sex and law

Posted on May 4, 2007

I wrote a long time ago about a group of Christians who were arrested in Philadelphia for ‘hate crimes’, so I fully expected it to turn into a trend. Watching the antics of the weird group the Westboro Baptists who protest at soldiers funerals was another frightening thing, because I in no way believe that those people are Christians; they preach hate, using scripture in a manner that is not consistent with Christian teachings. Their contention is that God is killing our soldiers because we’ve become a nation of sodomites. As far as I can tell, it’s Islamofascists who are killing our soldiers, because they want to get rid of western culture.

The life expectancy of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man is 8-20 years less than for all men. “nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O’Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., ” Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.

Using four databases in 1998, another study suggested that homosexual activity could be associated with a shortened lifespan of 20-30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., ” Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? “, Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

They talk about the hazards of smoking, and the hazards of junk food, but studies show that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle can shave 10-20, even 30 years off of your life, yet there is no outrage about it. If you love someone, you get him and the family to treatment or help in order to help them recover from self-destructive bahaviors.

David Bass, 2006:

1. Sexually transmitted diseases â€“ Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

2. Risky behaviors â€“ Campaigns to foster so-called “safe sex” among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

3. Promiscuity â€“ A large percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

4. Domestic abuse â€“ A survey conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

5. Life span â€“ A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even under “the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years. Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large and often deadly to those who practice it?

Homosexuals need our tough love, not blind love. The problem with the gay agenda is that they bury facts that could save peoples’ lives in order for the ‘anything goes’ sexuality, which is dangerous.

Now we have an article by Matt Barber at Townhall, Fake Anti-â€œGayâ€ â€œHate Crimesâ€ Keep Piling Up, from May 3rd.

The Associated Press is reporting the latest in a string of fraudulent high profile â€œhate crimeâ€ reports by homosexual activists who are evidently having trouble coming up with legitimate incidents of â€œhate crimesâ€ against homosexuals to bolster their deceptive agenda. â€œNo problem, weâ€™ll just keep making them up,â€ apparently goes the mindset.

As Congress reportedly prepared to vote Thursday on â€œhate crimesâ€ bill H.R. 1592, the evidence is overwhelming. The entire concept is built on a foundation of fraud.

Very well-written and makes a devastating point of truth in the face of gay activists who also played a part in having homosexuality removed from the list of psychiatric disorders. The important point to be made there is – it was not because of new science that they forced the American Psychiatric Association to do that; it was because of political pressure.

Just like in the case of global warming, it’s not based on science – it’s based on politics.

“H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech,” according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund. (Unruh, 2007)

The House voted on this bill 237-180 yesterday. HR 1591 was introduced by our Islamist from Michigan, Rep. John Conyers, who might as well have swore on the Koran, not the Bible, when he got into office. (See this, his socialist and Islamist history exposed.) As a socialist and Islamist, it makes sense that he would deny a 100-year tradition of Judao Christian heritage here in the U.S., and in my opinion, is someone who’d rather see sharia law the ruling law of our land. What Conyers did, IMO, was what Bin Laden would do if he were elected into office; deny our laws. Of course his bill is means to an end; targeting Christianity, just as they do in the muslim world, to get rid of freedom of speech, just as they do in the muslim world, and the Christian religion in the United States, on which our laws are founded.

The White House stated “The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crimes based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However â€¦ if H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” the proposal is “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable.”

Previous: John Conyers, Socialist in the House

House Progressive Caucus and the Media

In other deviant sex news, even though the libs are trying to rewrite history, and recreate our laws along the lines of the Soviet Union, another point was made through the courts in Lawrence v Texas, when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy law in 2003. Today I’m disturbed to see that seems like no big deal to people. There was a time when sodomites were considered weirdos – now even the regular guy is saying ‘they’re just people too!’ What I shame, I think, because what they’re engaging in is IMO, deviant sexual behavior. Sex is very simply for the purpose of procreation; not for people of the same sex to be stimulating those organs. The union between a man and a woman can’t be recreated between two people of the same sex, even if one of them has a sex change, or between a man and a horse, or a woman and a dog. But that seems to be where we’re headed. Oh, and not to mention – fully sanctioning incest.

Captain Ed mentioned back in November that the Lawrence V. Texas decision would open a can of worms; “that polygamy, prostitution, and adult incest could be justified under such reasoning, and that although the law in question in Lawrence was indeed foolish and unwise, it did not violate the Constitution.” (CQ, May 2, 2007)

The Court used the equal-protection argument but it didn’t decide the case on that premise. This would have left the door open to the possibility that a state could outlaw both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy…thereby avoiding an equal protection challenge.

Instead, resorting to the mystical and elusive “right of privacy” going back to Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, the Court issued a decision that, at least in respect of private conduct, had a much wider reach than if it had used an equal protection analysis. Declining to establish an explicit right of sodomy, the same right it had rejected 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court declared that any intimate relationship or behavior between consenting adults in private falls into the protected zone of privacy that the Court had created out of thin air in Griswold.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the state, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

Complementing and supporting its declaration of an absolute right to private consensual behavior, the Court also rejected Bowers’s reliance on the traditional Western condemnation of sodomy as a basis for anti-sodomy laws. While moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is not a trivial concern, said the Court,

[t]hese considerations do not answer the question before us…. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. ‘Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.’

So there you have it. The Judeo-Christian morality of Western and Christian civilization, which goes back millenia, and which as recently as 1986 was still treated as a legitimizing basis of our laws, has now been officially stripped of any authoritative role in our society as it pertains to personal and sexual conduct. The only authoritative principle is the right of consenting adults in private to do whatever they like. (View From the Right, June 27, 2003)

Jeff Jacoby’s article at the Boston Globe is mentioned in this post at CQ, which points out that we’re opening the floodgates to other types of deviant behavior such as adult incest.

View from the Right had it completely correct back in 2003:

Thus the unelected judges of the Supreme Court have taken the central credo of modern liberalism–do what you will, so long as it’s consensual–and made it the supreme law of the land. They have overturned existing tradition and existing legislation, and replaced them with their own tradition and legislation, from which there is no appeal. The libertarianism of liberalism, and the totalitarianism of liberalism, are part of one phenomenon.

It’s another reason that judicial activism is so frightening; legalizing deviant sexual behaviors as if the whole country believes they should be the norm.

I’m getting increasingly offended every time I see one of these articles; and the gay activists trying to legislate hate crime laws.