2% of the population is gay

[Pheonixops]

I have never understood the argument that gays are forcing anybody to accept anything. Nobody is asking you to marry somebody of the same sex. All they ask for is that right. Don't approve of homosexuality for all I care. But until two men or women getting married negatively affects you, stay out of their business.

That is why gays have gone to court to overturn referenda? Isn't that forcing acceptance?

In my opinion it's not, it's them fighting for their rights through the proper channels aka the court system. That's the American way.

 

[Intense]

nobody is bending over backwards for these people. People are accessing the situations and judging the fact that these policies are not needed anymore. Not allowing gays to be open in the military was simply bigoted and not needed.

Blacks at this moment in time are 10-12% of the population and yet we felt the need to bend over for them to fight for our nation or get married to white folks.

Yeah actualy people are being bent over for these people. People are being forced to accomodate their needs. People are being forced to do business with them against their beliefs.
You just dont want to hear that or pretend it isnt' true.

nope...

Exactly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's a group called "Gay for Guns."

?* Gays with Guns *?

The moment they arm themselves, every internet and radio tough guy will stop threatening to kill them. Also, violence against gays will drop about 99%.

You Gays want your rights? Arm yourselves. End of story.

You want to keep associating with the Far Left and delivering a massive electoral block to the Marxists? Just look where Marxist ideology has led for all groups, not just gays, you won't raise yourself to equality, you'll drag the rest of us down to inferiority, like the old feudal days, the Lords and the serfs.

And once they have us all in their grasp, the eugenicists will turn on you, and go Far-Right Fascists and exterminate, just like Hitler, in fact Gays and Trannies will probably be exterminated before particular races.

Thankfully I won't be around to see that future, because Libertarians will either take this country back, or die trying.

And yet more stupidity from the right.

Gays seeking their civil liberties has nothing to do with ‘the left,’ there are many conservative homosexuals who also desire to marry and otherwise have their states acknowledge and respect their personal liberty.

 

[Plasmaball]

I have never understood the argument that gays are forcing anybody to accept anything. Nobody is asking you to marry somebody of the same sex. All they ask for is that right. Don't approve of homosexuality for all I care. But until two men or women getting married negatively affects you, stay out of their business.

That is why gays have gone to court to overturn referenda? Isn't that forcing acceptance?

In my opinion it's not, it's them fighting for their rights through the proper channels aka the court system. That's the American way.

Not according to these losers. Its forcing america to accept it.

 

[Cenotaph]

I actually believe that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals in the American population. You have to take into account those who are not open about their sexuality. I'm also going to go ahead and assume that this statistic (where's the source by the way) doesn't include bisexuals (who are fairly prevalent throughout the world).

Of course, this is purely speculation...

 

[Cenotaph]

Not according to these losers. Its forcing america to accept it.

If the purpose of this thread is to make a convincing argument, then insulting and antagonizing the opposing side (the side you're trying to win over) isn't going to help.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have no evidence because there is no evidence. I have many active, former and retired servicemen among my customers and I ask about this periodically. Pretty much all of them have told me that unless someone was just asking for a discharge it didnt happen. But as long as someone behaved himself no one was looking to cashier him out of the military. And even the one guy who did make a big deal about it, some airman who won the Bronze Star in Vietnam, he got a general discharge so kept his benefits.

Interesting, thanks.

Your hypothetical about Mexico once again confuses good policy with valid policy. Would I support an annexation of Mexico? Probably not. But if Congress voted for it then it was a legitimate policy decision, even if I think it's wrong. That's your problem: every policy you disagree with is criminal. Which supports my contention that there's little difference between liberals and narco-libertarians.

No, I don't think every policy I disagree with is criminal (where'd you draw up that idea?). I was specifically speaking about a act of war that was qualified over evidence that didn't exist.

Barely 5 hours after the 9/11 attack, Rumsfeld was throwing around the idea of invading Iraq:
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

With zero evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks then and now, I think we should take a deeper dive into who and what was pushing so hard for us to get into that country. Why? Because hundreds of thousands of people died, and are no longer existing because of that decision. Because the evidence that was put forth as FACT by our United States officials turned out to be NON-FACTUAL after the war was initiated. You have to be incredibly naive to assume everyone pushing to invade Iraq had noble intentions; especially given the enormity of our defense budget and how many politicians rely on donations from that sector to remain in office.

There are many policies that I disagree with that I wouldn't consider "criminal", however when it comes to the Iraq War I feel as if we were intentionally misled, and intentionally coaxed and I think someone aught to be held responsible.

Who are you trying to defend here?


.

That's a clown question, bro.

You start with an incorrect assumption and then proceed to fault the administration because they couldn't support your incorrect assumption.
I would explain it but after 10 years if you haven't understood what happened there's no chance I can reach you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If this is true based on someone here stating it. Why all the worry about being forced to accept it? Are you that worried about 2%? Regardless if you feel its abnormal, a choice or whatever. How can 2% Really be that mich of a threat to your way of life. At 2% the odds of you running into a gay person are rather slim.

Well slim if you dont actively go seeking it.

Well, if in fact, 2% is true, that means 98% of the population ISN'T gay. So why then are we, the 98%, bending over backwards to accomodate these "people"?

We have allowed them to change the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Military and have just began to see the effects of gay "marriage".

All of tht for a lousy 2% of the population. Makes sense to me.

It’s hard to believe anyone’s truly this stupid and hateful, but given your other posts, that seems to be the case.

The irony is homosexuals don’t want to be ‘accommodated,’ or ‘tolerated,’ they want simply to be left alone, allowed to privately conduct their lives in anonymous dignity – to go to school where they wish, to work where they wish, to love whom they wish, and to marry whom they wish, free from interference by ignorant social conservatives such as you.

 

[LittleNipper]

What percent of prison mates are homosexual? And do many learn the ropes while in prison?

 

[PixieStix]

2% down 98% to go

 

[The Rabbi]

If this is true based on someone here stating it. Why all the worry about being forced to accept it? Are you that worried about 2%? Regardless if you feel its abnormal, a choice or whatever. How can 2% Really be that mich of a threat to your way of life. At 2% the odds of you running into a gay person are rather slim.

Well slim if you dont actively go seeking it.

Well, if in fact, 2% is true, that means 98% of the population ISN'T gay. So why then are we, the 98%, bending over backwards to accomodate these "people"?

We have allowed them to change the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Military and have just began to see the effects of gay "marriage".

All of tht for a lousy 2% of the population. Makes sense to me.

It’s hard to believe anyone’s truly this stupid and hateful, but given your other posts, that seems to be the case.

The irony is homosexuals don’t want to be ‘accommodated,’ or ‘tolerated,’ they want simply to be left alone, allowed to privately conduct their lives in anonymous dignity – to go to school where they wish, to work where they wish, to love whom they wish, and to marry whom they wish, free from interference by ignorant social conservatives such as you.

The stupid is strong in this one.
Tell me, who is proposing to keep homosexuals from being left alone to conduct their lives privately? No one. There is not one state in the union that prohibits gay marriage. Not one. So why do gays continually howl, protest, sue, and otherwise make themselves obnoxious to the public at large? So no one will notice them? Why not just shut the fuck up? I'll bet if they just shut the fuck up no one will notice them.

 

[KevinWestern]

You have no evidence because there is no evidence. I have many active, former and retired servicemen among my customers and I ask about this periodically. Pretty much all of them have told me that unless someone was just asking for a discharge it didnt happen. But as long as someone behaved himself no one was looking to cashier him out of the military. And even the one guy who did make a big deal about it, some airman who won the Bronze Star in Vietnam, he got a general discharge so kept his benefits.

Interesting, thanks.

Your hypothetical about Mexico once again confuses good policy with valid policy. Would I support an annexation of Mexico? Probably not. But if Congress voted for it then it was a legitimate policy decision, even if I think it's wrong. That's your problem: every policy you disagree with is criminal. Which supports my contention that there's little difference between liberals and narco-libertarians.

No, I don't think every policy I disagree with is criminal (where'd you draw up that idea?). I was specifically speaking about a act of war that was qualified over evidence that didn't exist.

Barely 5 hours after the 9/11 attack, Rumsfeld was throwing around the idea of invading Iraq:
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

With zero evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks then and now, I think we should take a deeper dive into who and what was pushing so hard for us to get into that country. Why? Because hundreds of thousands of people died, and are no longer existing because of that decision. Because the evidence that was put forth as FACT by our United States officials turned out to be NON-FACTUAL after the war was initiated. You have to be incredibly naive to assume everyone pushing to invade Iraq had noble intentions; especially given the enormity of our defense budget and how many politicians rely on donations from that sector to remain in office.

There are many policies that I disagree with that I wouldn't consider "criminal", however when it comes to the Iraq War I feel as if we were intentionally misled, and intentionally coaxed and I think someone aught to be held responsible.

Who are you trying to defend here?


.

That's a clown question, bro.

You start with an incorrect assumption and then proceed to fault the administration because they couldn't support your incorrect assumption.
I would explain it but after 10 years if you haven't understood what happened there's no chance I can reach you.

It's my opinion, yes. Would you care to explain your interpretation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Interesting, thanks.



No, I don't think every policy I disagree with is criminal (where'd you draw up that idea?). I was specifically speaking about a act of war that was qualified over evidence that didn't exist.

Barely 5 hours after the 9/11 attack, Rumsfeld was throwing around the idea of invading Iraq:
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

With zero evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks then and now, I think we should take a deeper dive into who and what was pushing so hard for us to get into that country. Why? Because hundreds of thousands of people died, and are no longer existing because of that decision. Because the evidence that was put forth as FACT by our United States officials turned out to be NON-FACTUAL after the war was initiated. You have to be incredibly naive to assume everyone pushing to invade Iraq had noble intentions; especially given the enormity of our defense budget and how many politicians rely on donations from that sector to remain in office.

There are many policies that I disagree with that I wouldn't consider "criminal", however when it comes to the Iraq War I feel as if we were intentionally misled, and intentionally coaxed and I think someone aught to be held responsible.

Who are you trying to defend here?


.

That's a clown question, bro.

You start with an incorrect assumption and then proceed to fault the administration because they couldn't support your incorrect assumption.
I would explain it but after 10 years if you haven't understood what happened there's no chance I can reach you.

It's my opinion, yes. Would you care to explain your interpretation?

Here's a hint: No one suggested that we go to war in Iraq because of 9/11.

 

[bodecea]

Well, if in fact, 2% is true, that means 98% of the population ISN'T gay. So why then are we, the 98%, bending over backwards to accomodate these "people"?

We have allowed them to change the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Military and have just began to see the effects of gay "marriage".

All of tht for a lousy 2% of the population. Makes sense to me.

It’s hard to believe anyone’s truly this stupid and hateful, but given your other posts, that seems to be the case.

The irony is homosexuals don’t want to be ‘accommodated,’ or ‘tolerated,’ they want simply to be left alone, allowed to privately conduct their lives in anonymous dignity – to go to school where they wish, to work where they wish, to love whom they wish, and to marry whom they wish, free from interference by ignorant social conservatives such as you.

The stupid is strong in this one.
Tell me, who is proposing to keep homosexuals from being left alone to conduct their lives privately? No one. There is not one state in the union that prohibits gay marriage. Not one. So why do gays continually howl, protest, sue, and otherwise make themselves obnoxious to the public at large? So no one will notice them? Why not just shut the fuck up? I'll bet if they just shut the fuck up no one will notice them.

Uppity gays!

 

[KevinWestern]

That's a clown question, bro.

You start with an incorrect assumption and then proceed to fault the administration because they couldn't support your incorrect assumption.
I would explain it but after 10 years if you haven't understood what happened there's no chance I can reach you.

It's my opinion, yes. Would you care to explain your interpretation?

Here's a hint: No one suggested that we go to war in Iraq because of 9/11.

I never claimed the US gov't claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and used that lie to get us in Iraq (my apologies if my posts were interpreted as such).

I claimed that someone had an agenda to get the US into Iraq (which is seen partially via the Rumsfeld memo story I linked to), and that the 'evidence' they presented to us (to convince us to back that agenda) was a load of hog-wash.

When someone pushes you into a war over a FALSE PREMISE, they should be held accountable - right?

The FALSE PREMISE being the existence of WMDs, and the gravity of the threat they posed to the United States.

.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's my opinion, yes. Would you care to explain your interpretation?

Here's a hint: No one suggested that we go to war in Iraq because of 9/11.

I never claimed the US gov't claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and used that lie to get us in Iraq (my apologies if my posts were interpreted as such).

I claimed that someone had an agenda to get the US into Iraq (which is seen partially via the Rumsfeld memo story I linked to), and that the 'evidence' they presented to us (to convince us to back that agenda) was a load of hog-wash.

When someone pushes you into a war over a FALSE PREMISE, they should be held accountable - right?

The FALSE PREMISE being the existence of WMDs, and the gravity of the threat they posed to the United States.

.

Actually, every intel operation in the world KNEW that Saddam had WMDs. There was no doubt. It was speculated that knowing an invasion was imminent, he had them shipped to Syria for safe-keeping. There were too many empty garrisons found with NBC equipment and too many depots found with MASSIVE NBC capabilities for there not to have been.

Doesn't matter at this point in time, but like Syria, Saddam had used these same weapons on HIS people that are now being employed in Syria against their people.

To the best of my knowledge, there was never any concrete evidence that this is what happened, but it's not terribly hard to connect the dots - and, all provided by Russia.

I will be interested to see what the communist left has to say when Barry lobs a Cruise or two into Syria. And, more importantly, I'll be especially interested to hear Vladimir Putins "response". Interesting times ahead.....

 

[The Rabbi]

It's my opinion, yes. Would you care to explain your interpretation?

Here's a hint: No one suggested that we go to war in Iraq because of 9/11.

I never claimed the US gov't claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and used that lie to get us in Iraq (my apologies if my posts were interpreted as such).

I claimed that someone had an agenda to get the US into Iraq (which is seen partially via the Rumsfeld memo story I linked to), and that the 'evidence' they presented to us (to convince us to back that agenda) was a load of hog-wash.

When someone pushes you into a war over a FALSE PREMISE, they should be held accountable - right?

The FALSE PREMISE being the existence of WMDs, and the gravity of the threat they posed to the United States.

.

It was the Israelis and their Amen Corner in Congress, right?

 

[Plasmaball]

Not according to these losers. Its forcing america to accept it.

If the purpose of this thread is to make a convincing argument, then insulting and antagonizing the opposing side (the side you're trying to win over) isn't going to help.

Who said I wanted to win them over?

 

[KevinWestern]

Here's a hint: No one suggested that we go to war in Iraq because of 9/11.

I never claimed the US gov't claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and used that lie to get us in Iraq (my apologies if my posts were interpreted as such).

I claimed that someone had an agenda to get the US into Iraq (which is seen partially via the Rumsfeld memo story I linked to), and that the 'evidence' they presented to us (to convince us to back that agenda) was a load of hog-wash.

When someone pushes you into a war over a FALSE PREMISE, they should be held accountable - right?

The FALSE PREMISE being the existence of WMDs, and the gravity of the threat they posed to the United States.

.

Actually, every intel operation in the world KNEW that Saddam had WMDs. There was no doubt. It was speculated that knowing an invasion was imminent, he had them shipped to Syria for safe-keeping. There were too many empty garrisons found with NBC equipment and too many depots found with MASSIVE NBC capabilities for there not to have been.

Doesn't matter at this point in time, but like Syria, Saddam had used these same weapons on HIS people that are now being employed in Syria against their people.

To the best of my knowledge, there was never any concrete evidence that this is what happened, but it's not terribly hard to connect the dots - and, all provided by Russia.

I will be interested to see what the communist left has to say when Barry lobs a Cruise or two into Syria. And, more importantly, I'll be especially interested to hear Vladimir Putins "response". Interesting times ahead.....

I think war is a racket, and the primary reason we entered into Iraq (and soon to be Syria) is that there's money to be made.

The soldiers - without a doubt - care about the well being of the countries we blow apart. They're just following orders. But the leaders? They'd sacrifice children to achieve their goals in a heartbeat.. So long it's not their own (of course).

 

[KevinWestern]

Here's a hint: No one suggested that we go to war in Iraq because of 9/11.

I never claimed the US gov't claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and used that lie to get us in Iraq (my apologies if my posts were interpreted as such).

I claimed that someone had an agenda to get the US into Iraq (which is seen partially via the Rumsfeld memo story I linked to), and that the 'evidence' they presented to us (to convince us to back that agenda) was a load of hog-wash.

When someone pushes you into a war over a FALSE PREMISE, they should be held accountable - right?

The FALSE PREMISE being the existence of WMDs, and the gravity of the threat they posed to the United States.

.

It was the Israelis and their Amen Corner in Congress, right?

I don't know what you're talking about, and what's with the coaxing?