P. 1
Why Washington Should, Must and Will Ban Gay Marriage in USA Elections 2012

Why Washington Should, Must and Will Ban Gay Marriage in USA Elections 2012

|Views: 51|Likes:
Published by RogerWilliams
Why the people of Washington will ban "gay marriage" in 2012 ... 37 reasons ...
Why the people of Washington will ban "gay marriage" in 2012 ... 37 reasons ...

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: RogerWilliams on May 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/21/2012

pdf

text

original

WHAT PRICE POLITICAL/LEGISLATIVE/JUDICIAL DECEPTION AND TYRANNY IN WASHINGTON? ... IN THE USA?

PREAMBLE (37 additional reasons/answers are listed from page 3) Some clear answers are forthcoming from the Tar Heel State! Three important questions were asked by the people of North Carolina as evidence, logic, reason and detail were given their proper place in social policy in May 2012:

1. 2. 3.

When the evidence is ignored by our politicians and legislators, are we in the realm of a political/legislative tyranny that deliberately circumvents a credible conclusion the people would have come to had they been allowed to consider the facts? How reasonable is it to believe that “civil rights” ,,, and “gay rights” ... should not be based on evidence, reason, and detail? When the evidence is ignored by our politicians, legislators and the judiciary, are we at the end of the law, the end of reason?

Homosexuality and Transgenderism are the only two psycho-sexual/mental disorders so identified that set up as their ultimate and nonnegotiable goal the destruction of core creation-structures in the Judeo-Christian and American ethos ... fact, truth, evidence, manhood, womanhood, sex, family, marriage ...! How significant is this? The people of North Carolina focused on seven fundamental analytical perspectives which some politicians in the USA are prepared to lie to their teeth about... or completely ignore. After the very liberal Justice Kirby, the people recognized that good law should be based on good data, and the very least that our politicians and legislators can do is to familiarize themselves with the details!

1.

They understood, with Justice Antonin Scalia in his written/read dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, that “gay rights” ... and thereby “gay marriage” ... threaten entire swathes of the law of the land, portending anarchy in the name of defending a mental/psychosexual disorder... and pro-gay politicians completely ignore the threat to the national ethos, citing Quinnipiac “polls” and an “evolution of thought” instead: “... This effectiv ely decr ees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotio n of majoritari an sexu al morality is not even a legitimate state interest , none of the abov e- mentio ned laws can survive rational-basis review....” No one ever addresses the astonishingly bad and “activist-court” inspired law ... dissected step by step in his dissent ... that Antonin Scalia reveals Lawrence V. Texas to be! How much more, then, does a refusal to consider the implications of the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement“ indict recklessly irresponsible politicians?

2.

They understood, with Kathleen Melonakos (“Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Mdeical Consequences?”), the Surgeon-General (FDA Document 90-4239) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) “FastFacts on HIV/AIDS 2010”, that some politicians and legislators in 2012 are so bent on an activist pro-gay electioneering agenda that they were prepared to lie by omission ... or else ignore the country’s medical establishment ... about the astonishing fact that the gay “lifestyle” needs entire medical brigades to support it, or else an entire national health policy built on the premise of “behaviour accommodation” rather than the strong demands for “behaviour modification” suggested by the common-sense of epidemiological protocol: The Surgeon-General: "... Condoms provide some protection, but anal i n t e r c o u r s e i s s i m p l y t o o d a n g e r o u s a p r a c t i c e . . . " ( " C o n d o m s a n d s e x u a l l y transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA Document 90-4239). Why are recklessly indulgent politicians and legislators wilfully ignoring these facts? “... As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals. This, to me, is tragic, when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help...” “... Dr. Satinover brilliantly laid out in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth the solid, irrefutable evidence that there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse....” “... Diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable can be classified as follows: Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).[iv] Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex—not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle?[v] People with this whole cluster of behavior patterns are somehow "normal"?...” The CDC asks: Why are recklessly indulgent politicians and legislators willfully ignoring these facts?

Kathleen Melonakos asks:


MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).. MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).


While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522– 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men). MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Note that the CDC has, apparently under pressure, had to remove that last statement from later editions of the article ... we should ask them to explain the reasons why ... and to publish the original data that led them to that fateful conclusion!

3.

They understood that, as to America the “secular state” relative to “gay rights”, we have yet to find a more concise statement on the relationship between state, government, man and God as that offered by Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier in the online article “Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” (www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). Ad nauseam, we seek recourse yet again to those words: “… When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of selfgovernment—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement...."

4.

They understood that Dr. Joseph Nicolosi in “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf ) summed up the social pathos generated by a current crop of politicians and gay-activists in these fatal words: “…Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right...” “… All three great pioneers of psychiatry—Freud, Jung and Adler—saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective….’

5.

They understood, with Dr. Charles Socarides in “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality”” that some politicians and legislators have shown gross immaturity and naiveté in accommodating gay-activism rather than the science America’s finest minds have produced ... and perilous consequences will accrue in left unchallenged: “ … Should we dismiss our scientific findings for social/political reasons? Joseph Stalin's insistence on substituting Lamarckian concepts in place of those of Mendelian inheritance for political purposes and the serious consequences to the science of genetics immediately came to my mind. We psychoanalytic clinicians had long been and continue to be in the vanguard of protecting our homosexual patients against assertions of degeneracy and unfair laws. After all, it was Freud who first admitted homosexuals and others were sexually deviant into the consultation room as respected and worthy patients on a par with till those suffering from emotional disorders of any kind. Despair would be created within the individual homosexual who wished help. The homosexual would forfeit his mammalian heritage, the chance to engage in the male-female design; Suicides among those with gender identity disorder might well increase. Where would individuals get help if they could not turn to psychiatry? The individual homosexual who wished to be helped, to rid himself of his condition, would be doomed by pronouncements of the Board of Trustees, family and friends would despair. Psychiatric residents would be reluctant to enter an area of psychiatric research where they would only receive attack, belittlement, and demeanment. Thus there would be a decrease in both our knowledge and psychiatric research in this condition. By declaring a condition a "non-condition," a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years, for example, the Report of the Committee of Cooperation with Governmental (Federal) Agencies of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1955); the New York Academy of Medicine Report (1964); the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch of the APA done in 1970-72 (Socarides, et. al., 1973)….”

6.

They agreed with Peter Sprigg (“The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage”) that no member of the current administration in 2012 has had the political courage to rebut in any sane fashion the stupendous fallout of a decision to force gay-marriage upon an unsuspecting public in the USA... and the fact that a complicit media (NBC, ABC, The New York Times ... among others) will never touch these publications since they completely invalidate the partisanship and bias that these news outlets have adopted. They understood and agreed with Dr, Paul McHugh in “Surgical Sex” that a reckless preoccupation with avenging recent political defeats to political/legislative tyranny in New Jersey and North Carolina has forced an election tactic for November 2012 called “go for

7.

broke” ... but that the fundamental defect in that strategy STILL is : “...We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it...."

37 REASONS WHY NORTH CAROLINA VOTED NO TO GAY MARRIAGE!
(20 at FRC’s “Ten Arguments from Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage” and Sprigg’s “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage”) REASON 21: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... REASSESSED THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY & TRANSGENDERISM Dr Paul McHugh: “Surgical Sex” http://www.policystudies.ca/documents/Surgical_Sex_Change.pdf Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “.....We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it….” REASON 22: NORTH CAROLINA REJECTED THE EFFORT BY A COMPLICIT MEDIA TO SWAMP IT WITH DISINFORMATION! Lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson ... on Gay America’s determination with hijacking Black America’s struggle! (“Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89): “... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade. The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown: (1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination … (2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational … (3) … causing substantial injury … (4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status … (5) … which has no element of moral fault....” REASON 23: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... AGAIN REJECTED PROBABLE GAY-MILITANT INTIMIDATION! “Matt Gurney: California's gay marriage vote sparks retribution” Posted: November 14, 2008, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/14/matt-gurney-california-s-gay-marriage-vote-sparks-retribution.aspx “….Democracy requires voters to sometimes decide painful, contentious issues. An absolute prerequisite to that is being able to rest assured that one may cast their vote – and yes, donate their money – safe in the knowledge that their legally-discharged democratic duty will not expose them to vigilante retribution or political intimidation. Eckern chose to step aside without a fight, and seems genuinely mortified to have caused offence. I cannot help but wonder, though, what would have happened if he'd stuck by his guns and simply stated that how he spent his money was his business? Would the California Musical Theater have championed their employee's right to vote his conscience, or would they have exercised political censorship by finding some way to turf him for supporting Yes on 8? Scott Eckern is an accidental symbol, a man thrust into the spotlight by the vagaries of chance and the realities of instant electronic communication. But there are thousands of others like him who have been left equally exposed to revenge or social stigmatization for disagreeing with another person's opinion. Democracy cuts both ways, and financial supporters of gay marriage are just as vulnerable to retaliation as those who opposed it. The aftermath of this campaign has already turned ugly, and if the situation deteriorates further, lives could well be endangered. When contacted for comment, Andrew Pugno, a spokesman for the Yes on 8 Campaign, wrote, "It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It is scary. And notable that law enforcement and government leaders stand by silently." California's choice to publish the names, addresses, and occupations of those who donate large sums to political causes is not only dangerous politically, but could quickly become dangerous in the most literal sense possible. With tempers running hot, the shaming of Scott Eckern and his resignation might strike some as a victory. Those who would celebrate should be mindful, however, of the potential ramifications of having opened this particular Pandora's Box. Indeed, opponents of Proposition 8 might soon rue the day that in their earnest and understandable haste to drive the government out of their bedrooms, they pushed themselves into another citizen's voting booth….” REASON 24: AMERICANS ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... AGAIN REJECTED GAY-MILITANT PSYCHO-VIOLENCE “Prop. 8 supporters suffer vandalism, violence” ... Associated Press - 11/3/2008 7:15:00 AM http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=308506 SAN DIEGO - A pastor leading efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would end same-sex "marriage" in California says the campaign has become the target of vandalism and violence. “... Rev. Jim Garlow says signs urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 are being stolen, churches have been pelted with eggs, cars have been parked outside the homes of supporters bearing the message "Bigots live here," and some supporters have been physically assaulted. Garlow says a pastor even had the windows of his car shot out because he was displaying a "Yes on 8" sticker. "One man in Modesto was beaten as he was handing out 'Yes on 8' signs, and had stitches in his eye," he adds. "We have boys dying...protecting our freedom in Iraq, while we have our freedom being taken as people rip signs out and destroy them and deface them," says Pastor Garlow. "It's quite an amazing venue to find ourselves in [here] in America."

Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure is supported by evangelical Christian, Roman Catholic, and Mormon groups. It is opposed by Unitarians and Episcopalians ...” REASON 25: NORTH CAROLINA HELD THIS TRUTH TO BE SELF-EVIDENT … "Homosexuality is not a Civil Right" by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia ( www.crrange.com/wall34.html ): “…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….” REASON 26: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... REJECTED A HOAX THAT IGNORES THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE "The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual" by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ) “…. All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective. Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too--who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant--proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it "just doesn't seem right…. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no". Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? .... ” REASON 27: NORTH CAROLINA REJECTED A HOAX THAT IGNORED THE PSYCHO-SEXUAL ... AND POLICE ... EVIDENCE! The law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Dr. Judith Reisman, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002); pp 9-11 of 60) C. Hiding Dirty Laundry “... The biases of the media are revealed as much by what is not reported as what is reported. Homosexual authors David Island and Patrick Letellier attempt to expose inter-gay violence in their book,Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, estimating that up to "650,000 gay men" are annually battered; "a gay man is [domestically] abused . . . every 90 seconds." How many of these battered men die at the hands of other homosexuals? There were 3327 cases of gay-on-gay "domestic violence" reported by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs in 1997 — three times the number of "anti-gay" "intimidation" or assaults alleged upon homosexuals that same year. Island and Letellier document inter-gay battery as the primary homosexual health problem after 1) AIDS (males), Cancer (females) and 2) drug abuse. They write, "The Director of the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project . . . in San Francisco stated that domestic violence may affect and poison as many as fifty percent of gay male couples." "We believe that far too many [heterosexual] husbands . . . are violent, but that their proportion is closer to twenty percent." "Domestic violence is acknowledged, talked about, and dealt with more in straight relationships than in gay male relationships." Approximately 21,000 Americans are murdered every year, an average of 58 each day, compared to two killings allegedly based on "sexual orientation" in 1996. These hard data find "gay" men to be at far greater risk of harm from other gay men and from outraged, often former boy abuse victims, than from homophobic rednecks. Yet Island and Letellier find establishment media and the homosexual media will not print the truth about inter-gay violence. Why? It "would be just plain bad press for gays and . . . all bad news needs to be suppressed. . . . [G]ay men truly . . . . have a proportionate share of violent individuals in their midst who bash other gay men [and boys] in startlingly high numbers." "The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white, educated, ‘politically correct’ gay men batter their lovers." The Advocate, the premier magazine for homosexual readers, reports that a minimum of seventy-five percent of its readers admit to engaging in violent sex; twenty percent engaged in sadistic "bondage and discipline"; and fifty-five percent engaged in other sex acts using painful objects. Compared to heterosexual distrust or dislike, the rare assault inflicted on someone at a bar and the singular, although horrible, aberrant murder, it is fair to say that the on-going, most significant "hate crimes" against homosexuals are, as Kirk and Madsen noted, inflicted by homosexuals. In 1987, "the San Francisco police responded to no fewer than 100 calls per month for gay and lesbian domestic violence. . . . [T]here are thousands upon thousands of victims of gay men’s domestic violence in the United States each month."

In 1981, the homosexual press reported that about ten percent of San Francisco’s homicides resulted from homosexual sadomasochistic abuse, a finding that would be in keeping with the Reisman & Johnson data (discussed hereinafter), and that of several homophile researchers who cited self-confessed sadism among upscale homosexual Advocate readers...." What, exactly, are the facts for North carolina ... and America ... today? Does the dearth of reportage on the issues above mean that the “social revolution” caused by “gay rights” is deliberately masking ... or hiding ... an underbelly of psychosocial, psychosexual, criminal, medical and psychiatric chaos? When will it implode? REASON 28: NORTH CAROLINA REJECTED THE MEDIA’S ... AND HOLLYWOOD’S ... EFFORT TO BULLY AND FOOL THE PUBLIC! Lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pg. 137) Let’s see how North Carolina’s pro-gay-marriage politicians and media stood up to this indictment! Listen carefully to their arguments! ... they have always adopted a peculiar strategy ... Lawyer Roger J. Magnuson who makes the point at page 137 of his book “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” that gay militants typically use a fourfold tactical plan in their initiatives at deception: a) They avoid, whenever possible, serious public debate over gay rights measures, b) If debate is imminent, they seek to intimidate opposing voices into silence. c) If debate occurs, they use ad hominem arguments; label opponents as superstituous, insensitive and ignorant. d) If the debate goes beyond ad hominem labelling, they avoid at all costs discussion of homosexual behaviour, and keep the discussion as abstract as possible - civil rights, discrimination, minority status. REASON 29: NORTH CAROLINA ASKED ... WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS PSYCHOSEXUAL DISORDER? A psychosexual or mental disorder, when given the space to consider itself “normal”, will always seek to impose its madness on society! Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002) illustrates the imperative that should guide entire national policies: “... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent ...” (See also W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review) REASON 30: AMERICA AND NORTH CAROLINA ASKED ... WHY ARE WE IGNORING THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE? Does this explain why gay militancy will ALWAYS seek to control the health sector in activist states? Their position is perplexing given the hard medical evidence: "...The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice...." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239). David Ostrow et al have gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage: "... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 … in the article “Hemorrhoids, Anal Fissure and Condylomata Acuminata”; G. Manligit et al., “Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens,” in the Journal of the American Medical Association 251, 1984 … 237-241; See also J. Richards et al., “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science 224 … 1984 … 390-392; G. Shearer and A. Rabson, “Semen and Aids,” Nature 308 … 1984:230). (These and other citations in Roger Magnuson's "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press:) … and to the extent that the homosexual population in the USA circa 1987 (1 to 5% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, New Jersey will not wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. (Source: Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, “Homosexual Politics”, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, “Gay Times and Diseases,” The American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men”, New England Journal Of Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J. Kassler, “Gay Men’s Health”, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38;) as cited by Roger J Magnuson … What are the current medical facts for North Carolina and the USA? How much more of a strain will outbreaks be on city/state/national budgets? And then, again, there is MRSA ... with an aggressiveness of infection 13 times more for homosexual populations.

REASON 31: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... HAS THE MEDICAL DATA REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER 10 YEARS? “Prevalence of HIV Infection in the United States, 1984 to 1992” John M. Karon, Ph.D., et al; Journal of the American Medical Association, July 10, 1996, Table 4. “... Males who have sex with males account for over half of all HIV infections in the United States, the mid-range estimate being approximately 450,000 cases out of a total of 750,000....” This for less than 4% of the population! Again, does this explain why, without exception, gay-activism will always seek to control the health sector ... and legislatures ... in activist states? REASON 32: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... HAS THE MEDICAL DATA REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER 20 YEARS? CDC Report for 2004 on HIV Statistics Internationally (see also http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#international) “The estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2002 in the United States is 886,575. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases total 877,275 with 718,002 cases in males and 159,271 cases in females. Through the same time period, 9,300 AIDS cases were estimated in children under age 13. Estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS is 501,669, including 496,354 adults and adolescents, and 5,315 children under age 15. Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.” Exposure Category Male-to-male sexual contact Injection Drug Use Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use Heterosexual contact Other* • Male 420,790 172,351 59,719 50,793 14,350 Female 67,917 84,835 6,519 Total 420,790 240,268 59,719 135,628 20,869

Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.

REASON 33: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... HAS THE MEDICAL DATA REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER 23 YEARS? September 2010: CDC Fact Sheet: HIV and AIDS Among Day and Bisexual Men http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf A Snapshot (CDC surveillance systems refers to men who have sex with men as “MSM”): ► ► MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons). MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

► While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men). ► MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s. (Please check and advise by comment: Under pressure, it seems, the CDC has deleted this last statement from later versions of its online article! Why?) Where has the science changed? On what basis, exactly, are Cuomo and Bloomberg basing their public-policy approach on this issue? Given the facts, why institutionalize ... through ‘marriage” ... a behaviour with obvious/significant personal and social consequences? After Justice Kirby, good law should be based on good data, and the very least that legislators can do is to familiarize themselves with the details! REASON 34: AMERICA, AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... WHY ARE WE PREOCCUPIED WITH IGNORING THE OBVIOUS? North Carolina’s education in this regard began by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002) ; "... According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority...." Dr. Reisman goes on … “... To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse ..." … which words, inter alia, would drive one of our contributors below to make the following point: "... The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate..." (Magnuson, p. 137; “Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy” ) Now read “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime" by Melanie Phillips ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ) Now read Paul Clement’s resignation from the law firm King & Spalding on DOMA ( http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_clement.html ) Now read the Wall Street Journal’s “Knave & Spalding” on the clear and present danger of gay-activist extremism in intimidating businesses:

“... The likely story here is that King and Spalding began to fear a political backlash after activists at the Human Rights Campaign launched a campaign to "educate" (read: intimidate) the firm's clients about "King and Spalding's decision to promote discrimination." Clients include CocaCola and other Fortune 500 giants that prefer to avoid hot-button social issues. That's fair enough, but once a firm takes on a client it is the firmest of legal obligations to see a case through save for a clear conflict of interest. To drop a case under political pressure is especially unethical. Imagine the outcry if a firm of similar standing stopped defending Guantanamo detainees? Whatever one thinks of Doma, it passed both houses of Congress with huge majorities, and Vice President Joe Biden was among 85 Senators who voted "aye." The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states aren't obliged to honor gay marriages recognized in other states. Social mores have changed in 15 years, but not so much that gay marriage should be imposed by judicial fiat in a way that further inflames the culture war. The Human Rights Campaign has every right to challenge Doma in court, but it does itself no honor by trying to deny that same right to Doma's supporters by harassing their legal counsel. As for King and Spalding, better not turn your back on its lawyers in a firefight….” REASON 35: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... HOW DO POLITICIANS SEE ALL OF THE ABOVE AS ‘GOOD’ PUBLIC POLICY? So, how does any legislator justify “institutionalizing” through “marriage” a verifiably disordered behaviour that sees as its necessary and logical end the destruction of fundamental creation-structures dear to the Judeo-Christian ethic: manhood, womanhood, family, sex, marriage! Which playbook are they reading from? Was “gay-rights” ... and thereby “gay-marriage” ... based on a denial of the evidence of stupendous proportions? First read the 2002 law–review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy” Now read Kathleen Melonakos’ “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?” Thereafter read Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” Then read “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Child Sexual Exploitation” Finally read “Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review”, by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus. Now Robert H. Knight! Talk about unnerving predictive accuracy... SEXUAL REVOLUTIONS: A WAR ON FAMILIES … “The American Sex Revolution”; By Ptirim Sorokin, Porter Sargent Publishers, Boston, 1956 “... As the research of the late Harvard sociologist Ptirim Sorokin reveals, no society has loosened sexual morality outside of marriage and survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriage and family were no longer accorded premiere status. To put it another way, as marriage and family ties disintegrated, the social restraints learned in families also disintegrated. Societal chaos ushers in tyrants who promise to restore order by any means. Self-governing people require a robust culture founded on marriage and family, which nurture the qualities that permit self-rule: deferred gratification, self-sacrifice, respect for kinship and law, and property rights. These qualities are founded upon sexual restraint, which permits people to pursue long-term interests, such as procreating and raising the next generation, and securing benefits for one’s children...” (“Quoted in “Hawaii’s Assault On Matrimony”; By Robert H. Knight ) REASON 36: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... HOW BAD DOES IT GET AFTER THIS? EXACTLY HOW GUILTY ... AND IRRESPONSIBLY ACTIVIST ... IS THE APA? Justice Scalia offered in his read/written dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas! Does “gay-rights” ... and thereby “gay marriage” ... signal the end of the rational law ... the end of reason? “... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review...” Thereafter. consider the implications for public/social/government policy! “The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber´, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“...Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the ‘distress and social disability´
criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II ² and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized...” Finally consider the de-facto indictment of the APA in 2002 in the law review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger: “... At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as ³too politically correct´ and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into ³conversion therapy´ (therapy to change one¶s sexual orientation) and had tried to label it ³unethical´ a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy. The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation...”. Now read the 2002 online law review "Why Narth? The American Psychological Association's Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness”

REASON 37: AMERICA ... AND NORTH CAROLINA ... ASKED ... WHY DENY THAT MEDICAL/SPIRITUAL REMEDY IS AVAILABLE? Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”) offers at chapters 11 and 12 the evidence that remedies to same-sex-attractiondisorders are not uncommon! He also alludes in Table 7 to fifteen secular Outcome-Studies that have recorded varying degrees of success (some as high as 82%) with the correction of same-sex-attraction-disorders! Politicians in the pro-gay camp in Washington have completely ignored him ... and the studies ... in a craven capitulation to the gay-rights lobby ... at the expense of fact, truth, evidence and detail. We should end as we began ... Homosexuality and Transgenderism are the only two psycho-sexual/mental disorders so identified that set up as their ultimate and nonnegotiable goal the destruction of core creation-structures in the Judeo-Christian and American ethos ... fact, truth, evidence, manhood, womanhood, sex, family, marriage ...! How significant is this?

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->