Skip to comments.Anything But Gay: The Deadly and Dangerous Homosexual Lifestyle
Posted on 08/04/2002 1:00:32 PM PDT by TonyTheTigger
Because of the bias manner in which homosexuality is portrayed by the media, the general public has little understanding of the true nature of the homosexual lifestyle.
Most have been deceived into believing the average homosexual lives a perfectly normal and healthy way of life.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnlglfg.com ...
Seeing that it is a slow news day, Ill play.
The anti-everything nanny league that pontificates here at FR likes to tack this little caveat on everything they disapprove of. Although the line is mostly used by the WOD Nazis in reference to pot smokers, what is your point?
How can less than 5 percent, as the author claims, have such a grip on our country?
The median age of lesbians at death is forty-five compared to seventy-nine for married women, and seventy-one for unmarried women generally. The International Journal of Epidemiology reported on a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.
Why do lesbians supposedly die so young? Is it because they are having unprotected anal sex with HIV-positive gay men?
I think not.
"Generously" is quite an understatement! I wonder what the percentage of homosexuals who were truly monogamous could be...
An otherwise decent article is spoiled by hideous (and I do mean hideous) web page design.
If you intend folks to read your articles, do try to place text on a background that provides HIGH CONTRAST for the letters.
Here's a simple test, which of the following lines are easy to read, and which are harder:
|Line 1:||Standard Black on White|
|Line 2:||Inverse White on Black|
|Line 3:||Black on Blue|
|Line 4:||Black on Cyan|
|Line 5:||Black on Green|
It gets even worse if the background is some detailed pattern. Your stuff will be read by more folks, with greater interest and comprehension, if they are not struggling just to see the words.
I agree. I had to select the text, which made it appear as white text on a black background in my browser, to be able to read it.
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."
The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
"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. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186
Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:
Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:
Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable.
Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral.
What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case:
This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.
Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.)
Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral. It cannot be tolerated period.
Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.
Tightsqueeze and 07055 could you two libertarians tell me how our founding fathers were "Nannys" the same men that wrote the constitution that you libertarians claim to respect and represent, those same men also wrote laws and enforced laws against sodomy.
Why were our Founders "Nannys" and all of the sudden in the 1960's should we become elightened to the fact that homosexuality was suddenly okay after being considered immoral for thousands of years??
What made every single civilization from the time of the Roman Empire (And some preceding that) wrong and this new immoral/ammoral society of today right?
Why are Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina , Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Massachusetts Michigan, and Missouri Wrong today? As each of these states have laws against sodomy.
What makes libertarians/liberals/democrats/sodomites/ACLU/NAMBLA/Greens so much more informed of the spirit of the founder's intent on this subject, yet thousands of years of case law, a United States Supreme Court Decision, Countless Appeals and State Court Decisions, Laws dating back to the Roman Empire, and Thousands of years of Biblical Judeo-Christian Values wrong?
Why should we believe the libertarian/democrat/ACLU/NAMBLA/Green/Sodomite position in light of this overwhelming evidence?
For example, 85 year old nuns living in a convent are not candidates for AIDS and neither are heterosexual couples living in a faithful monogamous relationship who were not in promiscuous relationships before marriage.
Let's face it if everyone held to traditional moral values, AIDS wouldn't be much of a problem.
PS Ditto on the background of the web site being too busy. Search out a copy of The HTML Web Classroom by Paul Meyer for a great introduction to HTML and basic web design.
You may have me confused with some other poster. I didn't not post anything defending homosexuality.
All I did was question the statement in the article that the median age of death for lesbians was 45.
How can this be?
No, the WOD Nazis are completely different bunch in that their concern is with the legality of (certain) substances. They think that the state should own people's bodies. A reprehensible lot, to be sure.
On the other hand, (most) anti-gay folks don't want being gay to be illegal (and for gays to be thrown in prison). They're just expressing their (justifiable) disgust for their lifestyle, and warning against the physical, moral, and spiritual dangers of such a lifestyle.
Every single law is legislating some form of morality. Period.
Now, please tell me, were the founding fathers "Nanny's"?
Homosexuals never had much of an impact on our society: except that starting in the mid 60s the socialists started a serious campaign to bring down this county.
Several things have to happen to accompolish this. The destruction of the family for starters since a strong family means less dependence on Government.
Also you need non judgemental people who can't take a strong stand on anything. Pushing the homosexual agenda in our schools accompolishes these goals along with multiculturalism and tolerance programs. That's where the homosexuals get their support -from the socialists(democrats) - Tom
Jack, I would like to believe that, but I hear a lot of law talk being bantered about. I am sure these good folk know right well that new laws banning any/all sex outside on marriage (missionary position exempt) will never be enacted, still they hold out hope, sorta like NASDAQ 5000.
It would have to be an astronomically higher suicide rate to cut 34 years off life expectancy. ;-)
That's why we need anti-sodomy laws.
Any straight man who has oral sex is cutting his average lifespan to 45 years.
Vaginal intercourse should be the only legal sex.
Why should we have to pay the extra health expenses of people who chose to have perverted (oral) sex?
This is the philosophy essentially elucidated by Dennis Prager who convincingly argues that when early Judaism insisted that male sexuality be directed into marriage, it effectively changed the world.
It also forms a basis of reason for why heterosexual prostitution should remain illegal and something to be spurned.
Your Honor, I swear there were ten toes up, ten toes down...
Best to you.
Which is why the average homosexual male is enormously promiscuous and why homosexual priests can't keep their filthy paws off of teenage boys.
There is no such statistic for married men, and if they are not included, then, there is no such statistic. I suggest you read Song of Solomon. What two people God has put together do cannot be evil or harmful. They are one flesh.