Right Wing Anti-Gay Hate Group Furious At Ryan's Remarks Not To Bring Back DADT

[jtpr312]

Lol. too funny.


A.28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
B.79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
C.Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
D.1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
E.There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples)

Absolutley irrelevant to the 14th amendment rights of gays.

Might explain the massive rise in HIV/Aids, not to mention the prevelence of other sexually transmitted diseases among gay males.

Globally, most of HIV and AIDS is within the straight community. Thanks to bi-sexuality and rape in Africa and other third world nations. The CDC says mtm sex is STILL the number one way to transmit the desease and gay males are the group with the largest increase in new HIV/Aids cases

Not only that, before there was a cure for syphilis and gonorrhea, millions upon millions of heterosexuals died from those diseases. Ask your grandparents. It was in their lifetime.

And you better watch out because there is only one antibiotic left to treat gonorrhea. Straight people have been spreading the disease so far and so wide that it has grown immune to all treatments save one. Seems you perverts are the leading group here also.
Concerning homosexuality and gonorrhea, in 2006, the American Association of Family Physicians reported: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) have high rates of gonococcal infection. In San Francisco, more than one half of these infections occur in MSM, and previous cross-sectional studies have reported a prevalence of up to 15.3 percent in this group."[1]

A study published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1991 found that:

“ Among the males [...] gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge (positivity rate 24.3 time higher than the rate among those without discharge) and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals).[2] ”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report regarding homosexual men, which stated that "male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among MSM [men who have sex with men] amidst an overall decline in nationwide gonorrhea rates."[3]

The CDC also made the following report:

“ "CDC conducted sentinel surveillance in 28 cities and found the proportion of cases resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics (a first-line treatment for gonorrhea) increased from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 6.8 percent in 2004. Resistance is especially worrisome in men who have sex with men, where it was eight times higher than among heterosexuals (23.8 percent vs. 2.9 percent). In April 2004, CDC recommended that fluoroquinolones no longer be used as treatment for gonorrhea among men who have sex with men. These antibiotics were also not recommended to treat the disease in anyone in California or Hawaii, where resistance has been widespread for years. Outside of these states, the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance among heterosexuals remains low at 1.3 percent."[4]

Dr. Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan, of the WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said several countries -- including Australia, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom -- are reporting cases of resistance to cephalosporin antibiotics, the last treatment option against gonorrhea.

An estimated 106 million people are infected each year with the sexually transmitted disease, Lusti-Narasimhan said.

Won't be long now.Therefore, using your brilliant logic, we should ban straight marriages.

And you ignore the fact that married couples have a lower incidence of STDs.Married HETEROSEXUAL couples, monogamy among the gay male population is almost nonexistent and filing a joint income tax return wont change that fact.


.

.

 

[jtpr312]

They are not being denied any rights right now. You're fighting for them to be able to redifine what a marraige is not for them to get "equal" rights. Equal means the same and today they have the same exact rights regarding marriage as EVERY other citizen in America.

Let me know the instant you find evidence of gay married couples being allowed to file a federal joint income tax return, mm-kay?

Also, state sanctioned marriage has been redefined many times. Most recently, it was redefined from "the union of two people of the same race".This weak "redefinition of marriage" objection is just another way of saying, "We have always discrminated, why stop now?"

.

Lol, and here we get the homos strawman again.

 

[g5000]

They are not being denied any rights right now. You're fighting for them to be able to redifine what a marraige is not for them to get "equal" rights. Equal means the same and today they have the same exact rights regarding marriage as EVERY other citizen in America.

Let me know the instant you find evidence of gay married couples being allowed to file a federal joint income tax return, mm-kay?

Also, state sanctioned marriage has been redefined many times. Most recently, it was redefined from "the union of two people of the same race".This weak "redefinition of marriage" objection is just another way of saying, "We have always discrminated, why stop now?"

.

Lol, and here we get the homos strawman again.

Your misuse of the term strongly suggests you have no idea what a strawman is.

.

 

[g5000]

In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term "white persons." -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian.

Loving v. Virginia.

Read it. Learn it.

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know...........for 20 years I was in the Navy working as a Personnelman. One of the jobs that I had to do was every 6 months prepare the Navy Wide Advancement Examination worksheets for those who were eligible. What that entailed was looking up their performance evaluations for the past couple of years, how many years they'd been in the military, how many years they've been in that particular paygrade, as well as all the personal awards they'd received over their careers.

And.............because people trusted me, I also knew pretty much who was and wasn't gay in the command.

Guess what? Gay servicemembers had higher evaluations and more personal awards than most of their straight counterparts.

DADT needs to stay gone. Not only will it cost a lot of money to reinstate, but it will also hurt the military by getting rid of highly motivated and well qualified people for no reason.

Matter of fact, one of those people who did get discharged under DADT just before it was repealed was Lt. Daniel Cho. Not only was he a combat veteran who led his men effectively, he was one of the only 500 Arabic speaking soldiers in the entire military. A loss like that can have a severe impact on the readiness of the entire command, especially if you're fighting in an Arabic speaking country.

 

[bodecea]

Lol. too funny.


A.28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
B.79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
C.Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
D.1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
E.There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples)


Might explain the massive rise in HIV/Aids, not to mention the prevelence of other sexually transmitted diseases among gay males.

So...we want to ENCOURAGE monogamy, right?

A piece of paper isn't going to change these things. No piece of paper ensures a monogomous relationship. If you live a perverse lifestyle, that won't change because you get to file a joint income tax return.

So...that same piece of paper doesn't encourage monogamy in Straights either....interesting to know. And when do YOU get to determine what is a"perverse" lifestyle and that people that fit your definition of "perverse" don't get to participate in legal, civil marriage? I believe the Kardasians live a "perverse" lifestyle, but I'm not fighting to keep them from marrying again and again and again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

According to some, I'd be considered a "pervert" because I've had sex with over 50 women in the 48 years that I've been on the planet.

I've never had an STD either.

 

[jtpr312]

Let me know the instant you find evidence of gay married couples being allowed to file a federal joint income tax return, mm-kay?

Also, state sanctioned marriage has been redefined many times. Most recently, it was redefined from "the union of two people of the same race".This weak "redefinition of marriage" objection is just another way of saying, "We have always discrminated, why stop now?"

.

Lol, and here we get the homos strawman again.

Your misuse of the term strongly suggests you have no idea what a strawman is.

.

Nope, using it as it is meant to be. We are discussing gay marriage you continue to bring up interacial marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with making marriage mean a union between two deviants of the same gender. That is your strawman son. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and are probably even dumber than I think you are, and that's saying something.

 

[jtpr312]

In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term "white persons." -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian.

Loving v. Virginia.

Read it. Learn it.

.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.

 

[jtpr312]

So...we want to ENCOURAGE monogamy, right?

A piece of paper isn't going to change these things. No piece of paper ensures a monogomous relationship. If you live a perverse lifestyle, that won't change because you get to file a joint income tax return.

So...that same piece of paper doesn't encourage monogamy in Straights either....interesting to know. And when do YOU get to determine what is a"perverse" lifestyle and that people that fit your definition of "perverse" don't get to participate in legal, civil marriage? I believe the Kardasians live a "perverse" lifestyle, but I'm not fighting to keep them from marrying again and again and again.

Of course it doesn't. If it did the statistics on adultery wouldn't be nearly as high as they are. As for when do I get to determine what is perverse, who is going to determine it for me? A moral relativist such as yourself? I think not.

 

[whitehall]

One thing is obvious about the ignorant union educated pop-culture radical left is that they usually talk in cliches. Clinton go away with a cliche years ago when he was caught with his pants down and he managed to convince the union educated left wing rabble that the "vast right wing conspiracy" was picking on him. A couple of years ago the radical left used another cliche to blame the Gabby Gifford shooting on "incendiary" right wing speech. The left engages in incendiary speech every day in typical chiche fashion and they don't even realize it. Despite what the sodomite blog sites say there is no organized right wing hate group that picks on sissies. They do it themselves.

 

[Gadawg73]

A piece of paper isn't going to change these things. No piece of paper ensures a monogomous relationship. If you live a perverse lifestyle, that won't change because you get to file a joint income tax return.

So...that same piece of paper doesn't encourage monogamy in Straights either....interesting to know. And when do YOU get to determine what is a"perverse" lifestyle and that people that fit your definition of "perverse" don't get to participate in legal, civil marriage? I believe the Kardasians live a "perverse" lifestyle, but I'm not fighting to keep them from marrying again and again and again.

Of course it doesn't. If it did the statistics on adultery wouldn't be nearly as high as they are. As for when do I get to determine what is perverse, who is going to determine it for me? A moral relativist such as yourself? I think not.

You would rather give the power to the government to determine what is perverse and moral and what is not.
And you do not have a damn clue that is what you are doing.
The closet liberal that you are.

 

[jtpr312]

So...that same piece of paper doesn't encourage monogamy in Straights either....interesting to know. And when do YOU get to determine what is a"perverse" lifestyle and that people that fit your definition of "perverse" don't get to participate in legal, civil marriage? I believe the Kardasians live a "perverse" lifestyle, but I'm not fighting to keep them from marrying again and again and again.

Of course it doesn't. If it did the statistics on adultery wouldn't be nearly as high as they are. As for when do I get to determine what is perverse, who is going to determine it for me? A moral relativist such as yourself? I think not.

You would rather give the power to the government to determine what is perverse and moral and what is not.
And you do not have a damn clue that is what you are doing.
The closet liberal that you are.

No, I am happy relying on the voters. You know, the ones that have voted EVERY time against gay marriage when it was put to the poll.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it doesn't. If it did the statistics on adultery wouldn't be nearly as high as they are. As for when do I get to determine what is perverse, who is going to determine it for me? A moral relativist such as yourself? I think not.

You would rather give the power to the government to determine what is perverse and moral and what is not.
And you do not have a damn clue that is what you are doing.
The closet liberal that you are.

No, I am happy relying on the voters. You know, the ones that have voted EVERY time against gay marriage when it was put to the poll.

That’s not how our Republic works, whether one has his civil liberties or not is not determined by majority rule; we are subject only to the rule of law, not men. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

The purpose of our republican form of government is to ensure our civil liberties are not destroyed by the tyranny of the majority.

 

[jtpr312]

You would rather give the power to the government to determine what is perverse and moral and what is not.
And you do not have a damn clue that is what you are doing.
The closet liberal that you are.

No, I am happy relying on the voters. You know, the ones that have voted EVERY time against gay marriage when it was put to the poll.

That’s not how our Republic works, whether one has his civil liberties or not is not determined by majority rule; we are subject only to the rule of law, not men. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

The purpose of our republican form of government is to ensure our civil liberties are not destroyed by the tyranny of the majority.

Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, I am happy relying on the voters. You know, the ones that have voted EVERY time against gay marriage when it was put to the poll.

That’s not how our Republic works, whether one has his civil liberties or not is not determined by majority rule; we are subject only to the rule of law, not men. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

The purpose of our republican form of government is to ensure our civil liberties are not destroyed by the tyranny of the majority.

Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.

That is different than popular vote which you stated earlier.
We do not live in a parliamentary system.
Read Madison on minority rights.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, I am happy relying on the voters. You know, the ones that have voted EVERY time against gay marriage when it was put to the poll.

That’s not how our Republic works, whether one has his civil liberties or not is not determined by majority rule; we are subject only to the rule of law, not men. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

The purpose of our republican form of government is to ensure our civil liberties are not destroyed by the tyranny of the majority.

Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.

Aryan Nation Nazis live perverse lifestyles according to some folk.
True defenders of freedom seek to protect their rights and all others they may despise the most.
You reap the benefits of this great nation yet pick and choose what rights you want to defend and which groups of folk.
What is perverse and what is not is opinion only.
And you want to give the power to the mobs and government to determine who is and who is not.
The closet liberal that you are.

 

[Seawytch]

In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term "white persons." -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian.

Loving v. Virginia.

Read it. Learn it.

.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.

If you believe that then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of law and precedence. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin & Turner v Safley all set the precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and that you can't keep people from a fundamental right just because you don't like them.

Now, do you recall a little ruling known as Lawrence v Texas? Do you know why Scalia got his big fat underwear in a wad over that ruling? Because it set a precedent as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course it doesn't. If it did the statistics on adultery wouldn't be nearly as high as they are. As for when do I get to determine what is perverse, who is going to determine it for me? A moral relativist such as yourself? I think not.

You would rather give the power to the government to determine what is perverse and moral and what is not.
And you do not have a damn clue that is what you are doing.
The closet liberal that you are.

No, I am happy relying on the voters. You know, the ones that have voted EVERY time against gay marriage when it was put to the poll.

If we had relied on the voters when it came to interracial marriage can you guess when the voters would have passed it?

 

[g5000]

In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term "white persons." -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian.

Loving v. Virginia.

Read it. Learn it.

.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.

You whine about redefining marriage as if the current definition is the one we have always had. It isn't. State sanctioned marriage has been redefined many times, the most recent being a redefinition away from marriage between two people of the same race.

Your bigotry is transparent in your whining about redefiing marriage. It is just another way of complaining that you have always discriminated and want to keep discriminating.

.