North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Do you actually read the CDC stats or do you just pull your stats out of your hat? The CDC clearly says and I quote!

"(MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died."

You lose and the whole movement is suspect.

We neither have closet children bombers or the in your face kind of killers the Gay movement has. We don't have the silent killers like we see at the gay pride events.. My mistake, the very vocal killers that spread this disease. Society as a whole doesn't have the blood on their hands like Homosexuals do. There is no comparison to the religious persecution we see today and the innocent victims of AIDS that homosexuals could care less about.

Their actions dictate their intentions and their actions dictate mine where gay marriage is concerned. The HIV infection rates tell us that Homosexuals just do not get it. There is clear and present danger here in our society, but by all means lets discuss gay marriage like its more important!

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

Do you actually read the CDC stats or do you just pull your stats out of your hat? The CDC clearly says and I quote!

"(MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died."

You lose and the whole movement is suspect.

US, not globally. My numbers came from a global website. And 53% in the U.S. isn't much more than half, so around the same amount of Aids victims are straight. Why aren't you demonizing them, and preventing them from getting married until this whole mess is "straightened out?"

We neither have closet children bombers or the in your face kind of killers the Gay movement has. We don't have the silent killers like we see at the gay pride events.. My mistake, the very vocal killers that spread this disease. Society as a whole doesn't have the blood on their hands like Homosexuals do. There is no comparison to the religious persecution we see today and the innocent victims of AIDS that homosexuals could care less about.

You speak as though they're spreading the disease in malice. The only accounts of Aids being spread purposefully, that I've heard of, are in Africa between male rapists, targeting young women. Do you have a source for this malicious intent?

Their actions dictate their intentions and their actions dictate mine where gay marriage is concerned. The HIV infection rates tell us that Homosexuals just do not get it. There is clear and present danger here in our society, but by all means lets discuss gay marriage like its more important!

Even if you're right, how does a disease spread between non-procreating people affect you, or me, or marriage.
I know many many gays, not a one of them has Aids, or knows anyone with aids, and these people live all over the country. Besides, the disease is less of an issue these days. Reports have it that a cure has been found, or close to it. Again, why aren't you going after the straight Aids carriers?

I wonder, how will you justify your bigotry once Aids is no longer an issue

This how insane this political correctness has gone with Gay Marriage and how we are bending over backwards for Homosexuals in the name of tolerance! Where or when does it end? I mean if most liberals and homosexuals are this far gone there is no hope for society if they get their way.

www.usasurvival.org...

I just can't imagine allowing homosexuals to donate blood. I know we have tests for this but not every donor will be intercepted if infected. This whole Gay rights thing is so way out of control. Gay Marriage should be the least of our worries if homosexuals and their supporters are trying to pull a stunt like this. Its one thing if they want to play with fire, but its another thing altogether if they are putting a gun to everyone else's head.

To me, this is a crime against humanity. Just one more reason to justifiably call this movement and their followers insane, mentally unbalance and a clear and present danger to society at large.

Call me a homophobe, just don't infect the blood supply.

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
This how insane this political correctness has gone with Gay Marriage and how we are bending over backwards for Homosexuals in the name of tolerance! Where or when does it end? I mean if most liberals and homosexuals are this far gone there is no hope for society if they get their way.

And we don't bend over at all for religion in this country.

I just can't imagine allowing homosexuals to donate blood. I know we have tests for this but not every donor will be intercepted if infected. This whole Gay rights thing is so way out of control. Gay Marriage should be the least of our worries if homosexuals and their supporters are trying to pull a stunt like this. Its one thing if they want to play with fire, but its another thing altogether if they are putting a gun to everyone else's head.

Around half of the people with AIDS in the U.S. are heterosexual. You're not complaining about them giving blood. The problem lies in the testing, not the donation. Stop bashing gays.

To me, this is a crime against humanity. Just one more reason to justifiably call this movement and their followers insane, mentally unbalance and a clear and present danger to society at large.

Call me a homophobe, just don't infect the blood supply.

I feel the exact same way about the Christian Right (talk about an ironic term), ya homophobe.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


You say around half of AIDs infections are heterosexuals in America? What you don't say is that OVER HALF of the GRID aka AIDS infections have been, are and will continue to be homosexuals. Face it, the CDC has the facts and you refuse to read them.

On another and final note, a very sincere congratulations on your very hollow victory with the lip service Barack Hussein Obama gave to the LGBT. I have no doubt what he did was actually set your cause back 4 years like he did with race relations in this country.

Because I value my ATS account and I have gotten into trouble in these areas before I will bow out of this one. Congratulations on your small victory here too... See ya around pal...

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Your point is what, homophobia? Why are you concerned two men or two women sharing a home are any more than roommates?

Why is "homophobia" the fall back label many so routinely use? As I said, what they do as part of their lifestyle I really don't care, but I don't really need to agree or accept it as a norm either... or do I?

I have a friend that cheats on his wife...do I need to agree and accept his behavior as a norm too? This is why I say behaviors are behaviors and not Rights.

Your example of "ANYTHING" being acceptable is too all-encompassing and surely there are situations that can be imagined that would overstep fairness and decency.

Here we both agree 100%, but this is my point in we need to determine what is acceptable and what is not...right? The "how" to do this is we vote on it...right?

Who knows the future...maybe in a hundred years people will marry at the age of 8 and have as many partners as they can support...they might legally marry a tree in their backyard. Hell, fetuses might be considered human under the law and not an "it".

BUT in all these cases the majority will rule as to what is accepted or not, and the vote is the tool to do this. In a past post I did say I disagree with the vote outcome, but I support the States right to vote as they did.

reply to post by TruckDriver69


Thanks for admitting you lost the debate. That was very big of you.

I am certain that in 30 years we'll look back on this issue as we look back on the civil rights movement on the last century and wonder how we ever could've been so unjust.

Nice talking to you.

~FugitiveSoul

reply to post by TruckDriver69

I beg to disagree with you on that issue, that there has never been an in your face display of heterosexual pride, actually it has been there right in front of all of us all along. Take a look at popular media of today and in the past, where it shows the atypical family or couple, who end up getting married and having children. Shows like I love Lucy, or Leave it to Beaver, or even some of the other more popular shows, such as Star Trek, Battlestar Galatica, westerns like The Wild, Wild, West. Actors such as John Wayne, and Spencer Tracy, even the movies that showed big named actors and actresses, all screamed heterosexual nature, and it extended into the very cartoons that most of us watched while growing up. We learned what was cool and acceptable, and also what was not acceptable. Shows like All in the Family comes to mind when it deals with issues of the day and age. It also showed the turning of society and what was considered normal by standards.

So how can it be that heterosexual pride is not there? The media is reeking with it.
Gay pride parades were there, as a means to start to gain acceptance in the country, similar to the Civil Rights marches of the 1960’s. They were there to where people had to know what all was going on, and that such was a rally to point out the problems with the lack of acceptance in society towards one group of people. The history of the country is littered with many such, just that this is the newest one on the block. Yet if the Pride festivals were such a bad thing, then why do cities continue to allow them if not promote them? The bottom line for most communities that have such festivals, is that it means money and a boost to the economy. And right now, would you put a stop to something that could bring in large amounts of money cause it may or may not offend someone?

You keep mentioning AIDS, yet failed to recognize that the spreading of STD’s started with the heterosexual community. Many of the current diseases that are passed by sexual contact started long ago by heterosexual men and spread it to the rest of the world.

And even today, people still continue to legalize discrimination against those who are gay, forcing them to have to fight to just get equality in society. Do you deny laws that are on the books that would do such? The first one being back a few years ago, Colorado Amendment 2, which would have pretty much made it to where gay people would not be allowed any protection, or rights under the law what so ever. And these laws keep trying to get put on the books by those who use religion as a weapon that is pretty much is a bunch of hypocrisy. If, according to the Bible, God is love and forgiving, then why is the message that Gay people are forever dammed, yet a mass murderer who is condemned to death, is acceptable in heaven?

The current issue is Gay Marriage and what could be the harm in such? Beyond the religious objections, is there really any one piece of evidence, that is not biased to show such would be such a bad thing and have an effect on a local community if 2 men got married and lived a life together in a monogamous relationship? Last time I checked, part of the vows was to forego all others for the sake of your spouse. And would this not be an example for those around to follow? Or shall we continue on with what the popular media has portrayed, single mothers who do not know who the father of their child is?

Ironically, due to those not wanting gay people to live in their neighborhood or community, find that the communities that do have gay people living in them, to be attractive, as it seems as those where ever gay people tend to live they clean the place up, restore houses and make it a very attractive place to live.

You keep harping on the HIV and AIDS epidemic of the country, yet fail to mention that it is the Gay community that keeps trying to pressure the government for more action in combating the disease, pushing for safe sex and trying to keep the movement alive to combat it, not just for itself, but for all of those affected with this disease. Nor has it been mentioned how the statistics break down. While the gay community is one of the largest affected, seems that there is also the increase with those who use drugs and the break down as follows: Black men have the greatest number who are newly affected, twice that of white men and more than twice that of the Latino communites. Among the Latino communities, they tend to see the influx of infection with those who are young, between the ages of 13 to 29 and ages 30 to 39.

The reality about HIV is that they do not know who patient 0 is or was. They can only make a guess about such. And just maybe allowing gay marriage to happen, would stop the spread of this plague, as it would reduce the numbers of new cases on a year to year basis.

reply to post by TruckDriver69
The site you provided regarding gay people donating blood Liberals Push Contaminated Gay Blood for Blood Supply Is reaching desperately to find some level of doom in allowing homosexuals to donate blood. First off the article does state more than once in regards to HIV contamination that

Kerry, Franken and 16 other liberal Senators insist they want the blood supply to remain safe and that donated blood must undergo two "highly accurate" tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually or nearly zero.

The site goes on with what can only be described as fear mongering stating the following:

"Senator Kerry argues that this policy is now arcane because we have tests to determine if donated blood carries the HIV, but the problem is not the diseases we know of and have tests for but the diseases which we haven't identified as sexually transmitted and blood borne and don't have tests for," O'Leary points out.

There may be blood borne diseases we don't have tests for that have nothing at all to do with sex. The article also refers to a number of scary sounding diseases that the site refers to as STD's, following are the majority of them, I have looked up their causes and when possible I have included the type of people at risk of them.
MRSA,

Who Gets MRSA? MRSA is spread by contact. So, you could get MRSA by touching another person who has it on the skin. Or you could get it by touching objects that have the bacteria on them. MRSA is carried by about 1% of the population, although most of them aren't infected.MRSA infections are common among people who have weak immune systems and are in hospitals, nursing homes, and other heath care centers. Infections can appear around surgical wounds or invasive devices, like catheters or implanted feeding tubes. Rates of infection in hospitals, especially intensive care units, are rising throughout the world. In U.S. hospitals, MRSA causes more than 60% of staph infections.

Shigella

It is particularly likely to occur among toddlers who are not fully toilet-trained. Family members and playmates of such children are at high risk of becoming infected. Shigella infections may be acquired from eating contaminated food. Contaminated food usually looks and smells normal. Food may become contaminated by infected food handlers who forget to wash their hands with soap after using the bathroom.

Chlamydia,

predominantly found in sexually active females

. This is the only STD in this list that I looked upCampylobacter enteritis

is a common cause of intestinal infection. These bacteria also cause one of the many types of traveler's diarrhea. People usually get infected by eating or drinking contaminated food or water, often raw poultry, fresh produce, or unpasteurized milk. A person can also be infected by close contact with infected people or animals. Symptoms start 2 - 4 days after exposure and generally last 1 week.

Salmonella enteritis

Eggs have been the most common food source linked to SE infections. SE can be inside perfectly normal-appearing eggs. If eggs contaminated with SE are eaten raw or lightly cooked (runny egg whites or yolks), the bacterium can cause illness. Since the early 2000s, poultry has also been found to be a common food source for SE infections. Multiple other, less frequently identified sources include raw milk, pork, beef, sprouts, and raw almonds. International travel and contact with reptiles have also been associated with SE infection Anyone can get a Salmonella infection, but the elderly, infants, and persons with impaired immune systems are at increased risk for serious illness. In these persons, a relatively small number of Salmonella bacteria can cause severe illness. In outbreaks, most of the deaths caused by SE have occurred among persons in nursing homes and hospitals. Egg-containing dishes prepared for any of these high-risk persons, whether in hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants, or at home, should use pasteurized eggs.

Giardia lamblia

Giardia is a microscopic parasite that causes the diarrheal illness known as giardiasis. Giardia (also known as Giardia intestinalis, Giardia lamblia, or Giardia duodenalis) is found on surfaces or in soil, food, or water that has been contaminated with feces (poop) from infected humans or animals. While the parasite can be spread in different ways, water (drinking water and recreational water) is the most common method of transmission.

Entamoeba histolytica.

It can affect anyone, although it is more common in people who live in tropical areas with poor sanitary conditions.

and Entamoeba coli

Originally posted by sdcigarpig


So how can it be that heterosexual pride is not there? The media is reeking with it.

What you are suggesting is the media runs with what 95% plus of the population identifies with..

The current issue is Gay Marriage and what could be the harm in such?

I think the problem is that gays want cultural acceptance by all and normalization of their behaviors and they want to change government policies and laws to force the majority towards those goals.
How do they do it...

Well they have the largest propaganda machine in the world known as Hollywood as starters...

They have suggested that up to 25% of the population is gay when in reality it is closer to 3%. This is all about creating the "normal" mentality...hell 1 in 4 are gay so it is more normal than being black in America. They then can (and DO) associate their behavior with the black civil rights movement, but once again why isn't that guy who wants five wives that are eight years old not having his civil rights stepped on too...no one wants to answer that one...hehe

Wanting to normalize it they use Hollywood's heavy influence in TV and film and by attacking basic American fundamentals, with one of those being how marriage is defined.

So attack religion, attack marriage, and attack anyone or anything else in their path that is not 100% supportive of their behaviors, a behavior that once again is a very small percent of the population.

So one then asks who really cares and why care. Using Blacks as example, being an African American is not a behavior, and so there is no "black behavior" that a person could say they disagree with or dislike in anyway. So for someone to suggest they dislike blacks, or disagree with someone only because they are black this would fall into the categories of being racist, hate monger, prejudice etc and could easily fall into the illegal category.

NOW let's take a behavior...any behavior and give it the same status as race, creed or color and we have a situation that disliking that behavior or disagreeing with that behavior could just as easily make it illegal to do.

For me I don't care what anyone wants to do, but it doesn't mean I need to accept it or agree with it and I sure do not want it to be illegal when I don't.

Am I the only one that sees it as a bad thing to include actions/behaviors as a civil right?

I would say there is no real number of known people that are gay because many of them (men) are married to women and regularly cheat with whomever is available at the time. Don't believe that well check out craigslist ads m4m and all those hint at being secretive, only can meet on this day, on a business trip, the wife's away. Just personal experience the number of times I get hit on by married men suggests to me that there are far more gays than most people imagine. I would guess around 20% of the male population and this is in the south.

If you ask these men if they are gay they will say no but, a lot of them have exclusive relations with men and tell their wives stories of having ED, or too tired, relationship grown apart, pre-occupied with other things to escape intimacy at home. I know for a fact that closeted men already donate blood and closeted/formerly closeted men are the only people I have met that are HIV+ because as above they have to take what they can get because they form no stable relationships with other gay men.

The homophobia and bigotry in this thread is laughable, and quite revealing.
As it turns out, roughly 80% of people, specifically men,
who display homophobic behavior have secret homosexual
feelings and desires. Revealing indeed.

link 1

This 2nd link (article) delves deeper into the study mentioned in the link above.

link 2

Originally posted by toochaos4u
I would guess around 20% of the male population and this is in the south.

To be very honest...if that was the case then any law could be passed in their favor. There would be no heterosexual majority rule in anything. 35% of the population votes or less and so 20% and a lot less than 20% could drive a vote in any direction.

I think San Fran is 15% gay, so let's go to a typical town and randomly pick 100 guys and see the 20 that are gay...you can't even do that in San Fran... Well maybe in a bath house...

This high percentage propaganda was first pushed in the 70s by the gays and it seems they did well with it. So 20% gay, 40% bi/curious 40% in favor of gays....what the hell America is gay!!! Well except for one state that is...

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
The homophobia in this thread is laughable, and quite revealing.
As it turns out, roughly 80% of people, specifically men,
who display homophobic behavior have secret homosexual
feelings and desires.

So now 20% are gay and the other 80% want to be gay???

Do you even know what a phobia is? Homophobia is just a derogatory slang term created by (guess who) to label anyone that may be against gay political agendas.

The interesting part (yes I do have a degree in Psychology) is that Homosexuality was quietly removed from the DSM in 1973. Much of the reason was because of gay activists and demonstrator pushing for it. Well it didn't go over well and there was quite an outrage from psychiatrists within the APA. Further debates ended in 40% in favor of putting it back in with a large number distaining from voting at all...with no majority it was left out, BUT it never needed much of anything to remove it in the first place....funny huh?

The popular reason put forth is homosexually does not suggest any negative mental tendencies and so should not be a disorder....


Ok that is just history, but here is the fun part and ingenious...how does the gay community get back at the straight community...Well by creating a mental disorder for anyone that may disagree with the gay lifestyle...like I said ingenious...lol

reply to post by TruckDriver69


Homophobia - the fear that a gay man will treat you the same way that you treat women.

HIV/AIDS: Frequently Asked Questions

How many women are infected with HIV/AIDS?

HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects women, with 16.6 million HIV-positive worldwide. Globally, 76 percent of all HIV-positive women live in sub-Saharan Africa.

HIV Epidemic Growing Fastest Among Black Gay and Bisexual Men

Young black gay and bisexual men are the only population in the U.S. in which the pace of HIV's spread is increasing, according to a startling study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yesterday.

You "writings" tell me, frankly, that you are as likely to have a problem with the lack community as with the Gay community, is this the case?

Women Represent Half of HIV-Positive People Worldwide; Disease Spreading Fastest Among Women, Review Says

Women represent about half of all HIV/AIDS cases worldwide, and the virus is spreading fastest among female populations, especially in developing countries, according to an article published in the June 10 issue of the magazine Science

One has to ask themselves what The gay (especially the black gay) community in the US has in common with women in developing countries. Could it possibly be that they have les rights, are seen as lesser than "real men" and severely lack in the availability of medical care, due to attitudes just like yours? Could it be that in the rest of the world, especially the developing world, women are second class citizens, just like gays, (or the double whammy, black and gay) in the US?

If you have missed the displays of heterosexual pride and debauchery, it is because it has been normalized, do you watch TV or go to movies? Have you ever watch the 700 Club? Watched Westboro Baptist "demonstrate" at a "fags" or soldiers funeral? Have you seen Falwell or Phelps in action? What about the Rose bowl or Superbowl parade? What about Anti-gay demonstrations? Not to mention, the protests about Prop * in California, or the very subject THIS thread is about? There are you "heterosexual" pride and debauchery displays, but it is "normal" for you so you don't see it, but it is just as disgusting to the gay community as Gay Pride parades are to you, but for different reasons, Gay Pride parades are not held to encourage, or celebrate the limiting of rights to the strait community.

I don't care what you say, Gay Pride Parades are not normal and do not represent civilized society. They are abnormal and putting it mildly, those that participate are mentally imbalanced. To compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement doesn't sway me one bit and I really think its a straw man argument.

You have the right to your opinion, but fortunately, just because it is your opinion, it does not make it fact.

African Americans were not simulating sex in the streets or being irresponsible by spreading a civilization ending plague for the rest of us to "enjoy." TO this day, they still do not get it. They are the largest group today still spreading that wicked disease.

LOL, apparently, you have done precious little research, or would know that the fasted growing segment of society in the US that is getting infected with HIV/AIDS, is in fact, Gay and Bisexual Black men, lol. This tells me that you are forming your opinion on little more than, well, your biases, and not research, in some parts of the world, they would call this ignorance, I think it fits, as a descriptor of your opinion, it is more about the fear of the unknown, rather than informed.

Oh, and quoting a very subjective, radical right wing activist who is known to be a bigot, and notorious homophobe, that being Cliff Kincaid, does nothing to help you argument, in fact, it cements you status as puppet.

www.sourcewatch.org...

Anti-Obama Frenzy: The Case of Cliff Kincaid

Meet Cliff Kincaid, Virulent Supporter of State Run Radio Programs

Cliff Kincaid's International Gay-Bashing

Cliff Kincaid begins Campaign to bring Glenn Beck back to Fox News

i could go on, but you get the picture. (at least I hope)

Originally posted by Xtrozero

So now 20% are gay and the other 80% want to be gay???

I think you got your math wrong. Unless you're insinuating that all heterosexuals are homophobic (and yes, I know what a "phobia" is)

Homophobia is just a derogatory slang term created by (guess who) to label anyone that may be against gay political agendas.

No. Those are called bigots. Homophobics are something different all together.

I've conjured up a couple of definitions for educational purposes.

bigoted |ˈbigətid|
adjective
obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

homophobia |ˌhōməˈfōbēə|
noun
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

phobia |ˈfōbēə|
noun
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

The popular reason put forth is homosexually does not suggest any negative mental tendencies and so should not be a disorder....

Homosexuality is no more a disorder than those who need to justify their existence and purpose with a belief in one or more deities, yet we allow these people their rights to live and behave as they desire (granted, as long as that behavior isn't harmful to others).

Ok that is just history, but here is the fun part and ingenious...how does the gay community get back at the straight community...Well by creating a mental disorder for anyone that may disagree with the gay lifestyle...like I said ingenious...lol

Yeah, trying to level the playing field so that they can be treated as equal human beings is a real lulz moment.

reply to post by TruckDriver69


Are you kidding, you will have to do better than that, identifying one isolated incident, and trying to paint a picture that it is the norm is not being completely honest.

Be more specific about what issues, as in societal issues, not petty local issues, and lay them out for us, you must have desperate to use that particular article, it does not actually say anything or provide any facts, it is pretty much pure hyperbole.

Grade 3 teacher Lee Hicks makes no bones about it.

“One of the mandates is to move kids toward activism,” he told the Sun News Network’s David Menzies.

This is the only factual part of the article, the rest is assumptions and and what has been surmised, or so vague it is actually useless other than to ruffle feathers, not surprising from "The Toronto Sun" a very conservative tabloid rag.

Do you have anything that is a national issue? Where the students are being brainwashed to think "liberal"? I live in oil country in Southeast Saskatchewan, a very conservative area, and I can tall you that Enbridge does cause environmental damage, I have responded, hot-shotting spill remediation supplies too many times, these are facts, not lib talking points or opinions. Yes pipelines do create jobs, someone has to stay employed after they are built to clean up the periodic environmental disasters, heck, they have given me hours.

As far as illegal use of Native lands, and destruction of habitats, yes, guess what, building pipelines across treaty land without permission, is illegal, and the "Harper" government HAS already said they are prepared to do that for the gateway pipeline, they have also streamlined the environmental approval process, and it is a simple fact, that building a pipeline, through animal habitats, does disturb them, these are simple facts, not opinions, or talking points.

Where I live, it would be easy to say that the education is very right centric, and are being brainwashed/indoctrinated to conservative values. Teachers are human, and no matter how hard they try, their own biases will seep in, it is not a lib, or conservative anomaly, it is only turned into that by who is reporting on it, and what axe they have to grind.

“One of the mandates is to move kids toward activism,” he told the Sun News Network’s David Menzies.

There is not a think wrong with teaching kids to stand up and be heard, about any topic, back when I took my OAC courses, OAC Law specifically, we were encouraged to speak up and out, no holds barred, about anything, and debate, both in the class, and outside.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by toochaos4u
I would guess around 20% of the male population and this is in the south.

To be very honest...if that was the case then any law could be passed in their favor. There would be no heterosexual majority rule in anything. 35% of the population votes or less and so 20% and a lot less than 20% could drive a vote in any direction.

I think San Fran is 15% gay, so let's go to a typical town and randomly pick 100 guys and see the 20 that are gay...you can't even do that in San Fran... Well maybe in a bath house...

This high percentage propaganda was first pushed in the 70s by the gays and it seems they did well with it. So 20% gay, 40% bi/curious 40% in favor of gays....what the hell America is gay!!! Well except for one state that is...

edit on 12-5-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

The small majority that will honestly say they are gay is far different than the numbers of men that self-identify as not gay but, have exclusive relations with men while being married. Like I say, check something as simple as the craigslist ads. Why would an open gay man have to hide and be secretive of anything? There was a case in Spartanburg SC a few years back where a married man with full blown aids said straight up that he slept with only married men he met on craigslist and straightacting.com and that number was in the thousands and the local health department was trying to find all these men to be screened. He knowingly did not reveal his status to any of these men (reason he was arrested) and there was concern they would carry this back to their families.

Walk with me in the mall and I can show you who is gay. Like I say married men hit on me all the time (which is icky). It isn't propaganda if it is true lol. Why would a hidden man come forward in support of gays when he has his cake and eats it too. When he is confronted he can always say, "I'm not gay I have a wife!" I would say the sliding scale of sexuality is pretty accurate with 20% gay, 60% varying degree of bisexual and 20% heterosexual. Is a man gay if he is married, stops having relations with his wife a long time ago and has only gay relations on the side when the wife is unsuspecting, at work etc. as long as he says, "I'm not gay or I'm somewhat bi-sexual only because I am married?"

In some ways (but not others) it would have been far easier to pick up a wife for myself, be with her enough to get her pregnant, get a wedding ring, few babies to keep (distract) her attention. Over time cut her down while going fishing with buddies, having a traveling job etc. Married men get better respect in business, community, family etc. so in the end keep her around as a beard. After about 10 years cut her off completely and say I am having ED and slowly become uninterested in bedroom antics at all but, stay friendly enough to keep her on the line. It really isn't that hard but, it is lie and unfair to her because she could have found someone and formed a legit relationship. But, I would get the "married respect", the woman to point to if sexuality is questioned, the man/men on the side, family acceptance etc.
(Pretty neat trick huh? Happens all the time).

There is thought to be a spectrum of sexualities between Fully Hetero, and Fully Homo. A scale called the "Kinsey levels of Sexuality" is used to describe 7 levels of sexual orientation, level 0 being exclusively Hetero, level 3 being Bisexual, and level 6 being exclusively Homosexual.

Originally posted by Radiobuzz


I'm not from the US and I think this is insane. Not only for denying the LGTB community of their basic rights but also because now 'marriage' is the only legal domestic union valid on NC, and hence everyone, including straight people, will be affected by this.

I'm sorry if it offends any US citizen but it seems to me that it's a huge distortion of democracy when a majority choses if a minority will have basic rights or not. Democracy should actually protect any minority because the sum of all minorities is what makes a population, so it's a huge hit to the system when any group get its liberties taken away. It's a sadden news and I don't think you have to be gay to understand how bad this is.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Homosexuals are free to move to the EU. We see what is going on in states that try to be tolerant and accommodating. Homosexuals use that little inch and attempt to stamp out hetero sexual culture and social norms.

P.S

America isn't a Democracy, it is a Republic. If you want a Democracy, move to Europe and leave the Americans alone.