Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com 5,438

In a recent interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay hate group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights.

Full Story

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#3770 Nov 15, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
By Vile do you mean because we care about the children and not afraid to fight lib policy which could not care less about them?
Now we have a President of Infanticide and you are proud of this?
By vile I mean you attack others civil rights because of your NAZI FASCIST KKK UPBRINGING has made your mind evil and filthy.

I know you HATE the constitution and freedom and equality and justice for ALL people....BUT TO BAD HITLER LOVER..

I am real proud we crushed you nzi fascist gop traitors....HOW ABOUT YOU LEAVE AND MOVE TO IRAN....HEAR YOU CAN AHTE AND EVEN MURDER GAYS THERE....YOU SHOUDL FIT IN.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3771 Nov 15, 2012
You teabaggers are dying out; the centrists are starting to push you out of the party.

I voted for obama and haven't received anything free.
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
What did you get from Santa Obama this year, was it free health care, free cell phone , free ipod or all the above?
When I say free, I mean we tax payers bought it for you.
Are you enjoying how Obama is shaking down BP and costing even more jobs ?
What a nice time you must be having.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3772 Nov 15, 2012
Children? All you care about is your hatred of obama. We have the same president we had 4 years ago, stupe; how many cases of infanticide decreed by the white house have there been? I mean, other than the wholesale slaughter of children in iraq ordered by bush?
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
By Vile do you mean because we care about the children and not afraid to fight lib policy which could not care less about them?
Now we have a President of Infanticide and you are proud of this?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3773 Nov 15, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
1. Any animal can breed.
2. People who adopt usually cannot have kids themselves--are they not parents?
<quoted text>
1. Not with your partner, you can't.
2. Yes, 100% of gay couples, they are legal guardians.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3774 Nov 15, 2012
Sanctity is a religious concept; it does not apply to civil marriage at all. Being happy, btw, has nothing to do with sanctity; a lot of perfectly miserable married couples stay together for religious reasons.

If you don't know what a word means, don't argue about it, idiot.
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I guess you don't have that in NJ. There are happily married couples made up of a man and woman in America (myself included), but I guess you don't have that where you live. Is that because there are many more liberals where you live? lol
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3775 Nov 15, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
England doesn't have our constitution, and it is still a theocracy--they have a state religion. Christ, they still have a monarchy, something we rejected, remermber? BTW--the elton john piece concluded with him saying they SHOULD have marriage.
<quoted text>
No duh, they do not have our constitution, but our law is based on their law (Magna Carta junk)and a theocracy because Henry 8th was over-sexualized. Presently, the monarchy is a figure head (not running the country). Just for show to aggrandize Britain. Thus, England and Elton John wisely figured out that having "civil partnerships" as "gay marriage" does not offend christian people and gives the gay couple the same legal rights. You should read other articles from Elton John in regards to "civil partnerships". But the gay activists love the word "marriage" as to offend others to show that they can get their way. Actually the article is uplifting, basically saving if the extreme conservative, Rush Limbaugh, can get behind "civil partnerships" maybe the gays should consider it.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#3777 Nov 15, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus, England and Elton John wisely figured out that having "civil partnerships" as "gay marriage" does not offend christian people and gives the gay couple the same legal rights..
Sorry, but you are way off the truth here. "civil partnerships" give most of the same State rights to same-sex couples, but should they travel from their state to, say the state of Missouri, they do not. And they do not in any way, shape, or form grant the Federal rights, benefits, or responsibilities that ALL marriages do. Separate is never equal.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3778 Nov 15, 2012
Limbaugh is a moron, a junkie, and the last person to spout off about marriage.

Our constitution is based on many things, but more common law than the magna carta. Our entire nation was built on upsetting people, remember? One of my favorite lines from "1776" is john adams saying, "Good god, this is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEBODY!" Progress always offends one group or another; where does it say christians get a free pass?

My LEGAL rights to the LEGAL aspect of marriage is none of their goddamn business.
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
No duh, they do not have our constitution, but our law is based on their law (Magna Carta junk)and a theocracy because Henry 8th was over-sexualized. Presently, the monarchy is a figure head (not running the country). Just for show to aggrandize Britain. Thus, England and Elton John wisely figured out that having "civil partnerships" as "gay marriage" does not offend christian people and gives the gay couple the same legal rights. You should read other articles from Elton John in regards to "civil partnerships". But the gay activists love the word "marriage" as to offend others to show that they can get their way. Actually the article is uplifting, basically saving if the extreme conservative, Rush Limbaugh, can get behind "civil partnerships" maybe the gays should consider it.
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3779 Nov 15, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Sanctity is a religious concept; it does not apply to civil marriage at all. Being happy, btw, has nothing to do with sanctity; a lot of perfectly miserable married couples stay together for religious reasons.
If you don't know what a word means, don't argue about it, idiot.
<quoted text>
Sanctity of marriage is a religious concept, but can and does apply to civil marriages if they honor their marriage.
"Traditionally, marriage vows read (paraphrased, as couples are usually free to cite their own vows) "Let this man and this woman be united before God and let no man put asunder"; i.e. they put the sanctity of their union in the hands of a higher power, and let no earthly being destroy that union. Therefore, marriage is not something to be entered into lightly. Further, once you are married, you should treat it as sacred, and spend time making it work.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_US_lega... ;

Thus, "civil partnerships" could have sanctity if they honored their vows and using the term "civil partnership" does not offend other Christians.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3780 Nov 15, 2012
Under that logic, I wish you heteros would stop molesting little girls--even your own daughters.
your day will come wrote:
<quoted text>
Heteros don't molest little boys, you queers do. So please stop molesting little boys.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3781 Nov 15, 2012
WTF does this have to do with anything? Atheists marry all the time; they don't worry about sanctity.

I don't CARE if some christians are offended; some christians offend me. You act as if everyone has to walk around on tiptoe so the christers don't have a tantrum.

Fu**'em.
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanctity of marriage is a religious concept, but can and does apply to civil marriages if they honor their marriage.
"Traditionally, marriage vows read (paraphrased, as couples are usually free to cite their own vows) "Let this man and this woman be united before God and let no man put asunder"; i.e. they put the sanctity of their union in the hands of a higher power, and let no earthly being destroy that union. Therefore, marriage is not something to be entered into lightly. Further, once you are married, you should treat it as sacred, and spend time making it work.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_US_lega... ;
Thus, "civil partnerships" could have sanctity if they honored their vows and using the term "civil partnership" does not offend other Christians.
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3782 Nov 15, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are way off the truth here. "civil partnerships" give most of the same State rights to same-sex couples, but should they travel from their state to, say the state of Missouri, they do not. And they do not in any way, shape, or form grant the Federal rights, benefits, or responsibilities that ALL marriages do. Separate is never equal.
We do not have "civil partnerships" the same in all states is because gay activists wanted to shove "gay marriage" down other people's throats. BTW, gay marriage is not treated the same way in all states too. IF the gay activists presented civil partnerships like they did in England, then I bet they would have had a better time of making Americans agree with their decisions. But no, it was my way or the highway!
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#3783 Nov 15, 2012
your day will come wrote:
<quoted text>
Heteros don't molest little boys,
Wrong, bigot boy. Read 'em and weep:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fa...
snip: "Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)...

"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). "

http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_...
snip: "Are lesbian and gay individuals more likely to sexually abuse children?

No. The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is completely unfounded. A 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual."

I'll gladly take the experts' word for it over the word of a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthal bigot like you any old day of the week.
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3784 Nov 15, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Limbaugh is a moron, a junkie, and the last person to spout off about marriage.
Our constitution is based on many things, but more common law than the magna carta. Our entire nation was built on upsetting people, remember? One of my favorite lines from "1776" is john adams saying, "Good god, this is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEBODY!" Progress always offends one group or another; where does it say christians get a free pass?
My LEGAL rights to the LEGAL aspect of marriage is none of their goddamn business.
<quoted text>
Fine, go about it your way and have less & less people support you! You have a right to be stubborn and it looks like you are using it. Your way does not help a gay marriage agenda and like I said it offends people that might otherwise support it if it was a "civil partnership".

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#3785 Nov 15, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHA! More lies from the Canadian.
BWAHAHAHAHA more idiocy from the southern idiot.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#3786 Nov 15, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you use the word "if" you are leaving the page and entering your own little simpleton world. Do you see pink unicorns there?
When you can't respond, but only make petty attempts to dodge, then you really can't say you have an argument at all.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#3787 Nov 15, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I can explain it with a single word: gay
Oh look, more extreme idiocy from the south.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#3788 Nov 15, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
But no, it was my way or the highway!
Well, since your opinion doesn't matter and marriage equality is slowly getting more accepted, then you really have nothing to bargain with.
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#3789 Nov 15, 2012
It doesn't say Christians get a free pass! True Christians don't need a free pass! Neither do Homosexuals!

.
Now lets talk about who it is that has lead the attacks on Christians, Homosexuals/queers. As if Christianity was their problem

.

CDC: Homosexual men account for 61% of new HIV infections but only 2% of population

Thu Aug 18, 2011 19:22 EST
Comments (33)

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 2011 - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has estimated that practicing homosexual men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States while they only amount to about 2% of the country’s population.

Earlier this month, the CDC released estimates for HIV infections from 2006-2009 showing that new infections remained stable at around 50,000 for each of the four years.

Homosexual men (men who have sex with men) accounted for 29,300 of the estimated 48,100 new infections in 2009, and homosexual men aged 13 to 29 accounted for 27% of the new cases.

The only group in which new HIV infections is increasing, they say, is young homosexual men – driven by an alarming increase in infections from African Americans. They estimated that the new infections among young black homosexual men increased 48 percent in the period of 2006-2009 (from 4,400 HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009).

The study also revealed that almost 20% of homosexual men have HIV, while nearly half of those who do are unaware of it.

www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-M...

**

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease”

>

LOS ANGELES, California, The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”

A report by the Public Health Agency, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 61 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.

cpeter1313 wrote:
Limbaugh is a moron, a junkie, and the last person to spout off about marriage.
Our constitution is based on many things, but more common law than the magna carta. Our entire nation was built on upsetting people, remember? One of my favorite lines from "1776" is john adams saying, "Good god, this is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEBODY!" Progress always offends one group or another; where does it say christians get a free pass?
My LEGAL rights to the LEGAL aspect of marriage is none of their goddamn business.
<quoted text>
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#3790 Nov 15, 2012
Do you think this may be one reason why the Bible opposes homosexuality? Oh wait, How could ....GOD know this 5000 years ago? There were no medical test!

.

FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over Documented Risk Concerns

.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,– Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.

This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.

According to the FDA, the ban is in place because,“A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.

The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”

Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion.“At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.

“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.“If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”

Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation,” reads the FDA’s policy.

“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”

Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA.“The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said.“Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”

A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.

Read the full text of “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men”:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Biggest Gay Lies 5 min OLD SARGE 2,028
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 5 min woodtick57 129
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 5 min Tubal Cain 1,953
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer sold to Russians! 6 min Frankie Rizzo 3
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 8 min Frankie Rizzo 1,203
Group identifies 3rd US aid worker with Ebola 26 min vote no gay 1
Jason Carter Announces State Committee 28 min vote no gay 1
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 1 hr Larry Craig s WC ... 471
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Cow Gurl 2014 55,980
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••