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

Skip to comments.

Anything But Gay: The Deadly and Dangerous Homosexual Lifestyle
CNLGLFG.COM ^ | 8/4/2002 | Tyler Young (Posted by owner of site)

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: churchesofchrist; churchofchrist; counseling; counselor; devients; evangelical; evil; exgay; gay; heterophobia; homophobia; homosexual; hotstuffedburritos; perverts; psychologist; psychologists; sasu; therapists; transexual
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
To suggest otherwise is considered hateful and homophobic. But the facts paint a dark picture of homosexuality much different from the clean, harmless image most people see in the positive portrayals of homosexuals on television and in movies. The silence of the media has hidden the seedy, dangerous and disgusting behavior typical of homosexuals which would stagger the minds of decent people.
1 posted on 08/04/2002 1:00:32 PM PDT by TonyTheTigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Great article!
2 posted on 08/04/2002 1:16:28 PM PDT by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
…which would stagger the minds of decent people.

Seeing that it is a slow news day, I’ll 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?

3 posted on 08/04/2002 1:21:35 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze


As usual T.S. the glue you sniffed today has fogged your brain.

This article is most informative and cuts through the "fog" to show us the truth!

-Lilly
4 posted on 08/04/2002 1:27:33 PM PDT by Lilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
I'll play too. You think men engaging in anal sex isn't dangerous? Nevermind. Of course you don't. Nothing deviant is dangerous to you. The only thing dangerous to you are those morons who dare espouse a shred of morality in your "relative, anything goes, no standard" presence.
5 posted on 08/04/2002 1:32:13 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
This guy should be convinced to write a more 'secular' version of this article, so the major/local/national newspapers would be more likely to run it. This message needs to be sent to as many people as possible!

How can less than 5 percent, as the author claims, have such a grip on our country?

6 posted on 08/04/2002 1:36:50 PM PDT by Captainpaintball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lilly
glue you sniffed today

Got Me

7 posted on 08/04/2002 1:38:15 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Biker Scum
Biker Scum?
9 posted on 08/04/2002 1:42:00 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
I have doubts about these statistics cited in this article:

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.

10 posted on 08/04/2002 1:42:45 PM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
A 1981 study revealed that only 2 percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous-generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners.

"Generously" is quite an understatement! I wonder what the percentage of homosexuals who were truly monogamous could be...

11 posted on 08/04/2002 1:43:11 PM PDT by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Nevermind

12 posted on 08/04/2002 1:44:25 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
TonyTheTigger,

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.

 

13 posted on 08/04/2002 1:45:09 PM PDT by Rebel_Ace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Some 95% of the woe in this world is self-induced. Homosexuality is a choice, and as such is not much different than choosing to be, say, a Democrat. A choice made on limited information, and with the assistance of persons who have an agenda, but hey, if you have a low self-esteem to begin with, of course you don't trust your own reasoning processes. Worthless people make worthless decisions because they think worthless thoughts.
14 posted on 08/04/2002 1:45:50 PM PDT by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace
An otherwise decent article is spoiled by hideous (and I do mean hideous) web page design.

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.

15 posted on 08/04/2002 1:48:58 PM PDT by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Since heterosexuals are in the majority we will set the standards.Homos are "heterophobic"!
16 posted on 08/04/2002 1:55:39 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze; 07055
Our Nation's laws against homosexuality go back beyond it's founding. In every single civilized nation since the beginning of time, homosexuality was considered immoral, a crime against nature, and usually was a capital offense. Let's look at a few quotes:

"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?

17 posted on 08/04/2002 2:01:35 PM PDT by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
I especially agree with the article's questioning the too often propaganized notion that AIDS is "everyones" disease. Clearly not everyone is at significant risk.

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.

18 posted on 08/04/2002 2:04:56 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
Oh brother...

19 posted on 08/04/2002 2:06:51 PM PDT by Lilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FF578
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.

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?

20 posted on 08/04/2002 2:09:10 PM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FF578
I do believe we have a winner!

21 posted on 08/04/2002 2:16:37 PM PDT by Lilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 07055
Lesbians, like homosexuals have multiple sexual partners. Sexual contact of any form is the best way to get AIDS.
22 posted on 08/04/2002 2:17:04 PM PDT by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
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

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.

23 posted on 08/04/2002 2:20:17 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Bless you Tony. Thank you for your help.
24 posted on 08/04/2002 2:21:18 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FF578
When it comes to society dictating behavior that is obviously a matter of personal choice, I am a professed outlaw, your words are wasted on me. Morality can’t be legislated, had this been posted over on the Religion forum, you wouldn’t have heard a peep from me.
25 posted on 08/04/2002 2:21:21 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lilly; FF578
Such copy cats.
26 posted on 08/04/2002 2:23:32 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
All laws, legislate morality.

Every single law is legislating some form of morality. Period.

Now, please tell me, were the founding fathers "Nanny's"?

27 posted on 08/04/2002 2:23:33 PM PDT by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 07055
Higher suicide rate?
28 posted on 08/04/2002 2:24:06 PM PDT by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Homosexual can do whatever depraved things they want in their bedrooms and bathhouses. Just keep their influence away from my kids and my family.
29 posted on 08/04/2002 2:28:20 PM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captainpaintball
How can less than 5 percent, as the author claims, have such a grip on our country?

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

30 posted on 08/04/2002 2:29:36 PM PDT by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack-A-Roe
On the other hand, (most) anti-gay folks don't want being gay to be illegal (and for gays to be thrown in prison).

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.

31 posted on 08/04/2002 2:30:40 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
on = of
32 posted on 08/04/2002 2:32:56 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Captainpaintball
The less than 5% gets a lot of help from sympathizers.
33 posted on 08/04/2002 2:35:13 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lizma
Higher suicide rate?

It would have to be an astronomically higher suicide rate to cut 34 years off life expectancy. ;-)

34 posted on 08/04/2002 2:37:02 PM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 07055
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.”

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?

35 posted on 08/04/2002 2:37:54 PM PDT by LO_IQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Human male sexuality is wild by nature and essentially unrestrained when engaged in concert with other males. This makes particularly male homosexuality ultimately destructive to a society based on the Judeo-Christian ethic where heterosexual marriage otherwise constrains the savage male nature, instead facilitating the channeling of some of its energy into society building endeavors.

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.

36 posted on 08/04/2002 2:43:06 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LO_IQ
Vaginal intercourse should be the only legal sex.

Your Honor, I swear there were ten toes up, ten toes down...

37 posted on 08/04/2002 2:48:56 PM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FF578
Here is a link to the Dennis Prager article I mentioned in #36. I feel it is one of the best takes on the subject that I've ever read.

Best to you.

38 posted on 08/04/2002 2:54:04 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Human male sexuality is wild by nature and essentially unrestrained when engaged in concert with other males.

Which is why the average homosexual male is enormously promiscuous and why homosexual priests can't keep their filthy paws off of teenage boys.

39 posted on 08/04/2002 5:17:15 PM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LO_IQ
Any straight man who has oral sex is cutting his average lifespan to 45 years.

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.

Hank

40 posted on 08/04/2002 7:07:41 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Belated Bump
41 posted on 08/06/2002 7:06:47 AM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
Yawns
42 posted on 10/07/2002 7:20:16 AM PDT by TonyTheTigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Well as you see Rosie Odonell and her leauge of homosexual activist will not allow that.
43 posted on 10/07/2002 7:30:59 AM PDT by TonyTheTigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Thanks for your encouragemnt
44 posted on 10/07/2002 7:31:49 AM PDT by TonyTheTigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
AMEN
45 posted on 10/07/2002 7:33:31 AM PDT by TonyTheTigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
When the truth hurts you lash out in a ugly way. I will be praying for you. I use to be full of hate as you are now.
46 posted on 10/07/2002 7:37:16 AM PDT by TonyTheTigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LO_IQ
Any straight man who has oral sex is cutting his average lifespan to 45 years.

Proof please.

47 posted on 10/07/2002 7:37:47 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 07055
One way is the HPV virus which causes cervical cancer in women but rarely affects men.
48 posted on 10/07/2002 7:39:14 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
Look at this site. http//www.itsnotgay.com
49 posted on 10/07/2002 7:48:18 AM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyTheTigger
2 month lag time? :) Good for you!
50 posted on 10/07/2002 3:29:18 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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

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

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