Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?

Originally posted by spocksleftear
reply to post by blueorder

 

Beach wear is not sexualised??? I think it is you who are being plainly ridiculous. Bikinis and thong bikinis are totally sexualised attire. They have the same form and show even more flesh than nightwear, and are used in innumerable sexualised photoshoots.

Rubbish


Beachwear is for the purpose of going to the beach and sunbathing or swimming- S&M wear is a sexual fetish, to compare the two is ridiculous in the extreme

As for your personal attacks, I think it shows how weak your argument really is.

Oh really, as opposed to labelling people as fictional cartoon characters because they don't share the same opinion as you.

Or what about the poster who has taken my point about S&M displays as being anti gay-- more rubbish

I'm going to double down on the weakness of your argument

Oooooo get you

because you keep going back to hairy men in s and m gear, again and again it goes to men, you never say people in s and m gear. Always men, so i think you earlier assertion that it did not matter who was in the s and m gear was a blatant lie, and that your actual posts reveal your prejudices.

You would think that because you are prejudiced- the discussion is about gay people, hence, in this discussion I have referenced those who hijack gay pride parades to indulge in this public display of their S&M fetish- the only ones I have seen doing this are hairy fat men, if I ever see parades with heterosexual women doing likewise, I apply the same view, no difference.

So you didn't really "double down", did you

As for part 2, you made the assertion that the reason it was bad was because it was an area where children would be exposed to sexualised clothing. Your entire counter argument hangs on your denial of bikinis as sexualised clothing. But if bikinis are not sexualised why have they caused such controversy in sporting events as being inappropriate.

en.wikipedia.org...

A sure way to tell if bikinis are sexualised clothing is the google imagesearch test. On doing a google imagesearch for 'bikini' what do we get? Is it a bunch of people engaged in regular swimming and sunbathing activities? nope, its a bunch of ladies making sexy poses. Lads mags are filled with women in bikinis. Your saying bikinis are not sexualised is as ridiculous as me saying s and m gear is not sexualised. So I guess the evidence crushes your rejection of bikinis as sexualised clothing.

But why stop there , what happens when i google for bikinis banned.... 13,800,000 results.

Why would people ban totally non sexualised inoffensive swim wear.. huh.
Bikinis are banned in Barcelona, you can be fined a few hundred euros for wearing one in the city.
The muslim brotherhood wants to ban bikinis. Bikinis were banned from a public pool in utah. Bikinis banned from miss england because it gives a 'cattle market image, to the event. And i mean we have not even mentioned the thong. Thongs are considered swim wear. Are you going to try and tell me those are not sexualised?

If people want to parade around a city centre in beach wear of the skimpiest variety, for sexual dispay purposes then the same rules apply- bikinis on beaches serve a different purposes.

Once again, for you to equate swimwear with S&M fetish shows that you smashed your moral compass long ago, but yeah, if there is a sexualised swimwear parade through a town centre my view applies to that as well, so I have smashed your argument com

So i guess your whole argument is crushed, though it would be hard to call it an argument given it relies on saying 'ridiculous!!!' as being the entire counterpoint to an argument.

You guessed wrong didn't you

Good job btw, really 'high quality' replies on your part. Lots of evidence.....

Yes, brilliant from a man who throughs out percentages based on cartoon characters as "fact"

reply to post by blueorder


You declare my moral compass is smashed because i can equate s and m gear with swimwear, but that is an intentional misdirection on your part and an attempt to frame my point as being on swimwear, when I have only mentioned bikinis and thongs. And they can totally be equated by the fact they are sexualised clothing (as I have proved with evidence). That does not mean they are the same, nor as I think you do, do I imply that. Apples and oranges are very different, but you would not consider it ridiculous to classify them both as fruit, similarly s and m clothing and bikinis can both be classed as sexualised clothing.

You also ignored all the instances of bikinis being banned and simply declared all of them ridiculous, yet they show time and again that bikinis are a sexualised piece of clothing considered inappropriate in various occasions. I mean those athletes were not flaunting themselves but the wearing of bikinis in their events was considered inappropriate? How do you explain this? And why would miss england remove the swimsuit part of their event and look on it as giving a cattle mart feel to the event? The explanation is that the bikini as an item of clothing has sexual associations.

The fact that you have an issue with s and m is unfortunate, but given that such clothing shows less flesh than bikinis, and that they are not breaking any laws in wearing them there is not much you can do about it.

Originally posted by spocksleftear
reply to post by blueorder

 

You declare my moral compass is smashed because i can equate s and m gear with swimwear, but that is an intentional misdirection on your part and an attempt to frame my point as being on swimwear, when I have only mentioned bikinis and thongs.

and, as I said, in the CONTEXT of a parade through a city centre, if someone wanted to indulge in a public display of thong wearing for sex reasons, my opinion would be the same, regardless if the person is homosexual or not

And they can totally be equated by the fact they are sexualised clothing (as I have proved with evidence). That does not mean they are the same, nor as I think you do, do I imply that. Apples and oranges are very different, but you would not consider it ridiculous to classify them both as fruit, similarly s and m clothing and bikinis can both be classed as sexualised clothing.

You haven't- in the context of a beach, they are not (or certainly not normally) sexualised, if they were to be used in a sexual display manner in a city centre parade then I would hold the same opinion.

You also ignored all the instances of bikinis being banned and simply declared all of them ridiculous, yet they show time and again that bikinis are a sexualised piece of clothing considered inappropriate in various occasions

Context is always important, my point was that the swimwear has a different function than S&M wear, S&M wear serves no other purpose than a sexual fetish- this is not the case with swimwear and so in different situations, my opinions on the sexualisation of thongs in a city centre parade would be the same

I mean those athletes were not flaunting themselves but the wearing of bikinis in their events was considered inappropriate? How do you explain this? And why would miss england remove the swimsuit part of their event and look on it as giving a cattle mart feel to the event? The explanation is that the bikini as an item of clothing has sexual associations.

You would have to ask the organisers how they viewed the sexualisation of the items- my point was as stated above, a bikini is not inherently sexual whereas S&M wear is

The fact that you have an issue with s and m is unfortunate,

I have an issue with it being paraded in towns and cities, it is unfortunate that you do not.

If people choose to indulge in this at home or in clubs with like minded people, that is their business

but given that such clothing shows less flesh than bikinis, and that they are not breaking any laws in wearing them there is not much you can do about it.

laws can be funny things, as one can go to a nudist beach and be nude without sexualisation, though one would be arrested if one were to dander about a town naked.

reply to post by blueorder


That was a very poor attempt at a rebuttal. Spocksleftear absolutely slaughtered your argument in his post immediately before your reply to me and said everything I would have said. Don't be disingenuous and claim that your problem is with guys in S&M gear at Pride marches because it is clearly with the gay community as whole, as evidenced by your comment regarding the "tolerance" we enjoy not being around much longer. You showed yourself up with that comment. And I'll say it again, what you wish for will never happen in this country because, like it or not, people like you are in the minority.

You're going to have to show me where I lied in any of my posts. If this is the sort of attack you have to resort to then you've already lost.

Originally posted by Amadeo
reply to post by blueorder

 

That was a very poor attempt at a rebuttal. Spocksleftear absolutely slaughtered your argument in his post immediately before your reply to me and said everything I would have said.

no he didn't, and I take no lectures from someone who takes a reasonable viewpoint about opposing S&M displays as being anti gay........................oh, hang on a sec, look what follows......

Don't be disingenuous and claim that your problem is with guys in S&M gear at Pride marches because it is clearly with the gay community as whole, as evidenced by your comment regarding the "tolerance" we enjoy not being around much longer. You showed yourself up with that comment. And I'll say it again, what you wish for will never happen in this country because, like it or not, people like you are in the minority.

here you go again, my problem is not with the gay community as a whole and you are a liar who is persisting with this outrageous line of thought- if you persist with this despicable lie, which shows your pathetic "argument" for what it is, I shall just lable you an anti semite, because apparently these labels can be thrown about without proof.

You're going to have to show me where I lied in any of my posts. If this is the sort of attack you have to resort to then you've already lost.

see above, what a ridiculous view, opposing S&M displays in parades equates to being anti gay, shame on you

'the "tolerance" we enjoy not being around much longer'- If he said that I gotta say I am pretty disappointed.

Originally posted by spocksleftear
'the "tolerance" we enjoy not being around much longer'- If he said that I gotta say I am pretty disappointed.

Good, I hope we do not tolerate displays of S&M in public

reply to post by blueorder


What is "outrageous", as you put it, is your desire to jail people, who aren't breaking any laws, based on your dislike of what they wear. You then go on to claim that bikinis and other skimpy swimwear aren't sexualised clothing and that has been shown to be utter claptrap.

My proof comes from your own post, where you attempt to inform gays that we won't be enjoying tolerance much longer. If you are only targeting one section of the gay community then you should make yourself clear but bear in mind that the S&M fetish isn't restricted to gay men.

That anti-semite nonsense doesn't even deserve a response.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by spocksleftear
'the "tolerance" we enjoy not being around much longer'- If he said that I gotta say I am pretty disappointed.

Good, I hope we do not tolerate displays of S&M in public

If it's not illegal then people can display what they want. I have a feeling it's you that is linking someones attire to their sexual preferences (as in S&M).

You would be better off writing to the Daily Mail, you'll probably get more sympathy - because those who empathise would only wear such gear in private.

Originally posted by blueorder

and, as I said, in the CONTEXT of a parade through a city centre, if someone wanted to indulge in a public display of thong wearing for sex reasons, my opinion would be the same, regardless if the person is homosexual or not

. .............

Dude, if this is your stance, you might want to read the topic of this thread. Then realize you are off topic.

If you have an issue with S & M gear, then go start a thread about that. (this is not that thread)

I also might suggest you avoid your city center square, since it seem you have been traumatized there.

reply to post by vogon42

You are quite right that reading the topic of the thread is a good idea. My guess is that less than 10% of the space on this thread has been taken up with facts. Indeed, facts have been either avoided or seen as weapons causing panic.

What there has been a lot of is the repeating of threadbare, illogical, emotional, arguments. I've felt like people were marching around carrying their picket sign slogans. I have not taken either "side," but have been condemned as obsessed and making anti-gay comments.

I have discovered that trying to discuss anything factual about this issue (at least on this website) is probably futile. I don't know if I should draw any generalized conclusion about my experience here, but I assume that the people here are representative of the people in the real world.

It may be that gays are especially wary because of the treatment they have received. That might explain their defensiveness and willingness to attack anything that can be twisted into resembling an attack on their beliefs. But even if it is understandable, it makes it very difficult to have an open, honest, conversation.

That's all I wanted.

reply to post by charles1952


I will happily have an open non emotional conversation with you.

All cards on the table.

1 I am not gay.

2 I believe there is no functional reason why lifestyles or choices of gay people should be restricted in any way heterosexuals are not.

3 I'm an atheist.


Lets begin with a dissection of the article you link to. I mean off the bat it is an incredibly offensive document. It is worded offensively at every turn. It is a hate piece.

'Homosexuals are not “born that way,” and any study of the facts will support that.'

Lets look at some of the stats he pulls out because i want to prove the point of how this asshole frames his statistics.

'73% of all homosexuals have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.' OHH MOII GAWDD

A startling stat. Lets see if googling can being up the origin of it. Ah here it is.

'73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age'


Lets think about the difference between the stat reported (whether true or false we will assume true for sake of argument) and what the article states. The way it is framed is clearly as child molesting. 'Preying on adolescent or young boys'.

But the actual statistic would include any homosexual who had sexual relations with a 19 year old or younger.

First off the age of consent in the US is 16 to 18 so in the appropriate state there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person engaging in same sex sexual activity with someone. But the article frames this as preying on children.
Secondly and almost more importantly, the actual statistic covers any person who has had gay sex with a 19 year old or younger while the person themselves was of the same age or younger. You would answer yes to this survey if you were a gay guy or girl age 17 who had sex with another gay guy or girl age 17. Or a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old.

Lets look at the rates of sexual activity in the US in adolescents shall we.

en.wikipedia.org...

Below are two study results from the linked page

In 2002, the last year such a report was published, 46% of girls and 46% percent of boys had had sex by 19


Percent of teens who claim to have had sex, by age[17]
Age Boys Girls
14 7.9% 5.7%
15 14.6% 13.0%
16 25.3% 26.8%
17 39.4% 43.1%
18 54.3% 58.0%
19 65.2% 70.1%


So if we take these statistics and frame them the gay the article did i can say this.

'More than 65 percent of men PREY on adolescent or young girls.'

Or maybe framing it like this is more amusing.

'Almost 15 percent of men admit to having sexual relations with 15 year old girls'

Those filthy heterosexuals should all be locked up. What kind of a sicko has sex with a 15 year old. Another horny 15 year old I guess, but it sounds so much more shocking when you frame it as adults having sex with minors.

So yeah, this guy could warp space time with the way he frames his statistics, so while I would love to break down the entire article similarly to how I had to unravel that one sentence I will take a pass on it. What I can say is that based on the level of distortion which can be factually observed in that stat from the article and the amount of intent put into distorting a statistic on sexual activity in gays 19 or under into being '73 percent of gays molest children' there is not a line in the article I would take as being even remotely factual in any way.

As for whether or not gay people are born gay i will again link to this podcast as a pretty great resource.

imaginaryfriendsshow.com...

For those too busy to listen i would point out that brainscans of gay men reveal some interesting things as shown in the article below.

www.time.com...

Basically the brains of gay men are laid out in terms of various physical characteristics like those of a straight woman, and similarly gay womens brains show male physical characteristics such as asymmetrical lobes.

myapollo.ucsd.edu...

Also mentioned is fraternal birth order effect as discussed in this paper.

myapollo.ucsd.edu...

'This characterises the increased chance of homosexuality in younger brothers due to the mothers womb H-Y antigen from male fetuses sometimes gets into the mother’s circulation and alerts her immune system. The mother produces antibodies to H-Y, which cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal brain. When that happens, these antibodies partly prevent the fetal brain from developing in the male-typical pattern, so that the individual will later be attracted to men rather than women.

Sounds like there are at least some ways gay people can be 'born that way', rather they are built that way.

reply to post by spocksleftear


It's good to see some actual facts presented without bias or hateful coloring. Star for you.

I find it mildly offensive when people say that ALL gays will lash out when confronted with the facts. I for one welcome any scientific attempts to understand the cause of homosexuality. It's when the facts are twisted and used as an attack that I will not stand by and listen to bullsnip.

reply to post by spocksleftear

I don't know how to use an emoticon to indicate panic, or I'd use it. Do you think I linked to a hate filled article? Are you thinking about me? Could you possibly be referring to the thread author? What did I do? I linked to the census, CDC, and Huffington Post. I thought they were all pretty nuetral. I'm not hate filled (at least I don't think so.)

I came into this post hoping to learn. I'm beginning to think I'll be written off as "collateral damage" in this war. I don't want to fight with anybody.

Please get back to me. I'd enjoy a non-hostile discussion. I've tried once or twice in this thread without any luck. I'm willing to give it one more shot.

reply to post by charles1952


Oops, thought you were op poster! I meant the article that started the topic.

I have opened up all your posts on this topic and will read through.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by spocksleftear

 

I don't know how to use an emoticon to indicate panic, or I'd use it. Do you think I linked to a hate filled article? Are you thinking about me? Could you possibly be referring to the thread author? What did I do? I linked to the census, CDC, and Huffington Post. I thought they were all pretty nuetral. I'm not hate filled (at least I don't think so.)

I came into this post hoping to learn. I'm beginning to think I'll be written off as "collateral damage" in this war. I don't want to fight with anybody.

Please get back to me. I'd enjoy a non-hostile discussion. I've tried once or twice in this thread without any luck. I'm willing to give it one more shot.

If that's the case, why are you responding inan emotional way? SLE was speaking of the OP and not you, yet you ignore the VERY well laid out, on topic breakdown of WHY this thread is considered hateful, and instead of speaking on it, you get defensive and condescending.

Hmmmm...and people wonder why these threads devolve......

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Please allow me to explain my thinking. Why did I respond in an emotional way? Because I took seriously the possibility that some one thought I was hate filled. If the police arrest you and demand to know why you killed your spouse, you will react emotionally. In a small sense, that's what happened here. Further, I wanted to show through honest emotion that I was definitely not hate filled.

You say that SLE was speaking of the OP and not me. How was I to know that? I thought that point ought to be cleared up quickly.

I ignored the topic breakdown? I suppose I did, in the same way that a man ignores the television when his house is burning down. If it turned out that SLE thought I was hate filled then was no reason to discuss facts with him, he (rightfully) wouldn't trust me. It was important that we solve those problems before we got into the discussion.

You accuse me of being defensive and condescending, and contributing to the devolution of the thread. Then you wonder why I see this whole "discussion" as hostile territory with opposing sides shooting first and asking questions later?

I will go through your posts in order.

'I know it is explosive to criticize homosexuals, and there are some other groups who react very aggressively, but why? What is it that makes the reaction to "I don't like your choice of sexual partners" so violent?

I'm probably not making myself clear, but I don't know what the answer is. It doesn't make sense to say "It's because they're criticizing who I am," because you may also be a red head or a conservative or a Coloradan. And if it's because they are criticizing your very core, isn't a little embarrasing to think that is the most basic part of a human?'

My argument here would be that you make an excellent analogy in comparing it to being a redhead, conservative of Coloradan. There is no active religion let alone a dominant one which lists being redheaded, conservative or a Coloradan as being morally wrong. However that is not the case for homosexuals. And because those religions direct the moral compasses of many of their adherents you get bills and legislation being pushed that erodes or denies the rights of homosexuals.

Can you imagine what would happen if legislation was pushed that declared interracial marriage immoral, or being a red head, or being from Colorado. If there was a concerted campaign to make these groups second class citizens in terms of their rights, marriage right for instance covering the visitation rights and responsibilities given to a spouse in determining courses of treatment where someone is too ill to make the decision themselves. If people were being attacked on the street for any of these things etc i think you would find those groups would become progressively more prickly about criticism of these things.

Next post.
'So, maybe it's old news, but it appears that gay men get HIV at about twenty times the rate of heterosexuals (and, for some reason, heterosexual women get it much more often than men.) Minorities get it much more frequently than whites, and male-male sex is the most likely way to get HIV/AIDS. '

I would like to see the maths on the 20 x more likely or a direct citation. However i would not argue that in the west homosexual male intercourse is the most prevalent form of the diseases transmission. However the statistics are reversed in africa where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual contact. It cant help that many rumours abound there about the cure for aids being sex with a virgin.

www.tip2000.com...

'In the United States and Europe, most cases of sexually transmitted HIV infection have resulted from homosexual contact, whereas in Africa, the disease is spread primarily through sexual intercourse among heterosexuals.'

But yes, homosexual sex is a much better transmission medium for HIV at least in part because of the nature of anal sex. Blood contact drastically increases the risk of infection with HIV, and anal sex can easily damage the interior of the anus, allowing for a much higher risk of infection. I am not suggesting this is the total cause, but it is an undeniable factor.

www.avert.org...

The high heterosexual incidence of AIDS in Africa can be explained via the incredibly low use of condoms in the region. www.nytimes.com...

In both the african heterosexual and western homosexual instance, more prevalent condom use would probably drastically lower the infection rate. There are plenty of statistical articles that show condom use in the gay community is very low versus the heterosexual community. This says as low as 20 percent. And it kind of makes sense if the average gay male in the west does not but HIV at the top of his worry radar. Heterosexuals have a vary strong incentive to use condoms, know as child support payments. XD I kid but seriously, even that thing I linked a few posts back about sexual activity in teens in the US listed fear of pregnancy as the top reason teens chose to remain chaste. Homosexuals obviously do not see this as a concern.

www.xtra.ca...


Also to address the posts since i began typing, i did indeed mistake that poster for the OP, my bad and i apologised and do so again now. Having said that i also dont think the op was hate filled just by linking it as i recall they themselves denounced the language used in the article linked in the op post.

reply to post by spocksleftear

Dear spocksleftear,

Thanks for your response, I'm hoping to learn a lot here.

If I understand your answer to the question of "Why are homosexuals so aggressively sensitive to criticism?" it is that homosexuality has been condemned by religions, therefore believers attitudes are changed to where they condemn gays, and since believers make up most of the lawmakers they will pass laws to deprive gays of their rights to marry and the priveleges obtained thereby.

Anyone will tell you that I am easily confused, and I admit it. Let me show you my thinking and you can straighten me out.

You can't be concerned merely because religion condemns gays. Partially, because fewer and fewer religions do. The number is getting smaller every year. Further, so what if a religion condemns you? I know my life is not in accord with Hindu, Islamic, or Jewish teachings, and I don't care.

So, maybe the problem is that legislators and voters are influenced by their religion. Besides the fact that it is impossible to completely eliminate that kind of influence, religious influence has led to some very good legislation.

Ok then, maybe it's because the legislators are passing laws that take away gay rights. I don't see it. First of all, they're not. As far as I can tell, the worst that is happening in the country is that some areas are saying "We don't want to change the way marriage has been described for the last 200+ years."

Yet there are many more states with full gay marriage or partership than ever. The only complaints that I can see are 1.) we're not getting our goals quickly enough, and 2.) the people don't think we have an acceptable life style. I can't think of an instance where an established gay right has been taken away.

You mention people being attacked in the street because they are gay and that makes them prickly. I suppose, but what more can the government do? Hate crime legislation is in place.

Every group gets attacked based on their race, some get attacked based on their sex or religion. Sure it makes people prickly, but I don't see why it should make gays more prickly than anyone else.

**************************

Now, the bit about the HIV rate? My theory might be wrong but the CDC reported that 61% of the cases in 2009 were from male-male sex. Couple that with a gay population of 3% and that's how I got the 20 times. It just dawned on me that I shouldn't consider lesbians in with the 3% estimate. Let's make male homosexuals 2 1/2%, then the rate would be about 25 times.

I believe my post with the link to the CDC is on page 20

I'm sure you're right that African AIDS is spread primarily heterosexually. And I believe you about the sex with a virgin rumour being part of the cause. My own belief is that AIDS is so widespread there that just about any sexual contact will spread it. When some African countries have 1/3 of their population infected, there's a good chance that whoever you have sex with in any fashion will have AIDS. SInce more "sexual events" are heterosexual, it makes sense to me that that is the main method of transmission. Oh, and yes, condom use or non-use is important.

*****************************

I was surprised to learn that condom use in the gay community was low. What's going on? Do they not know of the risks? Do they think condoms are ineffective? Is it a case of "nothing can hurt me, I'm young and strong?" Sure, heterosexuals have avoidance of a pregnancy as a reason to use condoms, but don't gays have avoidance of death as a reason?

As I say, I'm surprised.

Any way, many thanks to you on your effort to reach out.

With respect,
Charles1952

It is not that law makers per se are anti gay, rather as you mention a little later that religions have instilled a 'gay is wrong' mentality into their congregations. The problem with that is that you then get laws like prop 8 thrown down where people are asked to vote on whether or not gay people should have the right to marry. Its like having a vote on whether black people should be allowed to vote. If whites as a clear majority decide nahh, then they dont get to vote. And if black persons had never had the right to vote then it could be argued that there was no problem, because since they had never had the right, no rights would have been taken away. Similarly, the fact that a right has not been taken away from gay people does not mean there is no inequality present, merely that the party on the end of the problem comes from a position of never having had the right in the first place.

For example it was illegal to serve in the US military as a homosexual for many years. That right was not taken away from homosexuals they simply were denied it from the beginning. The fact that they were never given that right does not mean that them not having that right was not inequality. Similarly gay people being unable to marry, and benefit from the many social benefits of marriage codified in current laws including the rights of a spouse in medical emergency situations etc being denied as the default position is an inequality underwhich homosexuals have to live.


You mention that fewer and fewer religions condemn homosexuality every year. You are going to have to hit me with a statistic for that i am afraid before i can take it as a point of fact. Especially considering if the religions in question are not mainstream religions it wont have an impact at all on the rights climate. I mean what did the pope call gay marriage recently, ' a threat to the future of humanity' if i recall it correctly.

'Further, so what if a religion condemns you? I know my life is not in accord with Hindu, Islamic, or Jewish teachings, and I don't care.'

See the thing with that statement is it is a very 'where i live' centric point of view, as was the comment about gay rights not being taken away. I think you would feel differently if you were born in a country where an aspect of your current life was considered illegal. Like one where not believing in god or believing in the wrong god could get you lashes, a prison sentence or death. Similarly to be born in those countries and never have the right to practice Catholicism would not be considered an issue, as since you never had the right to it that right had never been taken away.

Uganda was going to push through an anti homosexual law that called for the death penalty, keep in mind that is a dominantly christian country and that there are several countries where being gay gets the death penalty.
So there are plenty of factual reasons to be concerned with religious condemnation of gays.

On a tighter examination of the US, there are plenty of reasons for concern.

Consider the law brought about because of the death of a gay student, designed to be anti bullying. The law carried an exemption to protect bullying if the justification for the bullying was religious grounds, thus allowing for the exact anti gay bulling which resulted in the death which brought about the need for an anti bullying law.

www.nerve.com...

Consider the DOMA law which the house of representatives insists it will defend even if the government wont directly, which seeks to activelty prevent gay marriages.

en.wikipedia.org...


Consider the Tenessee law that has tried to allow discrimination in the work place based on sexual orientiation

www.businessweek.com...

The reason that you may find gay people so prickley on the issues is because their civil rights battle is still ongoing, to a degree in america, and certainly more so around the world, and more than that they face ongoing opposition in even the US to their quest for fully equaly rights as are supposed to be granted to them as citizens of the united states. There are no laws being pushed attempting to allow discrimination based on race or colour, i assure you if these groups found their rights under attack they would be comparably prickly. Things overall have gotten better in the last 3-4 decades in the US, but their battle is an ongoing one, met with powerful opposition to this day.

So yeah, overall homosexuals have plenty of right to fight and keep fighting for their equality the world over.




Oh also i checked the cdc the official stat is 50 X rather then 25 X.