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

Skip to comments.

Demand O'Reilly, Fox not silence Stephen Bennett
ConservativePetitions.com ^ | Petition opened January 13, 2003 | Phil Sheldon

Posted on 01/22/2003 2:22:30 PM PST by Remedy

As if Bill O'Reilly's on-air bludgeoning of Stephen Bennett wasn't enough, Fox News now is threatening a lawsuit to silence the truth and scuttle a much-needed ministry that helps homosexuals.

Bennett, a former homosexual, was ambushed and verbally battered by the host of "The O'Reilly Factor" on September 3, 2002, in a nationally televised interview. The fiery host called Bennett an "idiot" and a "religious fanatic" on that day's radio and TV broadcasts. O'Reilly then compared the Christian recording artist to the "Islamic militants who blew up the World Trade Center" on the following night's broadcast.

In doing so, O'Reilly insulted not just Bennett but millions of Americans who believe the Bible and have an honest and sincere love for Jesus Christ. Are you an idiot, like O'Reilly says, for believing the Bible? Are you a religious fanatic for having faith that God can transform people? Then sign the petition to O'Reilly and Fox in support of Bennett continuing to speak the truth. Ask O'Reilly to stop mocking God, His word and His people.

Stephen Bennett did not ask for this effort on his behalf, but his ministry and God's honor are worthy of it. Here's your opportunity to take a righteous stand and help God influence a man who influences America.

Stephen Bennett Ministries released a one-hour audio tape program, called "The O'Reilly Shocker," to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ and confront O'Reilly's distorted theological remarks, his public support of homosexual special rights and his disparaging comments against the Bible and Christians worldwide. The sound bites allow listeners to hear for themselves the contempt and hate used. The clips are essential for Bennett to properly respond to O'Reilly's claim that those who take the Bible literally are "holy rollers" and "fanatics" who want homosexuals to go to hell.

Obviously seeking to add financial injury to insult, Fox claims Bennett's use of the excerpts is a copyright infringement, despite the fact O'Reilly on Jan. 7 used several minutes of copyrighted audio clips from Phil Donohue's show on MSNBC, for commercial purposes, only to mock Donahue. Fox's law firm has warned Bennett not only to stop distributing the tape but to turn over all remaining copies. If Bennett does not comply, Fox will file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

But the lawsuit isn't the key to this issue. It's O'Reilly's continuing efforts to silence the truth. Bennett, a former homosexual, seeks to help, not hurt, homosexuals. From his experience and that of thousands of others, Bennett offers great hope that NO ONE is born homosexual and that complete change is entirely possible.

He became a Christian in 1992 and completely abandoned his homosexual past. Today, happily married more than nine years to his wife Irene, he advocates the traditional family and takes a vocal stand against the promotion of homosexuality to America and our children.

Calling the threat "retaliation against Steve for exposing O'Reilly's unwavering support for the homosexual agenda," Senior Litigation Counsel Michael DePrimo promises the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy will "vigorously defend Bennett against any lawsuit brought by Fox News or O'Reilly."

But your help still is needed: Don't let Fox and O'Reilly continue to mistakenly call anyone a "fanatic" who knows God can and will rescue men and women from homosexuality. We must make a special effort to help O'Reilly and others realize Bennett is speaking the truth, backed by successful results. A flood of petitions may not change obstinate minds or hardened hearts, but it will let Fox and O'Reilly know Bennett represents not a fringe few but the mainstream of American Christianity on this crucial issue.

O'Reilly has stated he has "problems with the Old Testament," doesn't believe the Epistles "because they are not the Gospel" and sees much of the Bible as allegorical. Yet if O'Reilly has made himself an enemy of God and Bible-believing Christians, then we must love him and pray for him as Jesus instructs in Matthew 5:44. To correct O'Reilly's mistaken impression, we must let him know we are praying for -- not against -- homosexuals. Though the petition below chides O'Reilly and his network, after signing you'll learn more about how your prayers can bless Bill and the homosexuals he so viciously champions.

There is something different, deeper about this issue. O'Reilly's success springs from his opinionated views and his willingness to allow those on the other side of an issue to present their arguments. When it comes to homosexuality, however, O'Reilly strangely becomes a hypocrite unwilling to engage in rational discussion.

And now he is reaching for his lawyers to keep the facts of his attack on Bennett and the truth about homosexuality silenced. Don't let him or the network get away with such unprofessional and disrespectful conduct. Forgive him, yes, but let him know his disparaging, derogatory remarks are an insult to all Bible-believing Christians. Stand up for Bennett and be counted! Together, Lord willing, we can make a difference in American society.

Phil Sheldon
ConservativePetitions.com

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION!
Then email everyone you know!


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexuality
Fox News to sue ex-'gay' activist? Bill O'Reilly engaged in heated debate with guest EXCERPTS

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse."

"He's a libertarian who relishes the fact that he doesn't care what you talk about, but we have to have that right of free speech," Bennett said of O'Reilly. "Yet when it comes to me now speaking out – never saying anything nasty about anybody but just addressing the issues – he does everything possible to silence me."

Arecording artist and national speaker, Bennett's Huntington, Conn.-based group, Stephen Bennett Ministries, says that it offers help to people who want to "come out" of the homosexual lifestyle.

Bennett, who is married with two children, also is a spokesman for the lobby group Concerned Women for America, which just prior to the Sept. 3 interview criticized O'Reilly for telling the homosexual magazine The Advocate that he favored homosexual rights.

However, Bennett's legal defense, the American Family Association, maintains that the tape is legal because it uses excerpts from the interview for the purpose of commentary.

Michael DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the AFA's Center for Law and Policy, told WND that his reading of Hanswirth's letter is that Bennett cannot use any of Fox's material.

Bennett's tape, part of his group's regular tape-of-the-month series, is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment, DePrimo said.

"Certainly Mr. O'Reilly put it at issue when he called Mr. Bennett a religious fanatic and did not give him a chance to respond," he said.

DePrimo, who vowed to "vigorously defend" Bennett if Fox proceeds with a lawsuit, noted that it would not be legal "if somebody puts effort into a particular product and another person tries to appropriate it and sell it as his own."

After reviewing his tape again yesterday, Bennett said he has a total of about three minutes of audio clips from the Sept. 3 "O'Reilly Factor" interview and 57 minutes of original commentary.

John Aravosis of About.com published a defense of O'Reilly in which he said, "What's troubling about this confrontation isn't that militant fundamentalists are angry about what O'Reilly said, but that they chose to respond to a political difference of opinion by questioning the faith of their opponent."

Calling Bennett a "self-proclaimed 'ex-gay," Aravosis quotes the minister commenting on behalf of CWA, "For a man to come right out and say that he does not believe in the Old Testament ? I think that many Catholics across this nation as well as the world are offended by Bill O'Reilly claiming he's an Irish Catholic."

Bennett said that his tape includes Rev. John F. Harvey, a Roman Catholic priest who asserts that O'Reilly is not speaking for the Catholic Church, which views homosexuality as "intrinsically evil."

Harvey, who runs Courage, a spiritual support group in Manhattan for homosexuals, says O'Reilly is abusing his public celebrity platform and promoting a heresy against the Catholic Church. The priest calls O'Reilly "confused" and "filled with pride – putting himself above the Catholic Church."


Since Fox would have no interview without Bennett's participation, I fail to see why he doesn't have as much right to use the interview as Fox does. He's not using the entire show--just the portion that has his interview. Even if the court would disagree with that argument, I'd say Bennett is still protected under Fair Use.

I personally think Fox is making a big mistake by going ahead with this suit. A lot of us think O'Reilly made an ass of himself, and we are entitled to that opinion. I'd actually forgotten about this, but now I see that O'Reilly is just one ass amoung others at Fox.2 posted on 01/03/2003 4:55 AM CST by Lion's Cub

The fact is, however, that unless Bennett signed some form before appearing on the show that says he has no right to comment or use the segment, that it is a part of his "life."

If it were an outsider using the O'Reilly segment, fine, maybe they shouldn't be able to use it without some restrictions. In this case, however, this is a "live" segment, not a movie or a production. Since the 2 people who appear "live" are O'Reilly and Bennett, either of them should have access to those moments of their own lives. 4 posted on 01/03/2003 5:08 AM CST by xzins

He was was off base and O'Reilly once again proved that he is the one who borders on the fanatical when it comes to this issue.6 posted on 01/03/2003 5:22 AM CST by glory

He has taken positions on some things that I think disqualify him as a conservative. I believe that he is trying to gain listeners by being confrontational without regard to the issues.9 posted on 01/03/2003 5:41 AM CST by FreePaul

He;s very SOFT on Homosexual adoptions. I can HARDLY WATCH HIM anymore. He shows NOTHING of his Catholicism on TV.10 posted on 01/03/2003 5:48 AM CST by Claire Voyant

For those that think O'Reily is a conservative - This issue should dispel that rumor.11 posted on 01/03/2003 5:49 AM CST by TheBattman

O'Reillys a gun grabber, nothing libertarian about him.27 posted on 01/03/2003 6:31 AM CST by steve50

I generally like and agree with O'Reilly.......but he's flat dead-wrong on this one.35 posted on 01/03/2003 6:51 AM CST by RightOnline

Christians should not be surprised at O'Reilly's attitude. It is what one would expect from a blind unbeliever. Unbelievers behave in this way because there is a veil over their hearts. O'Reilly has a strong sense of right and wrong, but it is based on worldly standards.53 posted on 01/03/2003 9:01 AM CST by exmarine

If this was not affecting the ratings of O'Reilly then I don't think that FOX would even be wasting their time. O'Reilly's 15 minutes of fame with conservatives is coming to an end.57 posted on 01/03/2003 9:10 AM CST by truthandlife

I am fed up with O'Reilly and am beginning to feel the same way about Fox News.73 posted on 01/03/2003 9:37 AM CST by Renatus

I do not listen to Bill Oreilly since I heard him say on the radio that Fundamentalist Christians were as dangerous as Fundamentalist Muslims. I am not making this up. He actually said this!! I'm sure he thinks everyone should be Fundamentalist Oreillys. He needs to get a grip.106 posted on 01/03/2003 10:19 AM CST by TexKat

I don't know about the "confused" part, but O'Reilly surely is "filled" with something.124 posted on 01/03/2003 11:08 AM CST by Ditto

More than anything, the Gay-stapo is afraid of the truth coming out about anything that hurts its agendas. They will do whatever it takes to stifle evidence of their true intents and motives. That's why most people who have heard of "Fistgate" have never heard the tape of it. 133 posted on 01/03/2003 12:05 PM CST by L.N. Smithee

Mr. Bennet has the right to use the interview since he was in it. Fox is wrong on this one. And yes Bill O'Reilly is a hack liberal posing as a conservative, Who in addition knows nothing about the Bible and where it came from. A man who thinks the Bible is just a bunch of stories and myths cannot be trusted to comment on it. 139 posted on 01/03/2003 12:42 PM CST by ColdSteelTalon

When O'Reilly first came on Fox, I enjoyed him, but the tone and tenor of his show declined with every new million he made. Now I shut him off quickly if I flip on his show. He is RAVING, chewing up the scenery and his interviews make no sense. There is something simply wrong with him--his outbursts and anger are very personal, unpleasant and--ultimately, boring.172 posted on 01/04/2003 9:52 AM CST by Mamzelle

1 posted on 01/22/2003 2:22:30 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
REMEMBER

CAN PREVENT

FUNDRAISERS

.

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD



2 posted on 01/22/2003 2:24:15 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
If O'Reilly called Bennett an idiot and a religious fanatic, then he probably is. O'Reilly normally only goes ballastic like that when there is a total idiot on the show.

As far as "fair use" O'Reilly can pull a sound byte and present it on the show. Bennett cant copy the O'reilly show to tape and then sell or offer the tape as part of their fund raising. Are they too dumb to hire a lawyer too or do they just like to make wild accusations about Fox News trying to silence them when all they are doing is making sure their copyright is enforced.

3 posted on 01/22/2003 2:39:33 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
No, O'Reilly supported Rosie O'Donnell's pro-homosexual adoption and gay marriage platform - and brought her on to bash Jeb Bush more than once. Sorry, but O'Reilly's consistently on the wrong side of the gay-abortion debate and has slandered Jeb more than once. Jeb wouldn't do the same to O'Reilly because Jeb's a far better, and stronger man.
4 posted on 01/22/2003 2:52:45 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl (289 Million Americans Avoid Peace Rallies. Press cover-up bigger than Watergate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
O'Reilly's show is O'Reilly's show. FOX pays him to do his show. O'Reilly made his show popular by doing what he does-- express his opinions and be "fair and balanced." Also, copyright law is copyright law. It exists for everyone. [Also, I think O'Reilly is annoying, although he has his good points.]
5 posted on 01/22/2003 2:59:19 PM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
If O'Reilly called Bennett an idiot and a religious fanatic, then he probably is. O'Reilly normally only goes ballastic like that when there is a total idiot on the show.

O'Reilly normally goes ballistic on idiots, but at times, obviously like this one, he doesn't choose his targets too intellegently

As far as "fair use" O'Reilly can pull a sound byte and present it on the show. Bennett cant copy the O'reilly show to tape and then sell or offer the tape as part of their fund raising. Are they too dumb to hire a lawyer too or do they just like to make wild accusations about Fox News trying to silence them when all they are doing is making sure their copyright is enforced.

You must not have read the article too well. The Fox News audio lasts 3 minutes in a one hour tape. That's a significant amount of original content, and quite defensible under the copyright "fair use" doctrine.

The other point you missed is that the guy already has a defense organization. I forget the name already, but you can go back to the article and find it.

6 posted on 01/22/2003 3:00:52 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I no longer watch O'Reilly ..that was the last straw..there are good reruns on at that time!
7 posted on 01/22/2003 3:06:10 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Time for Bill O'Reilly to go over to CNN with all the other media heathens. And if keeps up his pro homosexuality, anti-Christian rhetoric at CNN we can burn him at the stake!
8 posted on 01/22/2003 3:18:39 PM PST by JebBush2008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
read later
9 posted on 01/22/2003 3:52:48 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Remedy; RnMomof7; MacDorcha; Cyrano; Tennessee_Bob; dorben; shaggy eel; RobRoy; EternalVigilance; ..
The fiery host called Bennett an "idiot" and a "religious fanatic" on that day's radio and TV broadcasts. O'Reilly then compared the Christian recording artist to the "Islamic militants who blew up the World Trade Center" on the following night's broadcast.

Gosh... OReilly's sounding just like Tom Daschle!

Weird - cuz just the other week he was talking about his own faith.

Maybe he was just giving the crowd what he thought they wanted. Never been too terribly impressed with OReilly. I just watch him as comic relief once in a while.

11 posted on 01/22/2003 4:15:00 PM PST by Terriergal ("It's for the common good dontcha know!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madg
Evangelical Christian who attacks 'gay deathstyle' appointed to US Presidential panel on HIV
12 posted on 01/22/2003 4:16:50 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madg

harmed by their propaganda

St. Paul's Argument From Nature Against Homosexuality (Romans 1)

Sexual Abstinence Behind Uganda's AIDS Success Story

Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Some experts say the dramatic drop in HIV/AIDS infections in Uganda is proof that abstinence from sex is the best way to combat the deadly disease, especially in the world's hardest-hit area, sub-Saharan Africa.


13 posted on 01/22/2003 4:21:14 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madg
Harmed by their "propaganda". What, that Homosexuality is a choice, not a birth defect. Are you offended because it's true, because you caved on the issue yourself or because you're gay? You seem a bit more than a little flustered. He's right. It is a choice. And just as my stepbrother chose and unchose it, anyone else can too. It's a measure of character and strength of will. The propaganda is the notion that it's a birth defect. If it were, the Gay populace wouldn't have to talk so many people into being gay.

What has been done with the tape is no more than fair use. And it is defensable rather easily under US Statues governing fair use. Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

14 posted on 01/22/2003 4:34:08 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madg
"I always wanted a wife and kids." "Always wanted" hetero-erotic intimacy and procreation? That doesn't sound very "gay" to me.)

Either you haven't known any gay people ever or you are being dumb or misleading. And I don't know which. One of the friends of my family (Brother's best Friend's daughter) used to be lesbian. She always wanted a husband; but, kept a lesbian lifestyle. She made the choice to no longer be lesbian. Not by becoming christian. She just got up one day and realized how used and sleazy she felt and got away from it. She is now rather healthily married to a good man and has three children. And she wants nothing to do with lesbians or lesbianism.

what else did I miss in your hyper defensive rant?

15 posted on 01/22/2003 4:40:20 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
then it wasn't a sexual orientation... it was a choice.. Everybody, even as virgins, had SOME idea of whom they found attractive. They didn't "choose" that.

There isn't a difference. And boy are you ever wrong. I found at a younger age that I was attracted to Brunettes. Never looked at a blond, Nor did I bother with redheads. Over time, I found it isn't the hair color, the eye color or necessarily the shape that gets me going in the attraction area. I'm attracted to blondes and redheads now as well as brunettes. Size doesn't much matter though hight can be a little odd at times. It isn't set in stone. That you are trying to sell it as such is the absurdity. When one collects things, one will start off buying what they can get their hands on with what money they have. I can speak to this from experience too; but, it applies to the way we approach everything. When I collected Marx dolls, I started with pieces that were incomplete and bought accessories to complete them. I developed and "eye" for what was good and bad in the dolls and accessories and learned quickly what to watch out for and what was the best.

The taste is driven by the interest. The more the interest is fueled, the more the discerning eye, etc shapes opinion of what's best for the subject at hand. People say they don't have a choice in what they find attractive. Sorry. That is a lie. Julia Roberts is attractive - if she weren't a putz. Whoa, Just made a choice there. Looked at it, said momentarily (WOW), then (UGH). Attraction followed by repulsion. Same subject. It takes more than repeating the banter of the left to make it true. Fact is in this case, you can't make it true. Life experience tells us it's bunk. Homosexuality is a choice. Always has been. I think a good many prisoners can tell you that. They choose it inside prison so they can get sexual release. People outside of prison do it for the same reason.. and often when rejected by women and of low self esteem.

If you want to pull the wool over your own eyes, that's your problem. But don't polish a turd and tell me it's a diamond.

17 posted on 01/22/2003 9:37:45 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
He's right. It is a choice.

Really? Can you be convinced to be sexually attracted to other men if you are a man?

And just as my stepbrother chose and unchose it, anyone else can too.

HorseHillary! Your stepbrother is a bi-sexual,not a homosexual.

It's a measure of character and strength of will.

It's a matter of telling a lie.

The propaganda is the notion that it's a birth defect. If it were, the Gay populace wouldn't have to talk so many people into being gay.

HorseHillary again! There is no amount of talk on the planet Earth that could make me sexually attracted to other men. It just ain't there,and it can never be there. If you could be talked into this though,it would mean that you are a bi-sexual yourself.

18 posted on 01/22/2003 9:52:21 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: madg
While that rates a "duh" as far as ADVERTISING is concerned, his inferred claim is deceptive. If "reparative therapy/transformation ministries" were a product on a supermarket shelf... the Federal Trade Commission would have shut them down for FRAUD many years ago.

One more thing. His ministry intones something that you don't consider. It's a ministry. And he makes claim that God can change people. When people take God and his word seriously, that is true. But God works through faith, not formulas, incantations, powders and magic wands. One doesn't say magic words and produce predetermined results in Christianity. Not after the fashion of applying a bandaid. Either one becomes a christian and takes it seriously, or one plays games and does not take it seriously. Most do the latter, not the former. You can guess results based on that fact alone. And it is a fact. There are more pew warmers claiming to be christians because they think it's about "being good" and showing up in church once a week, saying a certain number of prayers and not cussing. You get the picture. It's no big secret.

The only people who have a more distorted view of christianity than people playing at christianity is the entire planet that think the same thing as the game players because they never bother to learn what it really is all about. Most are turned off by it because it says you have to lead an upright life. Dang, no threesoms with a pair of lesbians (for some of the perverse guys), no lying (whole world), No cheating (guess), No being decietful, etc. In essence, think of the nicest, kindest, most upright "prude" (for lack of a better word at the moment) you ever knew and quadruple it. That's what Christians are to work for with God as their help. Most people don't like it because it shuts down all their options to be perverse, obnoxious, drunk, lazy and otherwise comfortably sickening. And yes, I'm aware this is a drastic simplification; but, as a christian, you don't look someone in the eye and say, 'nope, don't have any change' to the begger when you have a pocket full. You learn to be honest and deal with them forthrightly on the merits. Most would rather lie and slink away, neither helping nor teaching a lessen if needed.

People can and do change. God changes people. And homosexality is a choice, not a happenstance controlled by birth and chemical makeup. God created beings with innies and outies. They fit together to make more beings with innies and outies. The purpose is procreation. The confusion comes in when the respect for that is thrown out the window and a biological matter is turned into sport or leisure fun. You know, something to suspend boredome. The most profound creative act that any human being can be involved in lowered to the level of tawdry cheapness as entertainment. There is nothing wrong with sex in the right context. But it isn't a right, or a basic need of life. Love may be, but the two are not synonymous. And that is the insipid thing about calling sex "love making". It's more like "love faking" because many will lie about being in love with someone and breach a solemn trust in order to placate their urges instead of excersizing restraint and self control. - Self control and restraint. Smacks of responsibility - the ultimate cussword for liberals. Truth ticks people off. The more it uncovers and betrays, the nastier the response is from those trying to hide from it..

19 posted on 01/22/2003 10:05:00 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete; Havoc
sneakypete is a victum of Homosexual Propaganda Campaign Based On Hitler's 'Big Lie' Technique

Family Research Report - May-Jun 2002

Problems With the Term 'Homosexual'

Webster's dictionary4 defines 'homosexual' by "sexual attraction toward [or relations with] a person of the same sex" (p. 464). Yet as both the FRI and the Kinsey studies demonstrate, sexual flexibility rather than a fixed interest in or exclusive performance with members of the same sex is characteristic of 'homosexuals.' Almost all 'homosexuals,' in fact, manage to have sex with the opposite sex.

For example, Laumann, et al.5, reported that, of men with male sex partners since puberty, a mere 10% reported only having had sex with other males, and of women with female sex partners since puberty, only 5% reported only having had sex with other females. For those who reported same-sex partners since age 18, about 20% of such men and 10% of such women only had sex with others of their sex. Put in population terms, Laumann, et al. estimated that only 0.6% of "all men" and 0.2% of "all women" have, since puberty, only had sex with their own sex (p. 312).

Given the apparent changeability of human sexual behavior, the term 'homosexual' -- rather than describing 'a condition' or 'state of being' that 'causes' sexual desire to fixate on one's same sex -- seems an inappropriate label for most of those who have same-sex sex. The term certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of 'homosexuals' exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the 'compulsive' nuances associated with the term 'homosexual' either.

An Alternative Term: Omnisexual

As an alternative to 'homosexual,' if we were to consider individuals with a history of sexual relations with both sexes, or who could have sex with both sexes, or who desired to have sex with both sexes, as "omnisexual," very few, if any, 'homosexuals,' would fail to qualify. By shedding the relatively recent, largely psychiatric, and political term 'homosexual' for 'omnisexual' we might get rid of the implication that 'homosexuals' have an unchangeable 'orientation' -- a notion clearly at odds with the empirical reality.

In fact, the Kinsey Institute's use of "sexual preference" far better matches the sexual choices that omnisexuals make. And when an omnisexual decided to quit homosexual activity for heterosexual activity, or changed his mind again, it would not appear linguistically odd, but would instead describe the situation neatly. Better still, there would not be the same 'mystery' about the choice, involving often untestable theories about 'unconscious needs,' parental miscues, or hormonal or genetic differences. Rather, sexual flexibility would be seen as something that omnisexuals often exhibit.

Conclusion

If perhaps only 3-4% of adults have at some time in their lives either engaged in homosexuality or would currently declare themselves interested in doing so by saying they were 'homosexual' or 'bisexual,' and maybe an additional 1-2% or so of the remaining adults are 'ex-homosexuals,' then perhaps 4-6% of adults have been 'homosexuals' or homosexually involved at some point in their lives.

Additionally, about 1-2% of current heterosexuals say that they have some homosexual desire -- i.e., are homosexually 'tempted.' It therefore seems possible that the total pool of adults who are, and who always have been, exclusively heterosexual may be on the order of 92-94%. But perhaps 6-8% of the population is omnisexual -- these individuals can be and often are involved in homosexual relationships at some time.

 

 

20 posted on 01/23/2003 10:50:37 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
sneakypete, no one is born/oriented to eat feces.

Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ...

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).


A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).


Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

21 posted on 01/23/2003 10:56:21 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete; Dave S
BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion

As the Court notes, ante at 192 , the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p*197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

22 posted on 01/23/2003 10:58:32 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
sneakypete is a victum of Homosexual Propaganda Campaign Based On Hitler's 'Big Lie' Technique

Oh yeah,and you are the brainiac who is going to set me "right",right?

23 posted on 01/23/2003 11:08:10 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Gay Rights Strategies Involve Conscious Deception And Wholesale Manipulation of Public Opinion
24 posted on 01/23/2003 11:15:31 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete

Oh yeah,and you are the brainiac who is going to set me "right",right?

Your cure for:

FACTO

\Fac"to\, adv. [L., ablative of factum deed, fact.] (Law) In fact; by the act or fact.

pho·bi·a

( P ) Pronunciation Key (fb-) n.

A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
A strong fear, dislike, or aversion

25 posted on 01/23/2003 11:18:28 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
O'Reilly normally only goes ballastic like that when there is a total idiot on the show.

Translation, anyone who disagrees with him.

I know nothing about this particular guest, but I have an opinion of O'Reilly.

26 posted on 01/23/2003 11:20:27 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Thank you Rem.
27 posted on 01/23/2003 12:55:27 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I'm not afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality. I just have zero interest in it. You are the one who seems to be obsessed about it,not me.
28 posted on 01/23/2003 1:22:49 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: madg
I'm with you. I'm no copyright attorney, but if you're making money off of someone else's intellectual property, then there's going to be a problem. Mr. Bennett is not giving this stuff away; he is selling it.

I don't agree with O'Reilly most of the time, but I think he's right about adoptions and unions. From a pragmatic standpoint, is it better for a child to exist in an unemotional foster system, or to be truely loved by another human being? In a "perfect" world, every kid would grow up in a married heterosexual two parent home. Sans that utopia, what are we left to deal with? And as to unions, I see no legitimate reason to stop two adults from entering into a binding contract where they share their "stuff" (ie. money, house, cars, etc.).

With that said, I can understand your concerns about Mr. Bennett and the possible negative consequences to the gay community. However, I do not believe the "gay-lifestyle" is in accordance with Christian teaching, and I also believe that through the power of God people can switch their sexual orientations. I sincerely believe Mr. Bennett offers a service that people can actually benefit from.

29 posted on 01/23/2003 1:46:30 PM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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

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

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