Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Stories of 2001: Researcher Says Statistics Show Reality -- Homosexuals a Tiny Minority in U.S.
AFA Online ^ | 12/27/01 (Originally published August 24, 2001) | Rusty Pugh

Posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:46 AM PST by truthandlife

A pro-family expert on the homosexual agenda says the homosexual community, a tiny minority in the United States, wants the rest of society to change.

Homosexual activists continue to boast about the number of same-sex couples living in the U.S., using statistics gleaned from the 2000 U.S. Census to intensify their demands that society embrace their agenda. But Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the American Family Association, suggests the opposite is true -- that the real numbers demonstrate just how small a sliver of the population is actually homosexual.

"Part of the strategy [of homosexual activists] is to always try to inflate their numbers," Vitagliano says. "They try to inflate the incidence of hate crimes, they try to inflate the number of homosexuals that lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation. And now with this latest brouhaha over the U.S. Census statistics, they are trying to inflate the influence that same-sex couples would have in the political arena, and the fact of the matter is that one-half of [one] percent of the people in this country are living in same-sex households."

Vitagliano says homosexual activists have been touting the recent statistics as evidence that homosexuals are a potent political force, and their agenda should be heeded. In fact, a lesbian real estate agent in Mississippi recently told the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson that if people knew "how many of us there were, there would be less hysteria and we might have some political power." But the researcher points out the census statistics do not translate in a powerful voting bloc.

"[W]e're not saying that they shouldn't have any right to participate in the political process -- they certainly do, no matter how small their group is," he says, "but they really are expecting the vast majority of people in this country to change their traditional views on morality, sexuality, marriage and family ... and that's just not going to happen."

Vitagliano says rather than looking to overturn traditional morality, legislators in every state should be looking at the devastating effects brought on by the sin of homosexuality. An AFA press release earlier this week noted that a study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology revealed that male homosexuals lose anywhere from 8 to 20 years off their life span compared to heterosexual men. According to the press release, other studies demonstrate that homosexuals suffer vastly increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases -- even apart from AIDS -- as well as dramatically higher incidence of mental health problems, and much higher rates of domestic violence between same-sex couples.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:46 AM PST by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
He also fails to mention that the same census shows same-couples living in 99.3% of US counties.

This wouldn't have anything to do with the Clinton propaganda machine pushing the Census and getting back numbers that they want to see? Do you truly believe that the Census numbers are a true representation of our demographics in this country?

3 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:58 AM PST by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: truthandlife
Counter Culture + Low Membership + National Liberal Agenda + Political Correctness = Political Powerhouse (aka The Mouse That Roared)
5 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:07 AM PST by TADSLOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
I remember when this first came out, how all the homo-sexual activists were clamoring about how the number of same-sex households had increased 350% and it was the fastest growing census group and on and on. They never mentioned that it had increased from .2% to .7%

male homosexuals lose anywhere from 8 to 20 years off their life span compared to heterosexual men.

Now, who’d have thunk? I guess the indiscriminate sex in bathhouses, parks and public restrooms wasn’t as healthy as I’d been lead to believe…

dramatically higher incidence of mental health problems

I hope they’re not trying to insinuate that promiscuity nearing nymphomania would be indicative of a mental health problem. Very UN P.C.

6 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:07 AM PST by South Hawthorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madg
I remember my college days when half a dozen homosexuals would show up for a gay rights protest, and the school paper would do everything they could to make it look like hundreds were there. Funny thing is, most of the "protestors" were supporters.

The press does everything in its power to inflate the number of homosexuals. Absent media lying, homosexuals wouldn't have any political power.

7 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:15 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
...legislators in every state should be looking at the devastating effects brought on by the sin of homosexuality.

No they should not. Freedom has responsibility. Responsibility means paying the consequences or reaping the benefits for your own behavior, either in the here and now or in heaven. Keep all us free and paying our own consequences. I don't want to be responsible for anyone's sexual behavior, nor do I want to make anyone else pay for mine.

8 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:16 AM PST by Lysander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
"a lesbian real estate agent in Mississippi recently told the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson that if people knew "how many of us there were, there would be less hysteria and we might have some political power."

Let's talk about political power. I'll bet there are more than 1/2 of 1% of the people in the Unitied States who are SELF-EMPLOYED. Yet we apparently have little or no political power. We get screwed on the payroll tax. Are deductions STINK. We can't even deduct 100% of heatlh insurance costs.

 

9 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:18 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Aside from any true debate over the consequences of homosexuality, the left adroitly exploits these tiny groups in order to disupt social order and foment unrest in a society. The number of radical feminists is very small also, the same for disenchanted blacks and hispanics. Yet, the left, small group themselves, trumpets each of their causes as if they are all national crises. The gullible buy it and small groups increase their power disproportionately.

That is why they need political correctness, to have a reason to shout down voices of reason as insensitive so the the charade by a few can dominate the many.

10 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:18 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Are=Our
11 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:19 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lysander
No they should not.

Why not? If the citizens in my county wish to outlaw certain types of behavior, I've got no problem with local legislatures doing so. If I disagree with the actions of my LOCAL government, I've got 3 choices: Motivate people to elect new bodies to office, Live with the policies they enact (on my behalf, whether by consent or by apathy), or Leave. Everyone else is free to choose between these same choices. There is no reason to force homogenization upon the VERY diverse citizens of this nation, in any case. If Vermont wishes to have gay marriage, then they can have it. Virginia cannot be forced to recognize Vermont's marriage licenses, in that case. (This, by the way, is the nature of a "Republic," which we are still in part.)

;) ttt

12 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:19 AM PST by detsaoT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
This can't be true. Most of the TV shows have at least one gay character. Because TV is such a good representative of American life, there must be more homosexuals out there. There seem to be alot of vegetarians too.
13 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:22 AM PST by Bigoleelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
Why not? If the citizens in my county wish to outlaw certain types of behavior, I've got no problem with local legislatures doing so. If I disagree with the actions of my LOCAL government, I've got 3 choices: Motivate people to elect new bodies to office, Live with the policies they enact (on my behalf, whether by consent or by apathy), or Leave.

Then the citizens in your county own your property, not you. Why is this so hard for people to understand. If someone other than the property owner has a say in what "behaviors" can be done on that property, then those who make the rules own the property, not the one paying the mortgage or holding the deed.

14 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:23 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madg
He also fails to mention that the same census shows same-couples living in 99.3% of US counties.

So? I bet there are Elvis impersonators (not that there's anything wrong with that) living in 99.3% of US counties. That doesn't make them any thing other than a cultural oddity, not a political force. The media megaphone that the gay movement has grossly overestimate their actual numbers.

15 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:25 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Then the citizens in your county own your property, not you. Why is this so hard for people to understand. If someone other than the property owner has a say in what "behaviors" can be done on that property, then those who make the rules own the property, not the one paying the mortgage or holding the deed.

*sigh*. It is not the "private property" which I am most concerned about, but illegal activities on "shared" ("public", if you will) grounds. I do think that local governments (such as Montgomery County, here in the DC metro area, which wrote legislation essentially banning at-home smoking) are free to try and legislate issues related to private property. The local citizens can and will smack down errant legislation, as is what happened in Maryland.

I do still assert quite loudly that States and localities should have the freedom to write legislation which fits their citizens best, and I continue to assert that this provides for the greatest amount of freedom by preventing tyranny of the minority, while still giving those not in the majority the opportunity to affect change in their community. IF unable to change local legislation which they disagree with, they still have the option to move along.

(Oh, btw, until I've paid off the full mortgage on my home, the bank owns my house, not me. Seeing that this is the case, it would not be prudent for me to exercise my "freedom" to burn my house down, as the bank, being the current owner of the deed, would not agree that my behavior is "sufficient display of my liberties." Does this illustrate the problem with "unlimited individual liberties" for you well enough? In clear and concise terms, if we permit no legislation on anything deemed "personal liberties," then we can draft absolutely no legislation, as everyone has different definitions of what "liberties" consist of.)

;) ttt

16 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:26 AM PST by detsaoT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
THIS is the TOP STORY for 2001??
Damn, I would have thought it might have been about 911. And this from the Agape Press. Wonder if anyone on the staff has bothered to check out the translation of agape?

What a bunch of friggen idiots!

17 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:26 AM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eaglewatch
Wonder if anyone on the staff has bothered to check out the translation of agape? What a bunch of friggen idiots!

Hmmm, I must've missed the hateful vitriol in that article. Oh yeah, that would be because it wasn't there. Therefore, I fail to see where they've missed the definition of "agape" (namely, "divine love"). Perhaps you're reading things through a hate-filled glass?

;) ttt

18 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:33 AM PST by detsaoT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
[T]he left adroitly exploits these tiny groups in order to disrupt social order and foment unrest in a society.

I think you’ve captured the essence at the very core of leftist thought. They are trying to mirror in society the chaos that inhabits their own brains. As you later point out, reason is the enemy to the left. A powerful weapon used by the rest of society that can’t possibly be comprehended by the liberal mind.

19 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:34 AM PST by South Hawthorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
SELF-EMPLOYED...have little or no political power.

We're here!  Get no free beer!
And our taxes are dear!

20 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:36 AM PST by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
REf # 18: Agape = "divine love?" Must be time for me to get a new Greek dictionary.
21 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:42 AM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eaglewatch
From DICTIONARY.COM:

a*ga*pe2 (ä-gäp, äg-p) n.

1. Christianity. Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.

2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.

3. Christianity. In the early Christian Church, the love feast accompanied by Eucharistic celebration.

Your confusion on the matter is revealing. What did you think it meant?

;) ttt

22 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:44 AM PST by detsaoT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Also, why assume all same-sex households are homosexuals? In college, I shared apartments with other guys all the time (and we certainly were not homosexuals).
23 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:46 AM PST by rockprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Also, why assume all same-sex households are homosexuals? In college, I shared apartments with other guys all the time (and we certainly were not homosexuals).
24 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:46 AM PST by rockprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: hopespringseternal
The press does everything in its power to inflate the number of homosexuals. Absent media lying, homosexuals wouldn't have any political power.

I once had a client with an office in the same building as Jesse Helm's Senate office, here in Raleigh.

One day, everyone started getting up and heading to the elevators. I asked what was going on and was informed that they had advance word of a 'huge' protest by the 'Oral Majority' against Jesse.

We all scurried down to the lobby to see lots of Secret Service and FBI guys (who also worked in the building).

Outside were reps and cameras from every media outlet in town. All the local TV guys, newspaper guys, etc. Easily 20+ media reps.

And the protestors? One lone soul with a battered sign, crying the blues about mean old Jesse. < /sarcasm >

The TV news ran the story with a closeup on the one protestor and the local newspaper did the same.

27 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:59 AM PST by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: madg
Just because there are two males or two females sharing an apartment or house does not make them gay. My son shares a house with two other guys all of which are normally straight. A friend's daughter shares and apartment with another female and they both have steady boy friends.

Bill

28 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:00 AM PST by bibarnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
I do still assert quite loudly that States and localities should have the freedom to write legislation which fits their citizens best,

Sure, for public property, and as long it does not violate inalienable rights, which includes any activity that is not the initiation of force or fraud, of the threat thereof, its legal.

and I continue to assert that this provides for the greatest amount of freedom by preventing tyranny of the minority, while still giving those not in the majority the opportunity to affect change in their community.

Ok, here is where I disagree. There can be no "tyranny" if the "law" is not forcing an individual to do something, or forcing one to refrain from doing something under penalty of law. For instance, outlawing prostitution is tyranny. Why? Its legal status forces you to do nothing, or to refrain from doing anything. When this activity is outlawed, then you are forced to refrain. You have no right to force others to do, or not do an activity that is not a violation of other's rights(the initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof). Thats tyranny. Same goes with any gun law, any drug law, freeon laws, etc. This does not cover nuclear weapons. You have a right to use defensive force; these weapons are not defensive. This does not cover child pornography, because children can not consent to such activities.

Oh, btw, until I've paid off the full mortgage on my home, the bank owns my house, not me. Seeing that this is the case, it would not be prudent for me to exercise my "freedom" to burn my house down, as the bank, being the current owner of the deed, would not agree that my behavior is "sufficient display of my liberties." Does this illustrate the problem with "unlimited individual liberties" for you well enough?

I think if you re-read my post, you will see I said "the person paying tye mortgage or holding the deed". The bank owns the property as collateral for the loan. You own it as long as you pay. This gives you the same rights of ownership(as far as rights go) as if you owned it outright.

29 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:00 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rockprof
Also, why assume all same-sex households are homosexuals?

That reasoning makes my household homo.

What a shock, to be outted on the net, wait tell I tell my dog.

30 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:03 AM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Sure, for public property, and as long it does not violate inalienable rights, which includes any activity that is not the initiation of force or fraud, of the threat thereof, its legal.

Again, what do "inalienable rights" consist of, and who defines them?

Ok, here is where I disagree. There can be no "tyranny" if the "law" is not forcing an individual to do something, or forcing one to refrain from doing something under penalty of law. For instance, outlawing prostitution is tyranny. Why? Its legal status forces you to do nothing, or to refrain from doing anything. When this activity is outlawed, then you are forced to refrain. You have no right to force others to do, or not do an activity that is not a violation of other's rights(the initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof). Thats tyranny. Same goes with any gun law, any drug law, freeon laws, etc. This does not cover nuclear weapons. You have a right to use defensive force; these weapons are not defensive. This does not cover child pornography, because children can not consent to such activities.

And I will disagree with you there. While I will refuse to demand that citizens of California, who elect their own local representatives and pay local taxes (of which I do neither in California), obey my definition of "illegal," I certainly believe that, via my local legislature, my fellow citizens and myself should have the right to define what is and is not illegal. Prostitution illegal in Virginia, legal in Nevada. Drugs legal in Fairfax County, Virginia, but illegal in Clark County. This, imho, is the intentional design of our government, which is a compromise between a decentralized Republic, and a centralized Democracy.

I think if you re-read my post, you will see I said "the person paying tye mortgage or holding the deed". The bank owns the property as collateral for the loan. You own it as long as you pay. This gives you the same rights of ownership(as far as rights go) as if you owned it outright.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I may have been a little bit extreme in my examples, much to my own dismay.

Being a republican, I'm still going to say that the citizens of a locality have the ultimate right to decide what is and is not healthy for their community. This country was, for the most part, designed to be this way, and was this way well into the 1860's.. I, a Virginian, will not tell a Nevadan (for example) not to gamble, but I, a Virginian, will do my best to elect officials which will continue to prohibit explicitly things which I think are unhealthy. Those who disagree with me are doing their best to elect people who will enact their will. Neither group has any say, ultimately, over any other jurisdiction than Virginia. That is the republican nature of America, by design.

I sure hope that makes sense. I think I need more coffee or something...

:D ttt

31 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:04 AM PST by detsaoT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: madg
So… what ARE “their actual numbers?” And how do YOU know those numbers?

What's the difference? I really don't care how many there are. If fact, if the only thing 'they' have in common is the desire to have sex with people of the same sex, it's is not much of a political movement. That is why the political forces behind them so wildly distort the degree of and even the very difinition of discrimination. They are looking to unify these people as victims and attract the knee jerk bleeding heart contigent to join in. Other than that, there is nothing besides 'kinky sex' that distinguishes them as a group. Not much to hang your hat on there.

32 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:13 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
75-80% of American public believes that gays should not suffer discrimination

I would hope that at least 80% of the people would oppose discrimination against anyone. The question is, what is discrimination? I'm sure that 80% don't feel that legal refusal to recognize so-called 'gay marrage' is discrimination.

35 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:23 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: Owl_Eagle
In observing the left I am reminded of neighborhood kids playing a game. There is usually a small discontented group, or maybe just one kid, who always cheat and then insist on rules changes to accomidate their cheating. Once they shout their desires into fact they are happy until the changes work against them. Then they either argue that what happened didn't really happen or they want additional rule changes to extract them from their dilemma. They get so angry and shout so loud that the only choice the rest of the kids have is to abandon play and go home or give in to them. Without stong leadership from someone they usually give in and pretty soon the game does not even resemble what it started out to be and noone is having fun. When the rotten kids eventually win, they keep changing the rules until they do, they ballyhoo it as if they did something truly great.

Almost daily the spokesmen for the left remind be of those kids that I never liked in real life in far less serious circumstances.

37 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:26 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
The 14th amendments clearly states that "The priveledges and rights of individuals of one state can not be deprived to those in another state"(paraphrasing, of course). This means one state, community or whatever can not enact laws contrary to the laws of other states, counties, cities or whatever. I do not care what "courts" have ruled the 14th means. It is clear and simple. The purpose is so that an individual, who has done nothing wrong, will not become a defacto criminal for crossing a geographic line. This is a simple concept. Right now, I can stand one foot south of the Georgia State line, with a gun concealed, and I am perfectly legal. I take one step north, I have comitted a thrid degree felony. But what did I do wrong? I simply took one pace north, and the State of Georgia wishes to send me to prison. Do you see how "laws" regulating behavior that is not a violation of rights are not constitutional or legitimate? And it has nothing to do with eh Second Amendment. Governments only legitimate role is to punish the violation of rights.

Possession of objects, other than the two I stated, can never, ever be outlawed. Sure, maybe some public regulations, but there can not, in no way, be criminal or civil penalties for possessing objects. You, nor I, have no rights that allow us to dictate by law what others can possess(other than what I stated before). It doesn't matter what a majority wants, or thinks is right. There are no "community rights". Only individuals have rights. Home Owners Associations(HOA's) are prime examples where ALL persons in the "community" agree to certain conditions, and where certain restrictions violate no rights. These are great, when done properly.

Again, what do "inalienable rights" consist of, and who defines them?

As I stated, we our endowed by our CREATOR with the right to engage in any activity, do anything that is not an initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof. I have this right, so do you. Your rights end when you have initiated force or fraud, or threatened to. If you believe in Christ, then you would believe that there are things we shouldn't do. I agree. However, no Christian principle states that believers should force, or use the force of a government to make people not engage in behaviors that violate no rights, but may be deemed immoral or destructive.

38 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:30 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
We're here! Get no free beer! And our taxes are dear!

It's a start :)

39 posted on 12/29/2001 12:14:23 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
(This, by the way, is the nature of a "Republic," which we are still in part.)

You describe a Democratized Republic. We are a Constitutional Republic that operates based on the rule of law, not the mob rule of men's votes. In a democratic republic two wolves and a sheep can vote on the lunch menu, in a Constitutionally limited Republic they can vote, but the sheep are protected from being entrees. Some behaviors, those that do not effect other people's rights, are protected under the heading of "freedom." Otherwise even religion could be voted on and enforced or outlawed, as the case may be.

40 posted on 12/29/2001 12:14:31 AM PST by Lysander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
"I, a Virginian, will do my best to elect officials which will continue to prohibit explicitly things which I think are unhealthy."

Speak of the devil, now that Virginia elected a Democrat for governor, look what's in the Richmond-Times Dispatch today.

Husbands and wives soon may not be the only people who can borrow money from Virginia's housing authority to buy homes.

Unrelated adults and nonmarried couples - including homosexuals - would become eligible for low-interest home loans under a pending proposal by the Virginia Housing Development Authority.

The authority is proposing to drop the "family rule" from its single-family home program, reversing a policy that was championed by Gov. George Allen and social conservatives opposed to government support for nontraditional households. Continue

Surprise!
41 posted on 12/29/2001 12:14:41 AM PST by Ligeia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: madg
No… specifically opposed to unfair job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Questions: If I, as a private individual, own a private business, then the government gets to tell me who I can and can not hire? Individuals have a right to work whatever job they want, and for whoever they want? In this scenario, how does the government not own all means of production?

Discrimination by individuals is the basis of a free society. The word has just been bastradized over the years.

42 posted on 12/29/2001 12:15:06 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: madg
No… specifically opposed to unfair job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You mean like straight guys can't make it in hair dressing, fashion, or interior design unless they at least pretend they are gay? Ya, that sucks. Or are you talking about being a Ranger or SEAL who loves your buddies a little too much?

Where's the discrimination? Personally, I have never seen it. Jokes or disapporval are not unfair discrimination. They are part of life if you choose to be a social oddity, like an Elvis impersonator. Give me an example of real discrimination.

43 posted on 12/29/2001 12:16:22 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
Ref #22: (Sorry I am late in getting back to you but I do have a real life outside of FR.)

From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:
"agape, = charity, dear, feast, love."

I agree that agape does not refer to sex, but there is no way it is "divine." In the verb form, as an example, it doesn't mean "I divinely love," it simply means "I love."

BTW, why are you posting personal attacks against me? You have a problem with your confused sexuality, or what?

44 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:19 AM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

bump
47 posted on 12/29/2001 2:08:59 PM PST by IM2Phat4U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
As I said above, sexual orientation should not be a criterion in matters of employment. (And you can assume that I feel the same way about military service.)

I may agree that it "should not be a criterion, but if I am a private business owner, I can do whatever I want to. There is no power given to the government to regulate attitudes of people. There is no Constitutional right to work for whoever you want to. However, if you mean public jobs, then I agree.

49 posted on 12/31/2001 6:07:41 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
The press does everything in its power to inflate the number of homosexuals. Absent media lying, homosexuals wouldn't have any political power.

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."--John Swinton, Chief of Staff New York Times, 1953

50 posted on 02/08/2002 7:03:32 PM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson