Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?

reply to post by SplitInfinity


SplitInfi, thanks for this confirmation. The people running the war games don't care about these guys. They care about not upsetting the people whose countries we are in. Or some such politically correct cr&%. I was reading about this in Michael Savage's book, "Trickle Up Poverty", and I know a lot of people don't like him, but he is very American, and I was furious when I read about how the current crop of leaders are putting our troops in danger for a political agenda.

reply to post by rainbowbear

OP - Seriously? You consider this article factual



This article is obviously written by a bible thumping gay basher.

This statement proves how full of crap the author is....
FTA www.publiusforum.com...

Homosexuals can be “converted” back to heterosexuality, but not without dedication and commitment, and every homosexual is not involved with violence, but all of them live a vile and vulgar lifestyle. There is hope for the homosexual and that is through a personal, saving, life-changing relationship with Christ.

reply to post by blueorder


I find it rather uncouth myself. No wonder arabic people think we are the great Satan. Look at what we have done with our freedom in the country which has the most of it. With freedom also comes responsibility.

Either being gay is a genetic defect or its not and their morals are defected. Either way is fine with me. God made Adam and Eve.... not Adam and Steve. HAHAHAHA. That never gets old. Anyways.... I noticed that these gay activists always grip and complain about everything. They wont be happy until everyone is gay. I guess MISERY loves company and no one like to sin alone.

reply to post by Hecate666


I haven't read all the replies, but what do you think of chemicals and pollution?

I think some are born gay, but I see lately that there seems to be a higher percentage of people claiming to be gay, I remember reading an article

Gender-Bender Chemicals are Turning Boys Into Girls
www.naturalnews.com...
Sunday, March 14, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer



(NaturalNews) The government of Denmark has released a 326-page report affirming that endocrine disrupting chemicals are probably continuing to the birth of fewer males and the "feminization" of existing ones.

The report centers on chemicals like PVC, flame retardants, phthalates, dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol-A, all of which mimic the action of estrogen in the body. The researchers concluded that due to the prevalence of these chemicals, children could easily be exposed to high enough levels to place them at "critical risk" of harm.

The chemicals have been blamed for falling sperm counts among men worldwide, and their full effects remain unknown. A study by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, found that male children who had been exposed to PCBs and dioxins while in the womb were more likely to dress up in female clothes and play with dolls than boys who had not been. Other research has documented a connection between prenatal phthalate exposure and "feminization" of male genitals, including smaller penises.

Evidence is increasingly emerging that estrogen mimics might also be responsible for a puzzling phenomenon: fewer boys are being born than ever before. Typically, 106 male children are born for every 100 females in most populations. In recent years, however, this distribution has been shifting in favor of females, with endocrine disruptors a likely culprit.

For example, a Canadian Inuit community living on Lake Huron and surrounded by chemical factories produces two girls for every boy born. Similar phenomena have been observed in contaminated communities in Brazil, Israel, Italy, Taiwan and the Arctic Circle, as well as among workers in Russian pesticide factories.

Many hormone-mimicking chemicals build up in the body and resist environmental degradation, meaning that they are now widely distributed across the planet.

Originally posted by Erno86
According to an approx. 20 year old Washington Post poll: 4 out of every 10 people have listed homosexuality as their 3rd or 4th rated sexual fantasy in there minds; with #1 being rated at the top.

The archdiocese of the Catholic Church, gives no option too some of the Catholic Priest's, but to turn towards homosexuality. This preference has been shoved under the rug for hundreds of years.

The problem started when the Catholic Church refused the right for Catholic priest's to marry, because if the priest's were allowed to marry; upon there deaths the wive's would be able to inherit the husbands estate rather than the Catholic Church.

Because of a need for power, the Church has completely ruined the symbolic archetype of the Holy Family which is espoused in Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, the nuclear family which provides stability for society. Marxism always was and is an attack on the nuclear family, replacing it with the State. Today, Statists are busy attacking the rights of the family, the rights of the parent to raise their children in a godly and righteous fashion, and replacing it with their secular humanist vision of things where the State is supreme and all people bow to it.

reply to post by yourboycal2

2 girls making out in a public place would only upset me if i wasnt there to watch.....

Originally posted by fatdad
reply to post by yourboycal2

 

2 girls making out in a public place would only upset me if i wasnt there to watch.....

I am old enough to remember what lesbians in our community used to look like, and trust me these two were not lipstick lesbians, you prolly would not have found their making out a turn on, lol,

I am not making a judgement here, just making an observation,

reply to post by Destinyone


Lol, there we go, prime example of pulling a stereotype card. *clap clap clap*. For the record, I would rather you armed in BDUs, gun in hand, and serving your country .

reply to post by Destinyone

Guess you would prefer me barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen cooking, where I belong

Hey, hey, lol, I used to resemble that remark, loved every second of it.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


You mistaken me possible, I have no issue with the man next to me being gay. They are very good people in fact, I just dont want to take a shower with one. It is a sad story that he fell, whenever a fellow hog drops regardless of sexual orientation it is a loss.

With that said, I can make humorous jokes about gays if I like as an American, if this bothers you too bad.

I personally do not talk about the missions I go on and or the weapons or tactics we use as I am bound by contract and honor not to.

Anyway God or Allah bless all that serve and those innocents that do not because it is a violent unfair world...but that is just the way it is, has been and will continue to be.

Sniper

I have no problem with gay people ,

only thing i really dislike ,

is two dudes making out in public areas.

So you do have a problem with homosexuality then. :-)

reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee


He doesn't have a proble mwith them as long as they do what he wants them too

Originally posted by Amadeo

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Starchild23

 

is it "no one's business", when grown hairy arsed men attend these "pride" marches in leather clad s&M gear?

That is an effing disgrace

The answer's simple -- if you don't like to see that, stop going to Pride marches.

No it bloody isn't, because I don't attend them- but they are in city centres where people wil be about regardless of a bloody "pride" march, those freaks should be locked up parading in S&M gear, and that ain't gay bashing as I know a few gay people who think the same

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I'm not sure what homophobes fear most: the homosexuality of others, or the deep seeded homosexuality within themselves.


Here's a fact of homosexuality: Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

so is an anti racist secretly racist

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus




ain't that the truth, saw these pics from a facebook friend who attends those "Pride" marches, I kid you not, these dudes were middle aged, fat and hairy and they were parading near naked in S&M leather gear, bunch of dheads

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by rainbowbear

 

OP - Seriously? You consider this article factual

This article is obviously written by a bible thumping gay basher.

This statement proves how full of crap the author is....
FTA www.publiusforum.com...

Homosexuals can be “converted” back to heterosexuality, but not without dedication and commitment, and every homosexual is not involved with violence, but all of them live a vile and vulgar lifestyle. There is hope for the homosexual and that is through a personal, saving, life-changing relationship with Christ.

edit on 5-2-2012 by vogon42 because: (no reason given)

I noticed that of the entire article that segment is the one you picked out to disagree with, not the part where it actually lists the various sexual activities.

Originally posted by charles1952
Ok, so I've found to my satisfaction that approximately 3% of the population is gay.

Not sure about that? Source?

I went looking for more facts, this time on the subject of health and disease. My source was the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2009. Of course, AIDS and HIV are the conditions that come to mind when thinking about male homosexual sex, so I thought I'd look there.

They looked at the 40 states and five dependent areas that have confidential HIV reporting. there statistics include: (I'm rounding everything to the nearest thousand.)

In 2009 (the most recent year that data are available), there were an estimated 48,100 new HIV infections.[1] Most (61%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men.

Roughly 22,000 were diagnosed among blacks, 12,000 among whites, and 7000 among Latinos.

The most frequent method of transmission was male-male sex at 24,000, heterosexual sex at 13,000, needles 4,000.

For AIDS, there were 35,000 new diagnosis. 17,000 black, 9,000 white, 7,000 hispanic.

The most common transmission methos was male-male sex, at 17,000, heterosexual contact, 10,000, and needles, 5,000.

www.cdc.gov...

So, maybe it's old news, but it appears that gay men get HIV at about twenty times the rate of heterosexuals

20 times? How do you get that figure? Oh, because 3% of the population is gay and 61% of new hiv cases are gay men? But that's not accurate math because you're comparing apples and oranges. For starters, let's just assume your number of 3%...Let's look at the US population: 300,000,000. 3% are gay...9 million gay people. Assuming males are roughly 50 percent...4.5 million gay males. The CDC says 17,000 new cases out of 4.5 million men. WOW. That's still a staggering amount of people...but that's less than half a percent of the whole population.

(and, for some reason, heterosexual women get it much more often than men.)

That's not hard to figure out. My original post back on page 7 or 8 goes over one reason for this. The closeted syndrome that a lot of gay men have forces them to live their whole lives pretending to be straight. But they break, they cheat on their straight lives and their straight lovers and usually, because it has to be hidden, do it in the worst, most dangerous of ways. Also, there's how it's transmitted, via blood and semen, so a woman would be more susceptible to the transmission from a secretly gay or bisexual partner than a heterosexual man to a secretly gay, bisexual or promiscuous female partner.

Minorities get it much more frequently than whites, and male-male sex is the most likely way to get HIV/AIDS.

Well, that comes down to poverty and lack of education. Homosexuals also tend to have to hide their lifestyle. When you are sexually repressed, you tend to lash out and this sort of repression can lead to binge-sex, which can lead to more chance encounters with diseased individuals in the same boat. Also, it should be mentioned that since heterosexual sex is the norm, every society on earth has built cultural morays about how sex will and should occur. These are not biological, but cultural, whether we're talking the Samoans that Margaret Mead first studied or the rituals and taboos surrounding sex and marriage - and how they have changed in the West.

Since the homosexual community has been mostly underground through the development of such cultural norms in Western society over the last 2000 years, it's not surprising that there are fewer codified rules regarding sexual behavior vis-a-vis their heterosexual counterparts.

reply to post by Sphota


Beautifully crafted rebuttal.

As a (fairly older....54-ish) Gay male I find the original claim by the other ATS member you responded to of "3%" laughable.

One only needs to look at sites such as "Craiglist" (amongst many others) to get a sense of the hypocrisy of the "3%" claim....

Originally posted by locololo
reply to post by rainbowbear

 

Gay's will behave and try for the equality crap. But then when it comes around ,they'll be like the women, the black skinned, etc and pull a stereotype card to get their way. "They fired me because of my sexuality!" I defeinetly see that coming in th future.

No need to look to the future, such things already occur and have occurred for quite some time.

That being said, if you can do the job, I don't see a problem with you having your own lifestyle or pecadillos.

For starters, I disagree with drug testings. If you have a drug and alcohol problem that is out of control, it will show itself to be the case with the quality and quantity of your work. If being gay, black, white, female, male, whatever has no bearing on your work then why should/would/could it affect your employment status.

As no single person is metanymic of the whole class to which he or she belongs, then how could anyone say that "X people make bad Y"?

This is also why I dislike basal comedians with stupid stereotypical humor. It's over done. I'm gay and I don't act "stereotypically" gay; I'm Italian-American and i find my actions and vocabulary more "Italianish" than most of these Jersey-shore Guido wanna-be 'stugatz.

What I'm trying to say is that we feed off of these images and we create ourselves based on them. It's a return to the whole "art immitating life or life imitating art" question. It's really a two-way street, both imitate each other.