Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Media's Gay Mafia "Queers" the News
Middle American News/A Different Drummer ^ | July, 2003 | Nicholas Stix

Posted on 07/06/2003 9:05:02 AM PDT by mrustow

In their quest to "queer" America, radical homosexual activists in the media destroy lives, as they manipulate the principle of privacy, and make war on traditional masculinity, sports, and even the truth.

In late April, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) got a taste of what awaits anyone who opposes the gay agenda. After explaining to Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan (who is married to Sen. John Kerry’s (D, Ma.) campaign manager, Jim Jordan) his opposition to any pro-gay laws or court rulings that might weaken the family, gay activists demanded that Santorum resign.

But the Santorum case was only the tip of the iceberg. For as Sandy Koufax, Mike Piazza, and countless others will attest, in recent years, gay activists have graduated from protesting against public figures to controlling news rooms. The activists do not care if their stories are even true, and suffer no consequences for lying.

In February, Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax ended his 48-year relationship with the Los Angeles Dodgers, due to a defamatory story a reporter planted in the New York Post, insinuating that Koufax was a homosexual. The Dodgers and the New York Post both belong to News Corp., the conglomerate owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

The story, a "blind item" in Richard Johnson’s Page Six gossip section, referred to "an unidentified 'Hall of Fame baseball hero" who was secretly gay. The December 19 item claimed that the baseball great "cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep it secret that he is gay. The author kept her word, but big mouths at the publishing house can't keep from flapping."

Since the bestselling biography, Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy by Jane Leavy, had appeared only three months earlier -- published by News Corp. subsidiary HarperCollins! -- many observers concluded that the "blind item" referred to Koufax. On February 21, the New York Post's management confessed that the piece had indeed been about the 66-year-old pitcher. "A two- sentence blind item we ran here on Dec. 19 about a 'Hall of Fame baseball hero' has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry.... We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong."

The New York Daily News reported on February 22, that "Daily News columnist Michael Gross tracked down the twice-married Koufax and his current girlfriend and made clear that the Dodger great is heterosexual.”

The report went beyond even the radical homosexual "outing" of famous closeted gays, a practice which was pioneered in 1989 by editor-in-chief, Gabriel Rotello, and violent "reporter," Michelangelo Signorile, of the short-lived magazine Outweek. In 1990, Rotello sought to rationalize the practice, writing that, "social workers pointed out that gay teens grow up without support networks of parents, relatives or even 'out' gay and lesbian friends. Such kids, who are taught the lie that gays are pathetic, sad and hopeless, desperately need positive role models. Despite the fact that thousands of society's most famous, respected and successful people are gay, gay kids grow up without that knowledge." Rotello considered his tactic vindicated, when supermarket tabloids soon began imitating it.

The gay mafia -- openly gay activists who pass as journalists -- seeks to "out" high-profile, professional athletes as homosexual, in order to mainstream a sexual orientation which most Americans consider perverted, and apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on. And if no gay superstars are handy, activists will invent some.

Once the preserve of despised storm troopers like Rotello and Signorile, the practice of "outing" has since gone mainstream, as activists have taken over major media outlets. However, even bigger problems with the "queering" of the news involve the willful misreporting or outright silencing of important stories.

In June 2000, media watchdog Reed Irvine reported in on the celebratory speech given at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke. "Now, there are times when you look at the [Times'] front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals."

In a whispering campaign last year, reporters portrayed New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza as homosexual. Piazza, widely considered a surefire future Hall of Famer, eventually felt the need to call a press conference, to announce that he is "not gay."

Gay media activists have also succeeded at perpetrating hoaxes, according to which heterosexuals are just as much at risk of contracting HIV as homosexuals, and that gays comprise 10% of the population, and are victimized by rampant anti-gay attacks.

In 1990, investigative journalist Michael Fumento's book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, meticulously proved that AIDS was a gay disease. Fumento revealed that public health officials, in league with homosexual activists, routinely lied about the danger of AIDS to the heterosexual population, and thus misused scarce resources, costing many lives that could have been saved. Gay activists felt so threatened by Fumento, that they intimidated his publisher into killing the book’s PR campaign, thus ensuring that it was a commercial failure, and succeeded at marginalizing one of America's finest journalists.

In seeking to mainstream homosexuality, the gay mafia has for years spread the fiction that "every tenth" person is homosexual. More sober calculations, such as those of SUNY Stony Brook sociologist John Gagnon, put the prevalence of homosexuality at 2%.

In 1991, New York Newsday columnist Jim Dwyer wrote of the near-lynching of a heterosexual man by a homosexual mob at the annual New York City Gay Pride parade. The man had muttered to his girlfriend about the aggressive attitude of the "fags" at the parade. A nearby spectator overheard him, and organized a lynch mob, which chased after the man. A police officer saved the man, by putting him in a taxicab that sped from the scene. No members of the mob were arrested.

Dwyer alone reported on the incident. Local media outlets all reported, however, on three thugs who were arrested at the parade, for attempting to attack homosexuals with baseball bats. And so, instead of showing that homosexuals were both attackers and victims that day, the media portrayed them exclusively as victims.

During the 1990s in New York State, thousands of babies and their mothers died horrible, preventable deaths due to AIDS, because the gay mafia, which controlled AIDS coverage, refused to report on a gruesome policy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had adopted, under pressure from the gay lobby. All newborns were routinely tested for HIV infection, but contrary to established public health practice, CDC officials refused to inform their mothers of the results. While only 25% of the children of HIV+ mothers were born with HIV antibodies, thousands more were then infected via their mother's breast milk. As State Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn wrote in 1997, "Only in the world of AIDS has privacy and secrecy been given a higher priority than prevention and treatment." But then, gay activists do not have children.

Another dramatic case of the gay mafia's ability to skew the news came following the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, in Laramie, Wyoming. Posing as gays, Aaron J. McKinney and Russell Henderson lured Shepard away from a bar, robbed and pistol-whipped him, and tied him to a fence. Shepard was found alive, but died five days later. Henderson and McKinney are serving life sentences.

As William McGowan points out in Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism (which the New York Times refused to review), no less than 3,007 stories on the Shepard case were published in the first MONTH after the murder. Across America, pro-gay and gay reporters, and gay activists seized upon the case as typical of rampant "homophobia," exploiting it to win political privileges for homosexuals, including "hate crime" legislation giving gay crime victims special status.

In 1999, a young boy was heinously murdered, but since the crime was carried out by homosexual pedophiles, most Americans never heard about it. Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown lured 13-year-old neighbor Jesse Dirkhising into their apartment in Rogers, Arkansas, where they tied up, gagged, and drugged him. As Allyson Smith reported in World Net Daily, for five hours, Brown anally raped the boy with sausages and cucumbers, "three fingers, his penis, a frozen banana, and a urine enema laced with the sedative drug amitryptiline while Carpenter watched, masturbating ..."

Leaving their victim face down, the men took breaks to eat, shop for more rape implements, and nap, while he slowly succumbed. According to Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Erickson, young Jesse died of "suffocation, positional asphyxiation and acute amitryptiline intoxication."

As William McGowan reports, in the month after Jesse Dirkhising's murder, only 46 stories were devoted to his fate. "The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction. (The other assailant later pled guilty.)" Dirkhising's murderers are now fighting their convictions.

Ultimately, the gay mafia does allow for one last preserve of "privacy": Keeping important but unflattering stories about homosexuals very, very private.

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arkansas; US: California; US: New York; US: Pennsylvania; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: aids; bigmedia; ccrm; coloringthenews; culturewar; downourthroats; gabrielrotello; gay; gaymafia; getouttamyface; hersheypackers; homosexual; homosexualagenda; jessedirkhising; lavendermafia; lesbian; matthewshepard; media; mediabias; michaelfumento; mikepiazza; msignorile; mycousinknowsclay; nettiemayersohn; newyorktimes; notaprivatematter; notinprivate; outweek; prisoners; queer; queers; richardberke; sandykoufax; sasu; sexinpublic; williammcgowan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: GrandMoM
"gays are gentle, loving people"

At the risk of being obtuse here the claims homosexuals make in this article are very similar to the claims the religeon of peace (Isalam) makes. Both are deviant deviant social constructs. I would expect both to have the same tactics and goals. Perhaps off topic but maybe a point by pont comparison would be instructive.

best regards

the dozer
41 posted on 07/06/2003 1:46:10 PM PDT by dozer7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Of course, everything you posted would be stridently refuted by David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign.

...But, as John Addams once said, facts are stubborn things.

It seems you can't pick up a magazine (this week's edition of 'Newsweek': "Is Gay Marriage Next?"), a newspaper, or channel surf (check out L. Brent Bozell's column on the Tony Awards from last month) without something Gay being shoved down your throat. Practically every series on television ('Will & Grace', 'Queer As Folk') either is about or has homosexual characters. And let's not forget the fact that this "lifestyle" is being taught to our American youth; that's it's perfectly okay for two men or two women to adopt children, since they cannot 'breed' them, as Gays like to sneer about Heterosexuals. Funny how they want to live like straight people, isn't it?

As for those horrible murders, why the (Gay and Straight) Media would be absolutely aghast! Oh, no, like on FReeper posted, these are such 'nice' and 'tolerant' people! They wouldn't hurt a fly. Nah, they only go on Search-and-Destroy missions against those who disagree with them-anyone remember Dr. Laura Shlessinger? Reggie White? Nope, the G.L.A.A.D. Gang is virtually harmless, a bunch of warm-and-fuzzies. (Extremely heavy on the sarcasm)

-Regards, T.
42 posted on 07/06/2003 1:53:02 PM PDT by T Lady (.Freed From the Dimocratic Shackles since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
I used to think that Sodom and Gomorrah, as described in the Bible, was so far out it couldn't ever happen again. I don't think that anymore.
43 posted on 07/06/2003 1:58:07 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie (Beware: the Chip is pissed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
Frankly, it's this simple: the American elites that run the country have finally decided that they've had enough of America's burgeois, religion-based value system, and they're just not going to put with it anymore. I predict that what we've seen the last couple of weeks is merely the tip of the iceberg. The culture war is lost, and I'm not sure if there was ever really a chance of winning. I think they're shooting for a European-style hedonistic culture where committing adultery is considered not only normal, but is actually expected.
44 posted on 07/06/2003 2:02:07 PM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I wasn't aware that the WSJ was so prescient re gay marriage. I've read so many wrongheaded, open borders editorials in it, that I'd become jaded toward that particular paper.
45 posted on 07/06/2003 2:03:41 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
My husband has a lot of homosexual patients. For the most part, they're depressed, alcoholic and suicidal.
46 posted on 07/06/2003 2:05:00 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Thanks GrandMom!
47 posted on 07/06/2003 2:06:29 PM PDT by TomServo (Free Illbay!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 7DayRepo
Bumpbackatcha! And yes, McGowan's book is fantastic. In a sane world, he would have won a Pulitzer and a National Book Award. But then, in a sane world, there would be no need for his book.
48 posted on 07/06/2003 2:07:38 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: T Lady
Nah, they only go on Search-and-Destroy missions against those who disagree with them-anyone remember Dr. Laura Shlessinger? Reggie White? Nope, the G.L.A.A.D. Gang is virtually harmless, a bunch of warm-and-fuzzies. (Extremely heavy on the sarcasm)....and let's not forget that GAY DISNEY just ousted Michale Savage from it's radio stations!
49 posted on 07/06/2003 2:10:51 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ChocChipCookie
I used to think that Sodom and Gomorrah, as described in the Bible, was so far out it couldn't ever happen again. I don't think that anymore.....all you need to do is take a walk in San Fransico and you'll see history has repeated it's self.
50 posted on 07/06/2003 2:13:29 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
You'd be surprised at how hard it is to find a good cup of Joe in Manhattan.

I was recently in Manhattan and I was surprised how hard it was to find ANYTHING decent there. My wife and I went for corn beef sandwiches at the Stage Delicatessen and cheese cake at Lindy's. I thought they were both second rate.

They're both tourist traps. But then, much of Manhattan has become one huge tourist trap. To get a good corned beef sandwich, you might have to go all the way to the Lower East Side, to Katz's Deli, which I haven't been to in five or six years -- assuming it's still there. Personally, I prefer pastrami, though I can enjoy a good corned beef, or corned beef/pastrami mix. (I hope the reference to an intermarried sandwich didn't scandalize you.)

51 posted on 07/06/2003 2:26:45 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
The gay mafia -- openly gay activists who pass as journalists -- seeks to "out" high-profile, professional athletes as homosexual, in order to mainstream a sexual orientation which most Americans consider perverted, and apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on. And if no gay superstars are handy, activists will invent some.

That's a good name for them. The idea is to change public opinion by imposing their beliefs on them and the younger the better. Their social conditioning starts at Elementary school with children as young as 5-6 years old. Homosexual and lesbian activists are invited to Schools under the banner of diversity to brainwash young minds by teaching them that homosexual families are just like any other family, and that they should be accepted and treated with respect. However, under the excuse of "respect," they are actually working on conversion and recruitment.

52 posted on 07/06/2003 2:29:57 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BeachBelle
Ping, ping, ping, might find this interesting. : )
53 posted on 07/06/2003 2:34:14 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (WILL TAG FOR FOOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Thanks for the links!
54 posted on 07/06/2003 2:39:37 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
You bet!
55 posted on 07/06/2003 3:02:49 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
I used to be much more tolerant of them, but today in New York, there are gay neighborhoods, where if you're white, and don't look like you fit in, strangers come up to you and shove you

Ditto, me too. In the Montrose (gay) section of Houston, I was coming out of my favorite Mexician cafe, when a dyke walked into me on purpose. I imagine she is still wondering how she came to be on her butt so quick. Strange thing was I was with a black conservative gay guy wearing a white suit with a pink striped shirt, a mink coat and walking stick, which he stuck between her legs as I pushed her.

56 posted on 07/06/2003 3:07:24 PM PDT by razorback-bert (White Devils for Al-Sharpton 2004... Texas Chapter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
"Gay mafia" is a good (and an accurate) name for them, but where does that leave NAMBDA? -- an off-shoot or their headquarters?
57 posted on 07/06/2003 3:14:05 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: TomServo
Thanks GrandMom! info on Gay and Marriage.

Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that endangers the health or safety of the community. Because of this, homosexual liaisons have historically been forbidden by law.

Homosexuals contend that their relationships are the equivalent of marriage between a man and woman. They demand that society dignify and approve of their partnerships by giving them legal status as 'marriages.' They further argue that homosexuals should be allowed to become foster parents or adopt children.

The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general and homosexuals in particular, the very individuals some contend would be helped.

A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community:

Traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children.

Homosexual coupling undermines its participants' health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.

The Facts About Homosexual Marriage
Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived. When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.

*In a study (1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not."
*A 1970 study in San Francisco (2) found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.
*In 1977, the Spada Report (3) noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover.
*The same year (4) over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: "Do you consider or have you considered yourself 'married' to another [homosexual]?" Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said "yes." The authors noted that with "gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of 'categories' emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged."
*In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample
(5) of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.

Variety Over Monogamy

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage.

*In 1987, only 23% of gays in London (6) reported sexual exclusivity "in the month before interview."
*In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada (7) said that they were in monogamous relationships.
*In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays (8) were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only "casual sex." The authors reported that "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
*In 1993, a study (9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners. In 1994, the largest national gay magazine'° reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship.

Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical 'rules.' Only 69% of Dutch gays" with a marriage-type 'partner' actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of 'marriage' was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.

Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages?

At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many 'divorces.'
At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.

These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.

The Danish Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. (12)

The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.

Fact #2: Studies show homosexual marriage is hazardous to one's health.
Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that 'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.

In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco (13) who claimed to be in "monogamous relationships" were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous v. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% v. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex.
*In a sample of London gays (6) in 1987, those infected with HIV were more apt to have regular partners than those not so infected. In 1989, Italian researchers (14) investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners v. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that "to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk."
*During 1991-92, 677 gays in England (15) were asked about "unprotected anal sex." Those who had 'regular' partners reported sex lives which were "about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as 'casual/one-night stands."' Sex with a regular partner "was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour."
*A 1993 British sexual diary study (16) of 385 gays reported that men in "monogamous" relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that "gay men in a Closed relationship... exhibit... the highest risk of HIV transmission."
*In 1992, a sample (17) of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that "gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse."
*Similarly, a 1993 sample (18) of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick ups.
*Even a 1994 study (19) of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that "the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,... was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew."

Why is homosexual marriage a health hazard?
While married people pledge and generally live up to their vows of sexual faithfulness, participants in both gay and lesbian "marriages" offer each other something quite different. They see shared biological intimacy and sexual risk-taking as the hallmark of trust and commitment. Being exposed in this way to the bodily discharges of their partner increases the risk of disease, especially so if that partner was 'married' to someone else before or engaged in sex with others outside the relationship.

The evidence is strong that both gays and lesbians are more apt to take biological risks when having sex with a partner than when having casual sex. The evidence is also strong that gays disproportionately contract more disease, especially AIDS and the various forms of hepatitis, from sex with "partners" than they do from sex with strangers. There is also some evidence (20) that gays with partners are more apt to die of both AIDS and non-AIDS conditions than those without partners.

Like gays, 'married' lesbians are more apt to engage in biological intimacy and risk-taking. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether disease or death rates are higher for partnered or unpartnered lesbians.

Fact #3: Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.

In 1996, (21) Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."

The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey (22) of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report (23) higher rates of violence, a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.

When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:
*In 1987, (24) 48% of 43 lesbian, and 39% of 39 gay Georgia couples reported domestic violence.
*In 1988,(25) 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward for reporting by only one partner in the couple (i.e., "only one side of the story"), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.
*In 1989, (26) 284 lesbians were interviewed who were involved "in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship" during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reporting by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.
*In 1990, (27) nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in "violent" and 11 in "nonviolent" relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.

Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.

Fact #4: Homosexual domestic violence is a logger problem than gay bashing.
Gay activists and the media are quick to assert that discriminatory attitudes by 'straight' society lead directly to violence against homosexuals (i.e., 'gay bashing'). In fact, evidence suggests that homosexual domestic violence substantially exceeds, in frequency and lethality, any and all forms of 'gay bashing.' That is, the violence that homosexuals do to one another is much more significant than the violence that others do to homosexuals.

In 1995, a homosexual domestic violence consortium conducted a study (28) in six cities Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco where reports of anti-homosexual harassment or same sex domestic violence were tabulated.

The harassment incidents ranged from name calling (e.g., 'faggot,' 'queer') to actual physical harm or property damage. Homosexual domestic violence, on the other hand, referred only to incidents in which actual physical harm occurred or was seriously threatened (i.e., met the legal standard for domestic violence).

The results? Nationwide, (29) as well as in these cities, around half of anti-homosexual harassment reports in 1995 involved only slurs or insults, thus not rising to the level of actual or threatened physical violence.

In San Francisco, there were 347 calls about same-sex domestic violence and 324 calls about anti-homosexual harassment. In three of the five other cities there were also more calls reporting same-sex domestic violence than anti-homosexual harassment. The same ratio was reported for the study as a whole.

Given that half of the harassment reports did not rise to the level of violence, while domestic violence meant exactly that, if the data gathered by this consortium of homosexuals corresponds to the underlying reality, the physical threat to homosexuals from same-sex domestic violence is more than twice as great as the physical threat they experience from 'the outside.'

Rather than being a 'shelter against the storms of life,' as traditional marriage is sometimes characterized, being homosexually partnered actually increases the physical dangers associated with homosexuality.

Fact #5: Homosexuals make poor parents.
Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have generated supports what common sense would expect.

The largest study, (30) and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:
1. report having had sex with a parent,
2. experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter,
3. be sexually molested,
4. become homosexual or bisexual, and
5. report dissatisfaction with their childhood.

The various studies, (31) added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married.

Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue, (32) that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested.

Finally, substantial evidence (31) suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.

What Can We Conclude?

Homosexual marriage is a bad idea, While traditional marriage delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, gay marriage harms everyone it touches especially homosexuals themselves. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence and early death.

Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments to raise children.

58 posted on 07/06/2003 3:23:54 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mrustow; All
"New York Post both belong to News Corp., the conglomerate owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch"

Excuse me ... I thought News Corp owned WASHINGTON POST - not New York Post.
59 posted on 07/06/2003 3:31:59 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"not losing money"

Hmmmm? They have lost a 5% share of the market in newspaper sales - I'd say that's a GREAT LOSS OF MONEY!!
60 posted on 07/06/2003 3:35:02 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 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
Topics · Post Article

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