Mike Lawlor Attacks Catholicism at Gay Marriage Hearing

[SAYYOURROSARY]

Well he did O.K. but you can tell he is New disordered katholick because

he said he don't care what people's "religions" are and Homosexuality is indeed a Abomination in the sight of God .

He was lamo new order kultie ,

Homosexual acts are evil as per God

why else would he say

"No homosexuals will attain heaven"

Just like murderers, Drunks , Whores , masterbaters (unclean )

heretics and such ,

No wonder the Church is bad off

51% of New dis order voted for Obama=not catholic

[mikster99]

Unbelievable. Brian Brown manages not to answer the question posed by this government representative and to blather on about respect and love, values which are clearly not high in his list when he promotes his blind hatred of homosexuality. Since gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriage, his only agenda can be fighting against those he fears, those different from him. Back in the day African-Americans had to sit in the back of the bus... he wants gays to do the same with marriage.

[anonymousabcd1]

Yes!!!!! GO BRIAN BROWN! Excellent. It does seem as if the Church is on trial doesn't it? I'm not Catholic but I believe in natural law and the ideal that all children deserve to be loved and nurtured by their own mother and father and the Catholic Church's (minus the birth control) definition of marriage. Will I be allowed to say so though if I'm not a part of a religious organization?

[laylausauk]

This guy believes in respect of everyone????

Please, his marriage will fall aprt in a few years when his wife catches him with a man!!

Are there not more really important issues in today's world. If this guy grandmother was black,,, should she not be allowed to vote today?

Please-- do not fall into this idiots pit !

Roman Catholic? He should be ashamed.

[gkcfan]

See how this guy distorts the catechism and the teaching of the church? Good Lord, they're a disingenuous bunch of liars.

[Cmsgret]

Voters have to know the sexual orientation of those running for office. Sadly once gays get through the door, they bring their paganism with them.

[mrtnsamson]

You sir are a fool. Since when does being gay equate to paganism. There are gay catholic, christians, buddhists. I don't understand your comment.

[polkadotbox2]

Gay marriage is coming. The desperate fight of fundamentalists to stop it will fail, just as their efforts to keep segregation and slavery failed.

Equality is a no brainer. You do need a brainwash and a twisted view of what's right and wrong to support inequality.

Don't ask sacrifices of others, while making none yourself, it's unfair. There are no reasons for unfairness, only excuses.

[HELLFIRE8282]

he is speaking his mind freely.what's his problem?

[subuey]

The comment in which I included NAMBLA in parentheses must not have shown up yet when I looked through the history for it, comments are slow to show up in history. Not that it matters.

[subuey]

You're the one who brought up NAMBLA. Yes, they've tried to make it look like they're distancing themselves from pedophilia since they were dropped as a non-governmental organization at the U.N., though it took the 5 years to "expell" NAMBLA and two other groups, though they never provided formal documentation to the U.N.

[subuey]

...though they have never provided formal documentation to the U.N. of their expulsion...

[subuey]

my my, who said anything about NAMBLA? They were of course accepted into the ILGA (international gay/lesbian association), until they tried to dissasociate themselves with them and two other pedophile groups when the U.N. dropped their non-governmental status for it.

[subuey]

ew, speaking of the Netherlands, this just out as a headline: "Dutch shock over gay AIDS rape gang". And woh said 'deliberate infection' was a myth...the advocate even dedicated an entire issue to the subject, as well as a story about it in San Francisco.

[subuey]

actually, it's 4 years older. As for the Netherlands, in '90 the COC achieved a significant victory when they got the Netherlands to lower the age of consent to 12, unless the parent's object, in which case it goes up to 16.

[subuey]

oops! turns out it was actually Holland with the age of consent 12 if parent's object 16, not the netherlands. Holland has apparently surpassed regional law...

[subuey]

and the 4 years older law simply flexes it, in other words a 12 year old can legally have consensual sex. A 16 year old can legally have consensual sex with a 20 year old. The law has obviously been chipped and you were trying to cover it up.

[subuey]

Ha, in other words, the age of consent in the Netherlands is 12. Gay apologetics, no? *sigh* You will be stopped...

[subuey]

§ 22-3020. Aggravating circumstances.

(a) Any person who is found guilty of an offense under this subchapter...for first degree sexual abuse or first degree child sexual abuse, if any of the following aggravating circumstances exists:

(1) The victim was under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense;

(2) The victim was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense and the actor had a significant relationship to the victim;

[subuey]

again, there is no direct empricale evidence that "homophobia" (no such thing) causes the health problems and violence among gays. People who are accepting of themselves (NAMBLA, shall we say?) are just as perverted as dutch homos who live in accepting societies, and yet still die early.

[subuey]

There is no empiracle evidence to support your claim. The Netherlands is a perfectly accepting society on the subject, and yet the age of consent is 12 and the COC there calls for the 'liberation of pedophilia'. You are however correct in that they didn't develop properly...they underwent a mentality of same-sex attraction by some means, the most common being recruitment i.e. molestation, but also being sexually adventurous or confused, etc.

[subuey]

No, it's 12 - unless supposedly the parent's object in which case it goes up to 16 (Netherlands), and unless it's a family member or 'significant other', in which case it goes up to 18 (D.C.).

[BeatBuddy]

Brian Brown, don't be surprised or dismayed if anyone calls you a complete idiot, because that's what you are.

[BeatBuddy]

The Church doesn't teach. It misinforms. Those who are best qualified to teach are homosexuals who are out of the closet and celebrate and appreciate their sexualities.

[iheartthat79]

That Brian Brown guy looks kinda creepy. He's just ranting.

[BeatBuddy]

The Catholic Church is objectively disordered. I have not found one single rational argument against gay marriage, only prejudice that purports to be rational. It seems that a lot of Catholics believe homosexuality is wrong because the Church says so. I find it hard to respect such people on the grounds that docility is placed on a high pedestal of virtue.

[subuey]

1972 Gay Rights Platform-National Coalition of Gay Organizations

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

It's pretty much a public health issue. Visit Family Research Institute, as well as the American College of Pediatricians online.

[BeatBuddy]

The Family Research Institute consists of one man, Paul Cameron. He also came up with the bogus statistic that gay people are 40 times more likely to commit murder. He was expelled from the American Psychological Association for falsifying data. There is nothing in any gay rights platform to condones what you present here. Those with weak arguments must promote lies.

[subuey]

No, that statistic was what he said the Kinsey Institutes research showed, saying that they deliberately came to the wrong conclusions. He didn't rely on the data, he merely said what their data showed.

He resigned a full year before they 'expelled him', you can find the president's letter accepting his resignation and asking him to write an editorial explaining his decision scanned on FRIs website. Yes, after he called them a 'liberal PAC', the 'expelled' him.

[BeatBuddy]

Then you don't know much about Kinsey and have been exposed to the revisionism of Judith Reisman. Her research is political, not scientific. Sorry pal, but the APA asked him to resign.

Cameron appeared on several talk shows where it was pointed out that he was expelled. If he wasn't, as you claim, then why didn't he say so on the air? Not a peep!

[subuey]

Kinsey? He was gay, the institute made it known that a historian was no longer welcome there after the historian had pointed out that Kinsey had gay affairs with students, they said "it blurred the impression that Kinsey was an impartial scientist, so we're pretty annoyed with [historian]."

[BeatBuddy]

Kinsey was not gay; he was a bisexual with a preference for women. Where did you hear that he had sex with his students? That is not in the biography by James H. Jones. Neither is it in the movie about him. And it cracks me up when people say that studies can't be trusted for objectivity if gays conduct them. The best synopsis you will get is from homosexuals. Who do you trust, the religious right? Paul Cameron? Puh-leeeze!

[subuey]

Whenever I've heard him, he calmly told the person that he wasn't expelled (although they had sent him a letter 'expelling him' a year after they accepted his resignation). Read the letter online, the president said he was curious as to the reasons of Cameron's decision. Also read the editorial he wrote in the 'American Psychologist', the APA journal -> then came the letter of 'expulsion'...

[BeatBuddy]

Okay, I'll do that. Wikipedia perhaps?

[subuey]

type in '1972 gay rights platform-national coalition of gay organizations' and you'll see that it is on gay websites, you're not fooling anyone.

[BeatBuddy]

1972! 36 years ago! How convenient! I can research it, but never was polygamy and pedophilia ever placed on any gay rights agenda. Those are not gay issues.

[subuey]

Then why do studies show gays accounting for around a 1/3 of the populace's molestations, while they make up around 3-4% of the population. Why do studies show that gays really confine themselves to one partner. Those are the modern implications, you say you won't research the 1972 platform but still hold that 'pedophilia' and 'polygamy' weren't on the list...

[subuey]

*that gays **rarely** confine themselves*

[BeatBuddy]

Join the military and see how many straights confine themselves. There are scores of gays who remain monogamous.

Demographics supply only a psuedo-argument. The social circumstances of any given group must be taken into account when dealing with demographics. White students do better in school than black students, which is attributed to obsticated incentives and low self-esteem and not skin color.

[subuey]

ever heard of 'don't ask don't tell'? Did you read "My Country, My Right to Serve?"

The fact is that while you can excuse away the studies that show your community is anything but monogomous on average, but that 'gay polygamy' is actually in the 1972 gay rights platform, as well as abolishing the ages of consent.

[BeatBuddy]

I can very well excuse those studies because they come from bigoted sources. There are attempts to give bigotry some intellectual and academic respectability. Just look at creationism. Studies have shown that the great majority of gay people prefer loving, stable relationships. You can take Weinberg and Bell for beginners. They were surprised by their own findings, which means they had preset biases that were destroyed.

[BeatBuddy]

One of those bigoted sources are the "10,000" studies according to Focus on the Family claiming that gays are mentally ill and can be healed. I have searched high and low and can't find any of them that are not sponsored by some conservative Christian ministry.

BTW, you can count on two hands those nations that bar gays from their militaries. Homopobia is a great ailment in the United States, and you are part of it.

[subuey]

Weinberg: In a study of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not."

[BeatBuddy]

Weinberg the sociologist and Bell the psychotherapist have taken certain dynamics into account. For one thing, lots of people like living alone because of the freedom it entails. Nothing wrong with that. When you internalize the social prejudice against yourself, when your very being is bombarded with negatives, it will manifest itself in ways that are inimical to stable relationships. Your attitude contributes to this instability.

[subuey]

I could site 11 other sources that show relatively the same thing. Oh, and discrimination doessn't drive gays to an early grave (yes, they go to an early grave), e.g. in Norway and Denmark, accepting societies, the median gay death rate among gays is 23 years lower than the general populace.

[BeatBuddy]

Lemme guess about Norway and Denmark. I'm curious because I've been to both countries. Your source comes from Stanley Kurtz, am I wrong?

[subuey]

"Stanley Kurtz" what? same thing to the next thing you said, you mean empiricle research clashes with what gay activists want you to believe? yes, empiricle.

[BeatBuddy]

Stanley Kurts tried to articulate that the sharp rise in births out of wedlock in Sweden is attributed to moral laxity. He throws the blame on the legal recognition of gay relationships. This is ridiculous on its face. He also claims that this recognition is been proven disastrous in Denmark. That's odd, because 72% of the Danish clergy opposed it. After so many years, 88% of the clergy now think it's a good idea.

[subuey]

yech, empirical, there, wow, that's the word. Stanley Kurtz, well no, I was not citing him, though moral laxity does contribute to children out of wedlock, gays want unlimited partners you know, and they are twice as apt to get a divorce.

[BeatBuddy]

This is where your weakness reaches its lowest ebb. Where did you get the idea that gays want unlimited partners, even within matrimony? What the hell does homosexuality have to do with moral laxity? Nothing. Your claims are totally baseless. Further, heterosexuals who are wildly promiscuous and morally lax can marry. It is not the alleged activities of gay people, it's the mere status of being homosexual that is the disqualifying factor.

[subuey]

Read the 1972 'Gay' Rights Platform from the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, as well as the statistics of 'gays' and their relationships.

[BeatBuddy]

A lot has happened since then. Just four years before that, Dr. Martin Hoffman, leader of a commission, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, to study the gay world outside of clinics, concluded that the reason so many gays had difficulties in building stable relationships was because society didn't want them to. It's hard to build when hostility surrounds you are every turn.

[subuey]

Washington D.C.: lowered age of consent to 12, they also have an AIDS rate 5 times that of NY.

Netherlands: Lowered the age of consent to 12 in 1990, praised by the COC - a European homophile organization - as a victory. In '03 the CDC announced that a new strain of virus, LVG - a mutation of chlamydia - broke out among gays in the Netherlands and warned it would spread here, which it has.

[BeatBuddy]

The age of consent has nothing to do with the caliber of gay marriage.

[subuey]

It has to do with the gay agenda, and adoption. btw, married gays in accepting societies in Europe dies around 20 years earlier.

[BeatBuddy]

There is not a shred of evidence that homosexuality destroys societies and I can't find a single historian who takes this view seriously, not even the homophobics Will and Ariel Durant.

[subuey]

Bell: A 1970 study in San Francisco [2] found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.

[BeatBuddy]

98% of all child molestations in the United States come from heterosexual males. 80% of those are from some family member. This is according to The National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse. A branch of the FBI has stastics on file with similar results.

[subuey]

I've searched for the 'national resource center on child sexual abuse', but not only could I find a site with that exact name, but the sites I did find didn't segregate 'homo' vs. 'het.', same with the FBI.

[BeatBuddy]

I found it right off the bat, but I didn't take the time to read anything. It's part of the National Resource Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

[subuey]

"It's part of the National Resource Center on Child Abuse and Neglect." I couldn't even find a website with that exact name, much less segregation of 'homo' vs. 'het' in their reports.

[BeatBuddy]

Strange. In that case, go to ReligiousTolerance dot org and look up gay parenting. This site is an excellent, objective resource.

[subuey]

or, perhaps, look up the 'American College of Pediatricians'?

[BeatBuddy]

I looked it up and just as I suspected, it's a right wing front that opposes all the goals of gay people in securing equal treatment under the laws. It was formed in rebellion against the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is in full support of gay adoption and gay marriage. Resistance to gay rights of any sort never come from knowledge, only from ignorance. In other words, the ACP is a bigoted organization.

[subuey]

lol, at least it doesn't spread baseless propaganda like the APA, literally, the APAs and other mainstream organizations have become more of a liberal PAC than a source of true scientific research, taking stances on things like 'homosexuality' and 'abortion' without any reliable evidence.

[BeatBuddy]

The APA's stand on homosexuality is not baseless. It is the result of diligent research that began in the 1950s and ended in 1973. Almost all information on gay people was limited to clinical patients, that is, those who needed therapy, hardly a reliable source of information.

[subuey]

diligent research, mhm - unfortunately most of it really just proves my points... well, your right about one thing: any impiracle research on homosexuality from any mainstream organization did in fact end around the 1970s..

[subuey]

*empiracle*

[BeatBuddy]

empirical

[BeatBuddy]

For one thing, it's been noted that the information collected by sociologists and anthropologists clashed sharply with the theories put forth by psychiatrists. These theories also clashed with the actual experiences of gay people. Gays didn't speak up back then because that would mean exposure, hence, ridicule, harassment, discrimination, and ostracism.