A genetic dead end is EXACTLY that. No purpose is served to the survival of the species.
Gay discrimination
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Interesting logic, but your "because" conclusion is flawed, an illusory corollary. First you say that's not the case, then you say if it is, then this is the reason why. So, you're just guessing. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the Human Rights Campaign, the two predominant homosexual organizations, both have as part of their core mission to use the courts to force their wants onto the majority. That's adversarial by definition. An adversary is a person, group that opposes or attacks, and gays have been attacking religious beliefs and society's attitudes towards gays for a long time, and in recent decades have ramped that up to an even more confrontational adversarial attack. But be that as it may, you can nevertheless support the rights of gays to marry, but still see their adversarial posturing as unjustified. We have seen the comments here on EO, and certainly all over the Internet, where many people support the right of gays to marry, but are sick and tired of the in-your-face tactics used to obtain it.
One example of that adversarial posturing is their use of the word "homophobic." The definition of homophobic is unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Not merely a fear of, or antipathy towards, but an unreasoning fear or an unreasoning antipathy towards. But how to gays use the word? As a pejorative to paint with their own political definition of the word as anyone who does not accept, embrace, and celebrate homosexuals. They demand tolerance but refuse to show any. That's adversarial in and of itself.
No they aren't. Homosexuals aren't even a threat to the survival of the species. Nor do we treat them like they are.
They are no threat, BUT, they are genetic "dead ends" and do not serve the survival of the species.
Infertile people have been "chosen", for what ever reason, to not be allowed to continue the species.
Only "right wing" people are required, often by the full force of law, to be "tolerant" of others and other's ideas. "Left wing" people are except from tolerance.
How about a link to where you got those numbers. Voters have by a substantial margin struck it as far as I have read.
Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123
I've read the same numbers, but if you start looking at them in detail, looking at the actual polling data, they change quite a bit. The infamous 62% actually breaks down to 38% on the side of marriage, 24% on the side of civil unions. The results different dramatically between men and women, and not surprisingly, young and old (young are historically liberal, old are historically conservative). There are a lot of polls, none of which really agree substantially. You have to look at the polls themselves, rather than the "journalistic" reports that describe them, because oftentimes the order in which the questions are asked is important, because if affects context. If you see a headline or a leading paragraph in a story that represents something like a 51% to be a "solid" majority, you know you're being manipulated by someone with an agenda. Even 66% isn't a solid majority. You need at least 67% for that.
The bottom line in my opinion hinges on an interview with Barney Frank a few years ago on the O'Reilly Factor: O'Reilly asked why he seemed so unhappy after all the political victories his party and his homosexual groups had achieved and he stated " I'll never be happy". He said this flat out and it made me realize how pitiful these groups are because they seem to have zero joy and contentment in their life regardless of their situation. They will continue to scream discrimination whatever their circumstances.
Speaking of discrimination I wonder how safe you would be if you went to a gay pride parade in any major city with a sign that was contrary to their opinion, i.e. Homosexuality is bad for your Health, etc. It would probably be bad for your health because these supposed tolerant folks would probably wipe the pavement with your body.
Just Thinking!
Just Thinking!
Speaking of discrimination I wonder how safe you would be if you went to a gay pride parade in any major city with a sign that was contrary to their opinion, i.e. Homosexuality is bad for your Health, etc. It would probably be bad for your health because these supposed tolerant folks would probably wipe the pavement with your body.
About as safe as you would be if you wore an "Obama Sucks" T shirt in Detroit.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
If it was the other way around would you would have said that he was a bigot and a homophobe.
No surprise...those who yell the loudest are the most guilty..Homophobic southern states watch the most gay porn
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/03/13/south-online-gay-adult-materials/
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/03/13/south-online-gay-adult-materials/
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
It sounds like from the stuff you post that you might be a Homosexual yourself if thats true just tell us and we can back off as to not offend anther brother or sister or whatever.
Nope . ..just standing up for a nephew who's Waco religious parents disowned him because of WHO HE IS...though the article does prove my theory...
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Here's something to add to the above numbers: when put to the test in the privacy of a voting booth, gay marriage has been rejected by a vast majority of the states'. Gay marriage is legal or permitted in only 10 of the 50 states.