The Left Loses Ground...

[PoliticalChic]

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

It's a fad.

Things change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

That's been part of the bigots' fear mongering all along.

 

[Bfgrn]

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The "sea of words" were ALL written by Hayek, not me.

CLEARLY you didn't read the essay I posted...Hayek was an "old whig" who rejected the term “libertarian” to describe his beliefs. He found it "singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

How embarrassing for you...

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

 

[bripat9643]

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

 

[bripat9643]

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

Society has a way of being wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

So the EPA has been a success.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

 

[bripat9643]

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

 

[bripat9643]

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

So the EPA has been a success.

The EPA is not a success when you consider the cost in terms of money and the loss of our freedoms.

 

[bripat9643]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

Society has a way of being wrong.

Oh, so when it decides to make gay marriage a right, it could be wrong?

 

[Bfgrn]

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually there is no evidence that anyone has died as a result of air pollution in decades. Sure, concentrations one million times greater than an average person would experience might kill a few people, but there is no evidence that concentrations normally experienced in any American city would even cause a single person to become ill.

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

You posted no facts. You posted a myth and a bogus theory.

 

[Bfgrn]

REALLY? Coal Rollers Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

You posted no facts. You posted a myth and a bogus theory.

Yea, all these scientists and doctors are just making this shit up pea brain. As I said, you are a retard.

Coal's Assault on Human Health
Home > Resources

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHA Scientific Statement
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease
A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association

1. Robert D. Brook, MD;
2. Barry Franklin, PhD, Chair;
3. Wayne Cascio, MD;
4. Yuling Hong, MD, PhD;
5. George Howard, PhD;
6. Michael Lipsett, MD;
7. Russell Luepker, MD;
8. Murray Mittleman, MD, ScD;
9. Jonathan Samet, MD;
10. Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD;
11. Ira Tager, MD

Abstract
Air pollution is a heterogeneous, complex mixture of gases, liquids, and particulate matter. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis. The purpose of this statement is to provide healthcare professionals and regulatory agencies with a comprehensive review of the literature on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In addition, the implications of these findings in relation to public health and regulatory policies are addressed. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and their patients are outlined. In the final section, suggestions for future research are made to address a number of remaining scientific questions.


F.A. Hayek had you pea brains pegged way back in 1960...

An excerpt from
The Constitution of Liberty
The Definitive Edition
F. A. Hayek

Why I am Not a Conservative

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life simply because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irreverent or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

 

[Seawytch]

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

 

[Seawytch]

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

It's a fad.

Things change.

Tolerance isn't a fad, but you're right things do change. What is changing is societies view.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

Society has a way of being wrong.

Oh, so when it decides to make gay marriage a right, it could be wrong?

Not to someone who knows right from wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

Society has a way of being wrong.

Oh, so when it decides to make gay marriage a right, it could be wrong?

Not to someone who knows right from wrong.

So right and wrong are independent of popular opinion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

It's a fad.

Things change.

Tolerance isn't a fad, but you're right things do change. What is changing is societies view.

If the homosexual movement would embrace the tolerance that most of the rest of society has, and stop bullying and getting folks fired for having another opinion, we could just move on.