Fresh American germs get taken to Europe, Africa and Asia. And fresh pathogens from these continents come here. Foreign homosexuals regularly visit the U.S. and participate in this biological swapmeet.

The Pattern of Infection

Unfortunately the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world.27 Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior.23 The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals.10

Genuine Compassion

Society is legitimately concerned with health risks-- they impact our taxes and everyone's chances of illness and injury. Because we care about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers to stay non-smokers.

Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle.


References

1. Karlen A. SEXUALITY And HOMOSEXUALITY. NY Norton, 1971.

2. Pines B. BACK TO BASICS. NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211.

3. Weinberg G. SOCIETY AND THE HEALTHY HOMOSEXUAL. NY St. Martin's, 1972, preface.

4. Amici curiae brief, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986.

5. Corey L. & Holmes, K.K. Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1980302435- 38.

6. Cameron P et al Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. "Nebraska Medical Journal," 198570292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order "Psychological Reports," 1989, 64, 1167-79.

7. Manligit, G.W. et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloan- tigens. "Journal of the American Medical Association," 1984251 237-38.

8. Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope," THE READER (Chicago, 3/28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the U.S. and Canada].

9. Dritz, S. & Braff. Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. "New England Journal of Medicine," 19772961359-60.

10. Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1980302463-4.

11. CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men --United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR 199241155-64.

12. Christenson B. et al. An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm, "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1982115599-607.

13. Jay, K. & Young, A. THE GAY REPORT. NY Summit, 1979.

14. McKusick, L. et al AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco, "American Journal of Public Health," 1985 75493- 96.

15. USA Today 11/21/84.

16. Gebhard, P. & Johnson, A. THE KINSEY DATA. NY Saunders, 1979.

17. Bell, A. & Weinberg, M. HOMOSEXUALITIES. NY Simon & Schuster, 1978.

18. Jaffee, H. et al. National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma. "Annals Of Internal Medicine," 198399145-51.

19. Quinn, T. C. et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1983309576-82.

20. Biggar, R. J. Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men. "Journal Of The American Medical Association," 19842511441-46; "Wall Street Journal," 7/18/91, B1.

21. CDC HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE, February 1993.

22. Chu, S. et al. AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. "American Journal Of Public Health," 199282220-24.

23. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993.

24. Dooley, W.W. et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HIV-invected patients. "Journal of the American Medical Association," 19922672632-35.

25. Schechter, M.T. et al. Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS. "Lancet," 198411293.

26. Elford, J. et al. Kaposi's sarcoma and insertive rimming. "Lancet," 1992339938.

27. Beral, V. et al. Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS. "Lancet," 1992339632-35.

28. Testimony before House Health & Environment Subcommittee, 2/24/92.

29. Ciesielski, C. et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. "Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992116 798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post, 8/7/92.

30. Rubin, S. "Sex Education Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students." 24th International Congress on Psychology, Sydney, Australia, August 1988.

31. Cameron, P. & Cameron, K. Prevalence of homosexuality. "Psychology Reports," 1993, in press; Melbye, M. & Biggar, R.J. Interactions between persons at risk for AIDS and the general population in Denmark. "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1992135593-602.

32. Rodriguez-Pichardo, A. et al. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain, "Geniourin Medicina," 1990 66;423-427.

33. AIDS Prognosis, Washington Times, 2/13/93, C1.



23 posted on 12/17/2003 10:59:34 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: exmarine; little jeremiah; MeeknMing
"Those whackjobs have sex-ed classes in their"churches" explaining how to use electricity, bondage and torture during their "romantic" encounters!"

Check post #23, this thread.

24 posted on 12/17/2003 11:01:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Certainly, he could, but will he?

25 posted on 12/17/2003 11:05:06 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"Certainly, he could, but will he?"

Dubya IMHO is FIRST a polititian, SECOND a president, and THIRDLY a Republican - (almost a RINO).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The last Republican to serve in the White House was this man . .

(Unfortunately, the U.S.A. is unable or unwilling to produce another leader such as Ronald Reagan.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1964 National Convention: A Time for Choosing

26 posted on 12/17/2003 11:08:19 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Great post.
27 posted on 12/17/2003 11:11:10 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
I agree, but I note that Reagan implimented/exacerbated the two of the worse policies in the history of the nation; his wife, with his consent, cranked up the war on drugs to current levels and he started the packing of the country will illegal aliens with his amnesty.

I don't know if I can say the nation has had a true conservative in office since Teddy Roosevelt.

28 posted on 12/17/2003 11:19:00 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
No, I was referring to true Christian leaders. Ken Connor, who was at Family Research Council comes specifically to mind. There were others as well. I think you are jumping the gun in arguing for Christians to abandon the GOP. I agree they send mixed signals at time. We just need to increase our influence, and make it clear that we will not be taken for granted.
29 posted on 12/17/2003 11:27:46 AM PST by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; *Homosexual Agenda
Thanks.

Yet they claim it's normal and not harmful ! Sheesh ! ...

*Uncensored* version ...


30 posted on 12/17/2003 11:28:11 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (Hillary is a TRAITOR !!: http://Richard.Meek.home.comcast.net/HitlerTraitor6.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
See my prior post. Also, let's think of a diferent euphemism than "sucks up" when referring to the homosexual lobby.
31 posted on 12/17/2003 11:30:19 AM PST by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; ohioman
Not this sh**again!

Yep, same sh**, different day.


32 posted on 12/17/2003 11:38:09 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
It is too late. This is now a federal issue. No longer a state issue due to full faith and credit. The amendment process is there to correct such insanity legislation from the bench.

There is no reason for homosexual civil marriages. If any two people want to live together they can simply make a cohabitation contract. (forms available) and in the event of breech enforce the contract in civil court. There is zero reason to have a special set of laws for people who practice homosexual sex in private.

Marriage is for raising children and is a public institution not an avenue for imposing acceptance of sexual practices.
33 posted on 12/17/2003 11:45:56 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
This is the committee that has the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at www.house.gov
It has also been introduced at www.senate.gov
These members count the letters of support.

Chairman Sensenbrenner's Photo

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

107th Congress Flag

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

Subcommittee Members

 

Subcommittee on the Constitution

Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman

362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney  
Mr. Forbes  

 


34 posted on 12/17/2003 11:53:14 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; *Homosexual Agenda
hehe !! I remember the days when folks named Barney were friendly, affable folks ...


Click on Fife for a chuckle
Turn your speakers up ...

Now they are perverts with an agenda !


35 posted on 12/17/2003 11:57:03 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (Hillary is a TRAITOR !!: http://Richard.Meek.home.comcast.net/HitlerTraitor6.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
"Sanctity of marriage" is a laughable cliche.

True, the phrase sounds hackneyed. To call it laughable is callous and disrespects the depth of spiritual feeling which is finding its expression in the phrase.

The sacramental tradition of marriage in some faiths, of some Americans, is *not* the domain of the federal government. Sorry, W.

If we ignore the federal versus state issue, I wonder if you agree with me that the states' regulation of marriage was meant to be in concert with the faiths and traditions of most citizens.

A government's business in marriage records is all about inheritance, property and other issues.

Not just that. Also to protect the rights of the spouses and especially to protect the children. Without government's strong enforcing arm, dead-beat dads would gladly risk or flout the disapproval of church-going society. The fact that dead-beat dads can be pursued even though there was no marriage, even of the common-law variety, does not mean this whole aspect of legal marriage should be ignored.

You go on to make the usual points. I don't think we should be so cynical or legally forgetful about the reasons for being of marriage. And most of them do not apply to gay couples.

36 posted on 12/17/2003 1:05:58 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: almcbean
No, I was referring to true Christian leaders. Ken Connor, who was at Family Research Council comes specifically to mind. There were others as well. I think you are jumping the gun in arguing for Christians to abandon the GOP. I agree they send mixed signals at time. We just need to increase our influence, and make it clear that we will not be taken for granted.

This has been going on for years. Republicans are do nothing wimps who provide nothing but lip service. Talk is cheap! I will do everything I can to pull people out of the GOP and into the Constitution Party - a party that is uncompromised in its values. The GOP are light democrats. They had their chance and what did they do with it? Sucked up to Homosexuals, exploded big government at a clip only a democrat could dream of, want to give amnesty to 20 million illegals, continuously ignore the U.S. Constitution, and on and on and on. You go ahead and stay with the GOP and you will go down with the ship in flames. As Patrick Henry said, "Gentlemen cry peace! peace! but there is no peace! What would the gentlemen wish? Is peace so precious or life so dear as to purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! As for me, Give me liberty or give me death!

37 posted on 12/17/2003 1:13:38 PM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: almcbean
See my prior post. Also, let's think of a diferent euphemism than "sucks up" when referring to the homosexual lobby

The pun was unintended, but now that you have pointed it out, I like it. Let me tell you something: Politicians no longer listen to the people - they are more concerned about pleasing special interests, being politically correct, and getting re-elected than they are about moral principles or what peasants like you or me think. The only way to get thru to these people is to BOLT! Without the christian vote, the GOP IS DEAD AS A DOORNAIL. And I will work against them - I will point out the GOP's glaring un-conservative and immoral and unconstitutional actions and policies, and I will get converts - you can count on it!

38 posted on 12/17/2003 1:25:25 PM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"I will do everything I can to pull people out of the GOP and into the Constitution Party - a party that is uncompromised in its values."

I agree 100% the the Republican Party is heavily compromised - especially on Family issues such as this one.

However - pulling people out of it right now only lends favor to the even more (perverted) Democrats.

I'll settle for some weak kneed Republicans for now.

Likely, the core values of the old Republic Party (God, Family, Country, Job) will never darken our doors again).

39 posted on 12/17/2003 2:29:24 PM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
This is a wonderful idea! Our nation has been moving down a moral sinkhole for decades. This would be a major indication that we have realized we are on the wrong path and will be moving back to the proper one.
40 posted on 12/17/2003 2:56:12 PM PST by FormerLib (We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Thanks.
41 posted on 12/17/2003 8:54:33 PM PST by 185JHP ( "What seest thou, Jeremiah?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"That was easy."



I'll give him the benefit of a doubt as long as I think he's trying. And I think he's trying, even though he's being bombarded on every side by the left and the liberal media. Does he have any pressure on him? I think so. Is he an optimist? I think so. Does he have my vote? Yep!
42 posted on 12/18/2003 12:56:23 PM PST by sarge4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sarge4
The question is what is he trying to do?

Clinton was trying too. And we know what he was trying for.

I never asked anyone not to vote for him BTW, just said that I can't vote for him. Unless the bitch runs against him, then all bets are off.

43 posted on 12/18/2003 1:06:00 PM PST by Protagoras (Hating Democrats doesn't make you a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I don't know if I can say the nation has had a true conservative in office since Teddy Roosevelt

And if you take a close look at Teddy you will have doubts about him.

44 posted on 12/23/2003 4:28:06 PM PST by skraeling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: skraeling
Might have to go back to Thomas Jefferson.

45 posted on 12/23/2003 4:51:46 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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