Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 NewsMax.com 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 1-5051-97 last
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, ping...you 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!....here 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.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

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]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; *SASU; scripter
PING
61 posted on 07/06/2003 3:37:08 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Excuse me ... I thought News Corp owned WASHINGTON POST - not New York Post.

Nope...NYPost, see list of NewsCorp newspapers here: http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html

It's their only U.S. paper.

62 posted on 07/06/2003 3:50:31 PM PDT by WorldWatcher1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman
You really hit the nail on the head!!!
I refuse to call them gay or lesbian...THEY ARE HOMOSEXUALS. I am not a homophobe, I am homo-disgusted!

63 posted on 07/06/2003 4:04:21 PM PDT by Tahoe3002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
The Indianapolis Star has been running about 1 pro-homosexual story a week lately, and numerous pro-homo editorials and letters/week. For an area as conservative as Central Indiana that is almost like shouting approval from the roof tops. And no there was no reporting about the Dirkhising story, but a blizzard of articles about the Shepard incident.
64 posted on 07/06/2003 4:19:13 PM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman
I have longed made it my habit to not use the term gay just for that reason. I also enforce it on my friends and family members. If they are talking about homosexuals then they must use that term or lesbian or we do not converse about the subject. You are absolutley right in your point about letting them control the language. I have always said that those who control the language control the discussion and those that control the discussion win the argument and those that win the argument make the rules. It is time we start controlling the language and take back our country.
65 posted on 07/06/2003 4:27:48 PM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: redangus
about 1 pro-homosexual story a week lately

I think you have a good reason not to buy the paper anymore.

66 posted on 07/06/2003 4:34:39 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WorldWatcher1
Okay - thanks!
67 posted on 07/06/2003 4:50:13 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
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.

My favorite stealth education story is, IIRC, from massnews. A woman who worked for the state (MA) told a group of parents with kids in the public schools, about the wonderful gay sex she was teaching kids -- stuff like fisting. Unbeknownst to the "sex educator," a parent tape-recorded the lecture, which was perfectly legal for her to do. When the parent publicized what gays were pushing on kids, the sex pusher SUED the parent, claiming that the latter had violated HER privacy rights, by taping the lecture. Naturally, the sex pusher was supported by any number of gay activist groups. I believe that the courts refused to accept her "privacy" claim. (But that was pre-Lawrence.)

The claim by a civil servant, that she had privacy rights over the public lecture she had given at taxpayer expense, was the last straw for me, regarding gay claims about ... anything. The same phonies would frequently complain about "privatization": meanwhile, they seek to variously privatize or publicize everything, according to what they consider expedient at any given moment.

68 posted on 07/06/2003 5:04:53 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: blam
"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."

Sandy Koufax was not gay, who really cares.

Answer: Richard Johnson, whoever fed him the phony story (assuming he didn't make it up himself), and thousands of gay activists within and without the media. If nobody cared, why do think people would conspire to smear him as gay, Einstein? I also think you're missing the point of the story -- gay media activists are indifferent to the truth.

69 posted on 07/06/2003 5:11:47 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
What you have said in this post, the Jim Dwyer segment...IMHO, Could be applied to any Media Outlet ABCNNBCBS/NYT/LAT/WP/BG ..."the Sins of Ommissions". :|

The problem today, is that the censorship is so powerful, that you rarely find a mainstream journalist who will write, or the managing editor who will publish, the sort of story Dwyer was able to get into print 12 years ago. If nobody breaks the black wall of silence, no one will know about the sins of omission.

70 posted on 07/06/2003 5:15:25 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jpl
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.

I agree with much of what you say, with one proviso: some of the elites have decided to gut America's culture, but other elites (alleged conservatives -- neo and paleo -- in academia and the media) know what is happening, but are too cowardly or too lazy to fight back.

71 posted on 07/06/2003 5:19:40 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: onyx
My husband has a lot of homosexual patients. For the most part, they're depressed, alcoholic and suicidal.

Is your husband a sawbones or a headshrinker?

72 posted on 07/06/2003 5:20:38 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
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.

OK. If the Supreme Court ruled that there is NO 'sodomy' law, then Jesse died in a private/personal act. RIGHT?

73 posted on 07/06/2003 5:26:18 PM PDT by mommadooo3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Kindly stop confusing all the gay-promoters and Liberaltarians with facts!
74 posted on 07/06/2003 5:29:53 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
The latter. :-)
75 posted on 07/06/2003 5:34:34 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; pram; RAT Patrol; FormerLib
PING
76 posted on 07/06/2003 5:40:20 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
Kindly stop confusing all the gay-promoters and Liberaltarians with facts!....I have a whole lot more!
77 posted on 07/06/2003 7:20:10 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
When the parent publicized what gays were pushing on kids, the sex pusher SUED the parent, claiming that the latter had violated HER privacy rights, by taping the lecture. Naturally, the sex pusher was supported by any number of gay activist groups. I believe that the courts refused to accept her "privacy" claim. (But that was pre-Lawrence.)

Well, there is no stopping them now. The Supreme Court's ruling has opened the doors to dangerous ramifications, one of the them is that schools will be free to teach children that sodomy is alright and normal, just like heterosexual couples, and homosexuals will be working to lower the age of consent and other perversions.

78 posted on 07/06/2003 7:20:33 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: onyx
"Gay mafia" is a good (and an accurate) name for them, but where does that leave NAMBDA? -- an off-shoot or their headquarters?

Hmmm, the Godfather?

79 posted on 07/06/2003 7:24:22 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
When did that happen????
80 posted on 07/06/2003 7:56:27 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul; Jhoffa_
What Causes Homosexual Desire and Can It Be Changed?
By Paul Cameron, Ph. D.

Most of us fail to understand why anyone would want to engage in homosexual activity. To the average person, the very idea is either puzzling or repugnant.
Indeed, a recent survey (1) indicated that only 14% of men and 10% of women imagined that such behavior could hold any "possibility of enjoyment."

The peculiar nature of homosexual desire has led some people to conclude that this urge must be innate: that a certain number of people are "born that way," that sexual preferences cannot be changed or even ended. What does the best research really indicate? Are homosexual proclivities natural or irresistible?

At least three answers seem possible.
The first, the answer of tradition, is as follows: homosexual behavior is a bad habit that people fall into because they are sexually permissive and experimental. This view holds rat homosexuals choose their lifestyle as the result of self-indulgence and an unwillingness to play by society rules.
The second position is held by a number of psychoanalysts (e.g., Bieber, Socarides). According to them, homosexual behavior is a mental illness, symptomatic of arrested development. They believe that homosexuals have unnatural or perverse desires as a consequence of poor familial relations in childhood or some other trauma.
The third view is "biological" and holds that such desires are genetic or hormonal in origin, and that there is no choice involved and no "childhood trauma" necessary.

Which of these views is most consistent with the facts? Which tells us the most about homosexual behavior and its origins? The answer seems to be that homosexual behavior is learned. The following seven lines of evidence support such a conclusion.

1) No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior
Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredible genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable. (9, 12) While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove at inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists.

2) People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned
Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors - how they "got that way." The first of these studies was conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s and involved 1700 homosexuals. The second, in 1970, (4) involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the "gay rights" movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins. Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.

In a 1983 study conducted by the Family Research Institute (5) (FRI) involving a random sample of 147 homosexuals, 35% said their sexual desires were hereditary. Interestingly, almost 80% of the 3,400 heterosexuals in the same study said that their preferences and behavior were learned (see Table 1 below).
Table 1
Reasons For Preferring: homosexuality (1940s and 1970)
*early homosexual experience(s) with adults and/or peers - 22%
*homosexual friends/ around homosexuals a lot - 16%
*poor relationship with mother - 15%
*unusual development (was a sissy, artistic, couldn't get along with own sex, tom-boy, et cetera) - 15%
*poor relationship with father - 14%
*heterosexual partners unavailable - 12%
*social ineptitude - 9%
*born that way - 9%

heterosexuality (1983)
*I was around heterosexuals a lot - 39%
*society teaches heterosexuality and I responded - 34%
*born that way - 22%
*my parents, marriage was so good I wanted to have what they had - 21%
*I tried it and liked it - 12%
*childhood heterosexual experiences with peers it was the ''in thing" in my crowd - 9%
*I was seduced by a heterosexual adult - 5%

While these results aren't conclusive, they tell something about the very recent tendency to believe that homosexual behavior is inherited or biologic. From the 1930s (when Kinsey started collecting data) to the early 1970s, before a "politically correct" answer emerged, only about 10% of homosexuals claimed they were "born that way." Heterosexuals apparently continue to believe that their behavior is primarily a result of social conditioning.

3) Older homosexuals often approach the young
There is evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is "handed down" from older individuals. The first homosexual encounter is usually initiated by an older person. In separate studies 60%, (6) 64%, (3) and 61% (10) of the respondents claimed that their first partner was someone older who initiated the sexual experience.

How this happens is suggested by a nationwide random study from Britain: (17) 35% of boys and 9% of girl said they were approached for sex by adult homosexuals. Whether for attention, curiosity, or by force, 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls succumbed. In the US, (1) 37% of males and 9% of females reported having been approached for homosexual sex (65% of those doing the inviting were older). Likewise, a study of over 400 London teenagers reported that "for the boys, their first homosexual experience was very likely with someone older: half the boys' first partner were 20 or older; for girls it was 43 percent." (13) A quarter of homosexuals have admitted to sex with children and underaged teens, (6,5,8) suggesting the homosexuality is introduced to youngsters the same way other behaviors are learned - by experience.

4) Early homosexual experiences influence adult patterns of behavior
In the 1980s, scholars (12) examined the early Kinsey data to determine whether or not childhood sexual experiences predicted adult behavior. The results were significant: Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one's first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females. A similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey Institute (4) study: there was a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In the FRI study (5) two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as adults; 95% of those whose first experience was heterosexual were likewise heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly progressive pattern of sexual behavior was reported for females.

It is remarkable that the three largest empirical studies of the question showed essentially the same pattern. A child's first sexual experiences were strongly associated with his or her adult behavior.

5) Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - especially religious convictions
Kinsey reported "less homosexual activity among devout groups whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously less active groups." (2) The 1983 FRI study found those raised in irreligious homes to be over 4 times more likely to become homosexual than those from devout homes. These studies suggest that when people believe strongly that homosexual behavior is immoral, they are significantly less apt to be involved in such activity.

Recently, because of the AIDS epidemic, it has been discovered that, relative to white males, twice as many black males are homosexual (14) and 4 times as many are bisexual. Perhaps it is related to the fact that 62% of black versus 17% of white children are being raised in fatherless homes. But even the worst racist wouldn't suggest that it is due to genetic predisposition.

Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.

6) Many change their sexual preferences
In a large random sample (5) 88% of women currently claiming lesbian attraction and 73% of men claiming to currently enjoy homosexual sex, said that they had been sexually aroused by the opposite sex,

85% of these "lesbians" and 54% of these "homosexuals" reported sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex in adulthood,
67% of lesbians and 54% of homosexuals reported current sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and 82% of lesbians and 66% of homosexuals reported having been in love with a member of the opposite sex.
Homosexuals experiment. They feel some normal impulses. Most have been sexually aroused by, had sexual relations with, and even fallen in love with someone of the opposite sex.

Nationwide random samples (11) of 904 men were asked about their sex lives since age 21, and more specifically, in the last year. As the figure reveals, 1.3% reported sex with men in the past year and 5.2% at some time in adulthood. Less than 1% of men had only had sex with men during their lives. And 6 of every 7 who had had sex with men, also reported sex with women.

It's a much different story with inherited characteristics. Race and gender are not optional lifestyles. They remain immutable. The switching and experimentation demonstrated in these two studies identifies homosexuality as a preference, not an inevitability.

7) There are many ex-homosexuals
Many engage in one or two homosexual experiences and never do it again–a pattern reported for a third of the males with homosexual experience in one study. (1) And then there are ex-homosexuals - those who have continued in homosexual liaisons for a number of years and then chose to change not only their habits, but also the object of their desire. Sometimes this alteration occurs as the result of psychotherapy; (10) in others it is prompted by a religious or spiritual conversion. (18) Similar to the kinds of "cures" achieved by drug addicts and alcoholics, these treatments do not always remove homosexual desire or temptation. Whatever the mechanism, in a 1984 study (5) almost 2% of heterosexuals reported that at one time they considered themselves to be homosexual. It is clear that a substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual preferences at any given time.

What causes homosexual desire?
If homosexual impulses are not inherited, what kinds of influences do cause strong homosexual desires? No one answer is acceptable to all researchers in the field. Important factors, however, seem to fall into four categories. As with so many other odd sexual proclivities, males appear especially susceptible:

1. Homosexual experience:
any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult
any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure (in a random survey, 5% of adult homosexuals vs 0.8% of heterosexuals reported childhood sexual involvements with elementary or secondary school teachers (5).
2. Family abnormality, including the following: a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother an absent, distant, or rejecting father a parent with homosexual proclivities, particularly one who molests a child of the same sex a sibling with homosexual tendencies, particularly one who molests a brother or sister the lack of a religious home environment divorce, which often leads to sexual problems for both the children and the adults parents who model unconventional sex roles condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle– welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends) into the family circle

3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood:
precocious or excessive masturbation exposure to pornography in childhood depersonalized sex (e.g., group sex, sex with animals) or girls, sexual interaction with adult males

4. Cultural influences:
a visible and socially approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration pro-homosexual sex education openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers (4% of Kinsey's and 4% of FRI's gays reported that their first homosexual experience was with a teacher) societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior

Can homosexuality be changed?
Certainly. As noted above, many people have turned away from homosexuality - almost as many people call themselves "gay."

Clearly the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behavior. Just as many heterosexuals control their desires to engage in premarital or extramarital sex, so some with homosexual desires discipline themselves to abstain from homosexual contact.

One thing seems to stand out: Associations are all-important. Anyone who wants to abstain from homosexual behavior should avoid the company of practicing homosexuals. There are organizations including "ex-gay ministries, " (18) designed to help those who wish to reform their conduct. Psychotherapy claims about a 30% cure rate, and religious commitment seems to be the most helpful factor in avoiding homosexual habits.

Family Research Institute PO Box 62640 Colorado Springs, CO 80962 Phone: (303) 681-3113

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

81 posted on 07/06/2003 8:08:45 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
When did that happen???? Disney & ABC (one in the same, knocked Salvage off in San Fransico last month and in New York just last week.
82 posted on 07/06/2003 8:12:10 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM

Now, this is interesting.

83 posted on 07/06/2003 8:13:32 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (BREAKING: Supreme Court Finds Right to Sodomy, Sammy & Frodo elated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Now, this is interesting.....and scary when you think about the spread of AIDS!!!!!
84 posted on 07/06/2003 8:18:25 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
PING
85 posted on 07/06/2003 8:23:03 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
You're preachin' to the choir, ma'am.
I suggest you post those articles from familyreseach on homosexualist websites. Of course, I also recommend you don't use your real email address or real name when you sign up for posting priveledges. :)
86 posted on 07/06/2003 9:03:32 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: pyx
You're preachin' to the choir, ma'am.....well sir, they're still many on FR who are unaware of some of these facts. Many have the live and let live attitude and do not realize that the Homosexual have an Agenda. Primarilly to silent hetrosexuals, recruit our children and invalidate any form of normal law.
87 posted on 07/06/2003 9:19:29 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: mommadooo3
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.

OK. If the Supreme Court ruled that there is NO 'sodomy' law, then Jesse died in a private/personal act. RIGHT?

Considering how awful the USSC has been in general, and as bad as certain sitting courts and individual justices have been, it's hard for a justice to attain notoriety for mental and moral incompetence. And yet, Sandra Day O'Connor has done just that! She will go down in the annals of the Court as one of the worst justices ever. She doesn't even seem to be hostile towards the Constitution; rather, she would appear to lead an life oblivious to it, in a separate, parallel universe.

88 posted on 07/06/2003 11:41:25 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: mrustow; joanie-f
"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."

Envision the day when the public finds its sanity & then goes absolutely nuts on the skulls of these warped SOBs who've declared war on the nation.
The result will surely make Krystalnact look like child's play.

The sycophant quisling mediot's state-of-the-art "Sin of Omission" modus operandi will destroy this Republic, eventually; or, the Republic will destroy the bastards who'd practice [it].

There can be no in between.

...thanks for the ping, mr.m.

89 posted on 07/07/2003 6:23:24 AM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
BTTT
90 posted on 07/07/2003 1:38:34 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
When the parent publicized what gays were pushing on kids, the sex pusher SUED the parent, claiming that the latter had violated HER privacy rights, by taping the lecture. Naturally, the sex pusher was supported by any number of gay activist groups. I believe that the courts refused to accept her "privacy" claim. (But that was pre-Lawrence.)

Well, there is no stopping them now. The Supreme Court's ruling has opened the doors to dangerous ramifications, one of the them is that schools will be free to teach children that sodomy is alright and normal, just like heterosexual couples, and homosexuals will be working to lower the age of consent and other perversions.

You know, since the Lawrence decision and their reaction to it, I wouldn't put anything past organized Gaydom or their elite supporters, including Sandra Day O'Connor.

91 posted on 07/07/2003 5:16:56 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Landru
Envision the day when the public finds its sanity & then goes absolutely nuts on the skulls of these warped SOBs who've declared war on the nation. The result will surely make Krystalnact look like child's play.

The sycophant quisling mediot's state-of-the-art "Sin of Omission" modus operandi will destroy this Republic, eventually; or, the Republic will destroy the bastards who'd practice [it].

There can be no in between.

You're very welcome, Mr. L.

Considering that the USSC has ruled the Constitution invalid, the scenario you paint could arise in response to any number of groups -- illegal aliens, racist blacks, or gays. What O'Connor said, in so many words, is that reason and the rule of law are "intolerant," and we can have "no tolerance for the intolerant." When reason and the rule of law are no longer tolerated, violence and madness are the only ways left to settle disputes.

92 posted on 07/07/2003 5:29:52 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
"...the scenario you paint could arise in response to any number of groups -- illegal aliens, racist blacks, or gays."

Yup.

"When reason and the rule of law are no longer tolerated, violence and madness are the only ways left to settle disputes."

That's right.
Of course you realize that today there'll be many who'll probably call the logic which delivered you to such a conclusion, "radical" & "reckless," right?
While in the (not so distant) future many more might just recognize it for what it really was: inevitable.

...kinda hope I'm no longer around should it come to pass.

93 posted on 07/07/2003 8:41:44 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
That's what I'm saying. I know and have known several gay people who were gay and basically conservative people. They don't act radical, don't flame their sexuality everywhere, don't walk around with conceit or a chip on their shoulders. They are just ordinary average Joes and Janes. But this radical gay faction that is gaining strength has no desire to be average Joes, they want to dominate and subjugate hetero society and make us second class citizens. And it's OK because they are gay.
94 posted on 07/07/2003 10:29:13 PM PDT by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
This is just frightening . How did these few people get so much power?
95 posted on 07/07/2003 10:44:57 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
The short answer: because people who could see what they were about, let them.
96 posted on 07/08/2003 2:26:06 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Landru
My only disagreement with you, L, is regarding the term "inevitable." It wasn't inevitable, but people will say so after the fact, because they don't want to admit their complicity in letting it happen. (Obviously, that doesn't apply to you, because you have not gone along with the flow.) As the Gerries said after War, "Wir haben nichts gewusst." We didn't know a thing.


97 posted on 07/08/2003 2:29:37 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-97 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