It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

page: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

It wasn't that long ago that interracial marraige went against society's customs, ideology and traditions. It wasn't that long ago that slavery conformed to society's customs, ideology and traditions. It wasn't that long ago that making African-Americans sit at the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains, etc. conformed with society's customs, ideology and traditions. It wasn't that long ago that killing Native Americans and seizing their lands conformed to society's customs, ideology and traditions. Yet, somehow we rose above it all and embraced the ideals set forth in the Constitution. Are you suggesting that we now throw it in the shredder?


Once again you are comparing a behavior to a condition. Why do you do that? Gays are black, white and everything inbetween, it is not the same, but gays feel the need to position their behavior as if it was.

Just because 5% of the population is gay does not give gays some kind of minority status or equal rights issue.

So once again why should society conform to your practices?



[edit on 5-9-2009 by Xtrozero]




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori


St Therese Avila


Don't recall reading about that one in the KJV?


other people see your anger, but I see and believe that your heart wants to save people from what you see is Death in this world and beyond. I see that, and I love you for it.


These other people ? You take a poll or are you just as presumptuous as they are about hate and bigotry?



I just believe that St. Francis was correct when he said: I preach the Gospel every day and sometimes I use words.


Sorry, can't find a francis in the KJV either. So Fortiori says: I preach the gospel everyday and sometimes I use the Bible rather than the latin vulgate / septuagent



Jesus did not give you or I permission to speak for him. He didn't give us the right to judge the sins of others. If we see our brother in Christ erring he said to pull him aside and speak to him privately, he also asked that we use love and compassion when we interact with our brother.


First, I don't see you know jack about the Bible, especially since the one you have been quoting from I consider the great whore in revelation but I could be wrong. Third The Bible is explicit when it says to Judge in "righteous" Judgement. I think judging what God calls an abomination by citing truth secular truths they can understand as atheist's I am not using the Bible and don't like wasting time using it on Christian antagonists like you have been.



I do not believe using a message board is what Jesus was talking about when he said "privately".


I wouldn't know what Jesus says about using a mac or a PC but that's besides the point. If someone is going to make public endorsements promoting sin, when they are neither a Christian nor do they have any interest at all other than to preach the Gospel of sexual depravity where all can see it then I will post my response public so quit trying to stifle me troll YOU just don't happen to like the truth in my posts either and THAT is why you are coming at me from this angle on religion because you can't on my arguments because they happen to be a FACT.

You don't impress me and you don't really love me any more than I hate them. Do you think whenh the pharasees spoke to Jesus, he said "Pssst" C'mere, and took them a side to whisper in private his answer because he didn't want to embarrass them? Ha ha ha GET REAL




If you hadn't mentioned Christian I wouldn't have even bothered, but I don't like my Lord to be judged by the inequities of you and I. Christ was loving, kind, and compassionate to the wicked and the sinful. The only anger he showed were for the hypocrites and the thieves in his Temple who turned people away from God with their duality and hypocrisy
.

Those I responded to fit that description too a tee and YOU are starting to also.



We who claim to love Christ will be judged if we turn those away from Him using his name in error. I do not believe you wish to do this. You are angry with me because my way is not your way,


You speak as though I am doing things MY way already ha ha Noooo believe me if it were up to me, I would have not tried near as hard to hold my tongue. I have only rebuked the gay activist nature to recruit and preach the gospel of homosexuality and the erroneous ideas they are arguing it a civil rights issue when it isn't moreover I don't have to be a Christian to do that, I can say that using nothing but secular data and experience to substantiate my arguments.

NOT ONCE have you shared the solution to the sin they suffer from NOT ONCE have to spoke to them as they are, LOST and DEAD In sin. NOT ONCE have you spoke of the consequences of their giving themselves over to that sin. All you have done is make your posts ABOUT ME and my having to do it because you think Jesus wouldn't have.

WRONG!



[edit on 5-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Wow, this thread's about to turn into a flame fest.

First, I'm straight. I was raised by two gay men. I came out just fine. And straight as an arrow. And I know the word 'breeder' has the same connotations as 'faggot'. Both words are an offense to their intended targets. Please drop that word.


Yes I noticed Jax using that word too and it pissed me off he is such a hater of woman. A gay in another thread about this denied it means a negative toward woman but one glance at ANY gay website that talks about woman, you know within ten minutes they don't have much respect for woman at all. They mock them, make fun of them and anyone older than 30 is not even considered a human being to many of them.

Gay websites are so deep too, just check them out do a google on "gay blogs" and Oh MY ! They are so into feeding the hungry, helping the poor and homless, its like on everyone of their sites!

NOT!

Thde only topic they talk about when they are not bashing their arch nemesis, the Church, is SEX Period.

So is it any wonder why they want to define everyone else this way.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 


If you are going to put external source material in your posts, PROVIDE A LINK! Otherwise, it is to be assumed that you are the author, thus rendering it crap!


You are assuming everything comes from the internet the sources are IN THE ARTICLES!



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
What, can't handle it when you meet a REAL Christian???



Telling him to back off IS handling it JAXON. Now why don't you do us a favor and handle me with them gloves off like ya threatened to do


Oh, that's just rich!!! 175 gay people you personally knew, and yet you are such a homo hater!!!
Gimme a damn break! Deceit is also not a 'Christ-like' attribute!



I probably have known more homosexuals than all the gays in this thread combined smart guy and I never said whether I liked em or whether I didn't. I never said whether they were just part of an investigation or because I worked in an industry globally saturated with them did I? NOPE. You need more practice Jaxon

EDIT to add: Oh and lol:
back at ya Jaxon

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

It wasn't that long ago that interracial marraige went against society's customs, ideology and traditions. It wasn't that long ago that slavery conformed to society's customs, ideology and traditions. It wasn't that long ago that making African-Americans sit at the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains, etc. conformed with society's customs, ideology and traditions. It wasn't that long ago that killing Native Americans and seizing their lands conformed to society's customs, ideology and traditions. Yet, somehow we rose above it all and embraced the ideals set forth in the Constitution. Are you suggesting that we now throw it in the shredder?


Once again you are comparing a behavior to a condition. Why do you do that? Gays are black, white and everything inbetween, it is not the same, but gays feel the need to position their behavior as if it was.

Just because 5% of the population is gay does not give gays some kind of minority status or equal rights issue.

So once again why should society conform to your practices?



[edit on 5-9-2009 by Xtrozero]


As drop dead common sense as that is xtro, he'll never address that because he CAN'T. That's the problem with having the truth as an adversary, no matter what semantics and word games you play, the truth always has a way to surface and it always makes perfect sense save for those who live in the liars delusion.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I say that those that wish to get mmarried, no matter gender, should do so if they wish. We are a free society
who, in this world, truely has the right to say that someone or another, doesnt have the right to get married, or live their lives, as consenting adults, the way they so wish.
Why be concerned with issues that does not affect most of us directly. Why are we worrying about who has to right to get married(who care do it if you want), when we have people stuggling to survive everday life, we have countries blowing people up over simple things like oil, and land. We have mothers and fathers killing their own children. We have kids committing suicide in droves, we now have record highs of maniacal serial killers roaming the world, we have "new" diseases, viruses and bacterias hitting and killing us everyday. The world is churning from her very belly from the way we have treated her, and is ready to vomit the children she loves from her if we are not careful.... yet we worry and disgrace ourselves with unjust sentiments on who and who can not get married....
I am so over this poo of judgement on others. Where does it stop. These are peoples personal lives we are deciding we have a right to have a say in. PING OFF. Go live your own and worry about your own.

Worry n the real issues that we are faced with today. LIVE YOUR OWN...



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Stylez
 


Exhibitionism is not necessarily "homosexual" and pedophilia is also not precluded to same sex. These psychiatric conditions occur in heterosexuals, as well.

However, if you look up the statistics you will find that lesbians account for the smallest minority of public exhibitionists and that is "homosexual" yes? You will find that lesbians have fewer sexual partners than heterosexuals and they are also "homosexual" yes? They have fewer venereal diseases than heterosexuals, too.

Maybe the problem isn't with "homosexuality" at all, but the male sex drive?


And who according to the religions designed the sex drive ?

To put a donkey in a field of strawberries and gag its' mouth is sick.

To put a donkey in the same field then kick it to death for eating a strawberry is insane.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
gays are funny

they're ok you know

they want their equal rights.....they want their recognition....

fair enough

but we can never deny the fact that they have sex in a way that is, shall we say, sodom like

btw, not religious....just find it interesting that at their core they practice something that is undeniably unnatural and I would say wrong

my 2.5 cents

oh well, whats next, gays adopting kids?....oh damn, too late



[edit on 5-9-2009 by ScaredCabbage]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman



And who according to the religions designed the sex drive ?

To put a donkey in a field of strawberries and gag its' mouth is sick.

To put a donkey in the same field then kick it to death for eating a strawberry is insane.


Jeez moocowman hate Christians much? I was just perusing some of your threads I quit after seeing this is pretty much a fulltime job for you isn't it. I think loving people like you so much you'd sacrifice your only begotten son so people, or donkeys, like the jack ass in your little anecdote, doesn't have to be kicked to death is insane if they only accept the sacrifice but God loved the ass that much to render such a solution


Whats dumber than that?

The jack ass that doesn't accept it.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I'd like to know where you are getting the FACT that every society that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed. by their very nature, societies and empires rise up, reign for awhile, and well, then degrade making room for another to rise. Really find it rather hard to believe that one has gone through history dug up enough information to be able to judge their reaction to homosexuality and to realistically be able to point to that as a reason for their fall.

There's a cycle...that is all.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

And who according to the religions designed the sex drive ?

To put a donkey in a field of strawberries and gag its' mouth is sick.

To put a donkey in the same field then kick it to death for eating a strawberry is insane.


That would be G-D, and I'm not arguing G-D kicks it to death, Moocow.

*waves*



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Stylez,

I quoted two famous Christians that I happen to feel set a good example of Christ's love. It's no different than you quoting Paul's letter. None of them were Messiah, but obviously what they had to say appealed to the Church that put that Bible together in the first place. You may not like the Catholic Church, but had it not been for the Romans deciding to become Christian and proliferating it, the Catholic Church saving artifacts and hoarding them, you and I (unless you're a Jew) wouldn't have the opportunity to read the Gospels. Christianity would be a small sect of the Jewish faith. So whether or not you think the Church is Babylon have a little respect for what it did provide you.

Think of it like an alcoholic parent, you may not want to live in his/her house anymore but you still owe it respect for giving you life, a roof over your head, and food in your stomach for eighteen years.

Now, here:

*hands Styles a bouquet of daisies*

On to your complaints of me and my stance:

On Love and Hate

I know you think I'm insincere when I say that I love you, but I'm not. I'm pretty much a walking Teddy Bear. I'm also a "she" so please don't refer to me as a "he" anymore.

I never said you hated gays. I said that I feel you want to help people. I was trying to be generous.

On the Law

When asked about the Law, Jesus said that there were two great commandments. Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto the first, to love your neighbor as you would yourself.

To reiterate these further we have the Beatitudes (Blessed are the Poor...), the admonitions against measuring others (Judge not, Condemn not), the advocation of forgiveness (Forgive and ye shall be forgiven) and the command to care for "the least of these".

As I was not born a Jew I do not keep the Law. I believe that Jesus was Messiah and that he alone is to deliver G-d's message to His people. Therefore, I believe that if I keep to the Gospels I am fulfilling G-d's commands.

Not Paul, not Isaiah, not Ezekiel, not Elijah were Messiah, in my opinion. When I have the teachings of Christ, and his Word will be God's Word why concern myself with other teachings?

You, however, seem to feel that Paul's teachings are on par with that of Jesus, and on this we will just have to disagree. I'm not sure Paul was even a follower of Jesus, and I think he is who is referred to in the book of John. I believe this because people quote him more than Jesus and the glory becomes his and not that of Christ's. To me that is idolatry and scares me away quite frankly. Paul came in his own name, not G-ds, not Christ's. His name was raised and glorified and he is given more space in the New Testament than Christ himself.

However, we each follow our own heart, so if you discern that Paul is benevolent then I am happy you feel blessed in that way.

Back to my first point about Judaism. My mother is not a Jew, ergo neither am I. I do not keep the Law. I eat shellfish. I go to church Saturday night, not Friday night. Sometimes I mow the lawn on the Sabbath. There are six hundred and sixty three (if you're Hasidic) laws, six hundred and thirteen (if you're Orthodox) and I'm basically keeping 60 and only because they're scooped under that "Love your neighbor" commandment, not necessarily because I purposefully practice them.

Those laws, however, were not arbitrary. They all have a reason behind them and it is the reason we should examine. G-d made thinking creatures. Uncooked pork could have killed the ancients. Promiscuity leads to disease and unclaimed children. Shellfish can kill some people instantly. Being fruitful and multiplying was what everyone did--with the wolf at the door, with enemies all around you, creating more and more children to fill a tribe was smart.

If you look at the Hebrew the reference to what we think of as homosexuality was about "men" in the actual, physical "man" sense. Not "mankind". Considering that the ancient Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc felt that men contained everything and women were incubators this makes more sense. Men putting seed in another man means that seed does not grow and the population is not being increased. That's why masturbation was a no-no, too.

Now, if G-D meant that same sex relationships in general were bad and it really did come from G-D as opposed to Moses, or if it were about the act itself as opposed to wasting sperm, then why not include women?

In Paul's letters he says "malekenos". That means "soft" and implies "womanly". Again, what is wrong with a woman being womanly?

Lesbians it seems are either immune from G-D's wrath or maybe men made these laws, not G-D?

Either way, it's not something I think about aside from the physical dangers that sex brings with it. I was a health advocate, so of course, I try to save lives. I try to explain the dangers of sex to the people I'm confronted with at work. I absolutely promote abstinence as the only real way to prevent disease. People get lazy and don't use birth control, condoms, etc. That is why 1/3 of teens have an STD.

I am scared to death for these kids, and for adults who have so little care for their own health that they play Russian roulette with their own lives. I do talk to them about the dangers, but I don't fling their sin in their face. I love them, and they can see that I do, and respond much better than if I were to beat them with their wrongs.

Monogamy, in my opinion, was a gift from G-D. It allows you to truly know another person, learn selflessness when we are born selfish, and you are able to achieve a human intimacy that you cannot achieve through promiscuity.

Whether you are gay or straight--it doesn't matter. Your heart yearns for love. We seek closeness with another person. We seek a union.

Your saying that all gays talk about is "sex" is rather narrow. Humans think about sex, more and more as the world starts to fall apart. There is a biological reason for this. All animals mate when they fear death.

As for "breeders", yes, I've heard this. Yes, I do see a bit of an anti-female backlash in the gay community, but I don't pay it any mind as the gay individuals I have met have all been kind to me. Groups don't really interest me much as "groupthink" invariably occurs.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Thanks for your reply!...

What a great honest response. Much appreciated. I most definitely agree with your thoughts on the faux Christian moral standard many of them try to impose on everyone, and then very hypocritically deny those very "standards" when it comes to their own lives.

Im glad you were not offended...You just never know how some people take things. Some peope would be very angry just mentioning their name in association with Christianity and some people would feel embarrased for bringing up something that one time they felt ashamed of. I am happy that you your gumption and reasonability prevailed. I could only imagine the battle that you must have fought with, in your own brain, about your sexuality for so long.

Just so you know, I wasn't criticizing the thread. I think often times threads like these help people maybe loosen the 'better than thou' lynch that sems to be wrapped tightly around so many peoples neck, and therefore I think they are helpful. And if that "lynch" can be loosened for something as trivial as another humans sexuality it can help them be more humanitarian in other ways as well. In a sense, it just broadens their mind..and can that ever really be a bad thing?...wellmaybe sometimes when you see these NWO reptillian threads...


My only reason for asking the questions were because threads related to gay rights and human sexuality seem to be in abundance lately. That is why I wondered if maybe ATS acts as sort of a "conscience cleanser" and a kind of outlet to express your ideas and beliefs about being gay openly and freely. Of course I think thats what most people here use ATS for (including myself), but I just found your apparent interest in religious topics related to your vigor for speaking up about sexuality issues ( and of course due to your own associations and life decisions).

If I may, I would like to add one more thing. This goes for all people I believe who were at one point in their lives religious, or held the beliefs close to them of a certain religion. Because of indoctrination at such a young age for most of us (for me it was at 3 years old when I began my religious experience) and because of the stigmas around the dogmas (such as you will go to hell if you do this or that..or 'God' looks "unfavorabley" on this act or that act) it remains in the back of our head even long after you have made the conclusions that things in fact are not the way you were taught in Sunday school or at church. I have been agnostic for over 4 years now. I have come to conclusions in fact there are no things such as hell or heaven in the traditional evangelical ways I was taught as a child. I have no answers if there is a 'God' or what 'God' may be, but I still, at times, find myself strugging with this sense of being "judged" for the things I do...And therefore, at times I lash out at the very ideas that Christianity tries to instill in its believers. So I sometimes spend countless hours debating about what I dont wish to be so. I may "know" things are not the way Christians view them, but again, there still is that question in the back of my mind of...damn, what if they are right?

And I think Im not the only one with that problem...Thats one thing I think religion does very well...provides its believers a very strong conscience...
Sometimes that very thing hinders people from opening up to a new way of looking at things, and sometimes it keeps people from killing their wives...




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


That post showed me that you failed to comprehend anything that I was saying previously. You also made several false assumptions. I don't dislike or hate Christians, just those 'fakes' that use this religion to justify internal bias, which you have. Since I have a reputation here as a pretty blunt debater and of being level headed and fair and open minded, even amongst those who disagree with me, and I have been so with you as well, the little jabs really don't bother me. You need to step up your game if you expect to survive here.

One may also say that you have come here with a chip on your shoulder. One only has to check out your profile page to see that you post on 'Gay' themed threads a majority of the time. Of the 149 posts listed since joining us 11 days ago, 95 posts have been on 'Gay' threads. This seems to indicate an 'agenda', an 'Anti-Gay Agenda' if you will.

The Shakespearian line "Me thinks he doth protest too much" does come to mind. It makes me think that one of these two possibilities might be in play here: One, your in denial of your own true sexuality, or two (the most likely) that you were molested when you were younger and are lashing out. It might be neither and you just hate gay people, but either way, it's not a debate you want. Instead, it is the furtherance of some agenda to make others see gay people as 'bad' and 'evil'. Anyone who knows me either here on ATS, or in the 'real world' knows better.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Once again you are comparing a behavior to a condition. Why do you do that? Gays are black, white and everything inbetween, it is not the same, but gays feel the need to position their behavior as if it was.

Just because 5% of the population is gay does not give gays some kind of minority status or equal rights issue.

So once again why should society conform to your practices?


OK, you guys can't have it both ways just to suit your needs. Is homosexuality a behavior ('homosexuality is a choice' argument) or is it a condition ('you are born gay' argument). That withstanding, in the examples I gave, both apply. Interracial marriage is a behavior and a choice. Slavery was a behavior and a choice (of the majority). Segregation was a behavior and a choice (of the majority). Suppresion of the indigenous peoples of North America was a behavior and a choice (of the invading Europeans). You failed to address my point, but instead tried misdirection to nullify it. You failed there too.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
When we look at any society it is based on something, its foundation is not pulled out of thin air. The reason why we can even discuss this issue or any issue publicly in America is because of our free society. That ideology of freedom has a foundation too. That foundation is based on religion, customs, traditions and experiences that all helped to formulate the thought of freedom in our forefathers to help them design our republic.

With that said, total freedom is total chaos and so a society sets up some restraints that we call laws so that we do not end up with a society of chaos. As example many drugs are illegal for society sees them as harmful to their society as a whole and to the individuals of that society, but even on ATS many of you feel that a person has the right to get high with any drug they choose no matter the consequences, and if enough people feel that way then society changes their way, and so we might see that happen in the near future with pot.

Gays have come a long way in the last 40 years to be able to openly express their sexual orientation without retribution, but in doing so they have tried to elevate their behavior as a right equal to all other rights, and so the expression “gay rights” come to mind. “Gay rights” rolls off the tongue very easily since we tend to hear it on a regular basis, but how does “Polygamist rights” sound to your ears, does it roll off the tongue just as easily? Is there really any difference between these two or any of the hundreds of other practices that we see in small groups of society?

So maybe the answer is not to create some special gay rights, but to create a gender neutral approach to government recognition of partnerships without going down the path of “marriage” that within our society has a rather deep foundation of definition. No matter what any of you feel you can’t just arbitrary throw aside religion, custom and traditions since majority of America and all of our past are based on these, sorry, but that is the way it is no matter how you think.

Personally I’m not smart enough to figure this out for I do not view gays as a special case, and so application of this type of system I would see it applied across many sub cultural groups, and I’m not so sure that I or the majority of society wants that. The expression “opening up Pandora’s box” comes to mind.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Umm... you may want to go back and reread my post... I said that 'every civilization that has not embraced homosexuality has also been destroyed... In other words, the same point you just made, only fewer words...



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


And that post just proved how full of crap you really are! Deceit is the way of the Dark Side, Luke! You are full of it... You know it... I know it... and your aren't fooling anyone else with half a brain either...

You have come to ATS with a closed mind... Such a waste of your and our time...

I'm done wasting my time... Have a nice life!



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

OK, you guys can't have it both ways just to suit your needs. Is homosexuality a behavior ('homosexuality is a choice' argument) or is it a condition ('you are born gay' argument). That withstanding, in the examples I gave, both apply. Interracial marriage is a behavior and a choice. Slavery was a behavior and a choice (of the majority). Segregation was a behavior and a choice (of the majority). Suppresion of the indigenous peoples of North America was a behavior and a choice (of the invading Europeans). You failed to address my point, but instead tried misdirection to nullify it. You failed there too.


As we discuss this do any of us really "fail", is it a test of some sort that I failed to pass or you idea of logic I have failed to meet?

So your logic is that sexual orientation is the same as race and color, so your discriminated against…right?

Please explain to me the form of discrimination that you experience? Is non recognition of your choice of partners by the government discrimination, is Warren Jeffs being in jail a discrimination of his choice of partners? Is the fact that your behavior goes against the majority of religions and beliefs in America discrimination too?

So you have a birth defect, but so does many others. Pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopath and many others all have birth defects that create behaviors that society disagrees with. I know your argument is all these other behaviors are negative and being gay is not, and I need to say are you so sure?

Individually, many gays are very educated, highly intelligent, talented, and extremely likable people, but as a society it is not such a rosy picture. Even with the burden they carry of spreading HIV into a global epidemic they still as a group lead all the high risk groups for STDs and even today close to 71% of HIV cases are gays, and 60% of all new cases are gays, CDC all this for only being about 5% of the population is a rather alarming situation. There are many other statistics that show similar results and once again when we are talking about 5% of the population there is something causing this to happen. It could be that being gay is not just one switch that just happen to not switch right during the fetus development, but it could be something else that homosexuality just happen to be a byproduct. Maybe it is a lack of behavioral barriers that exists in normal development, we see this, but in a different way with the lack of barriers in sociopaths, and psychopaths too.

With that said I do not see gays much differently as any other group that may have been born with a abnormal behavorial condition.



[edit on 5-9-2009 by Xtrozero]




top topics



 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join