Coming soon to you...Pedophilia

[racrguy]

Except homosexuals engage in high risk sexual behavior and then insist on that behavior being condoned and treated at tax payer expense. They also insist that that behavior be taught as the 'norm' in classrooms and have parades and other BS to encourage it's spread.

High risk sexual behavior, treated at tax payer expense? Prove it. And prove where they also insist that the behavior be taught as the norm in classrooms too.

Sure they have parades, but so do the Dallas Mavericks for basketball, that not everyone plays but can, there are also have christmas parades when not everyone subscribes to the judeo-christian doctrines, but they can.

I think it's high time you pulled your head out of your hind end and realized that not everyone thinks the same way you do, nor do they think whatever they don't agree with is the devil. Obviously the term devil is a euphemism, but you understand my point.

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I'd like you to explain what high risk sexual behavior homosexual people engage in that heterosexual people do not.

[Bad A$$ Coupe]

i dont know about you all here but i want it off the DSM, that way there is no excuse!!! it wont be "oh i am sick, i didnt mean to do it, i have a mental disorder".... it will be more like "you bitch, you did it because you wanted to and now we are going to cut your nuts off and stick you in general population!"

[8mpg]

I think anyone involved in stuff like kiddie porn should be shot on the spot. Just a
*doorbell* BOOM!!!...throw down the evidence on the body

[talisman]

This is why I'm misanthropic.

Some people are gay, some animals are gay, it's how they are born. Someday I think there will be a "cure" for homosexuality as genetic research advances, that's when things will get really interesting. Either way, I don't feel that I or my government needs to get involved in the love life of consenting adults.

Animals cannot consent and neither can those below the age of consent. The idea that these are similar is absurd.

I'm a small government pro-freedom type. The last place I want the US Gov't is in my bed, but hey, that's me, to each their own comrade.

/thread.

[Bad A$$ Coupe]

I think anyone involved in stuff like kiddie porn should be shot on the spot. Just a
*doorbell* BOOM!!!...throw down the evidence on the body

sprinkle crack on them!!!

[Forever_frost]

High risk sexual behavior, treated at tax payer expense? Prove it. And prove where they also insist that the behavior be taught as the norm in classrooms too.

Sure they have parades, but so do the Dallas Mavericks for basketball, that not everyone plays but can, there are also have christmas parades when not everyone subscribes to the judeo-christian doctrines, but they can.

I think it's high time you pulled your head out of your hind end and realized that not everyone thinks the same way you do, nor do they think whatever they don't agree with is the devil. Obviously the term devil is a euphemism, but you understand my point.

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I'd like you to explain what high risk sexual behavior homosexual people engage in that heterosexual people do not.

Right, would you like the links to the link between homosexuality and aids and the cost of treating aids, not only here but globally on American taxpayers? Or perhaps the link to California teaching homosexual history in schools. Seriously, you should keep on top of the news.



Just to start you off:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/us/16schools.html

You also have AIDS research, and this:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that at the end of 2008, there were 682,668 people living with a diagnosis of HIV infection in the 40 states and five U.S. dependent areas. However, the total number of people living with an HIV infection in the U.S. is thought to be more than one million.1 2 The discrepancy between these figures is due to several factors, including:

confidential name-based reporting of HIV diagnoses has not yet been implemented in all states;
anonymous tests, including home tests, are excluded from case reports;
and one in every five people living with HIV has not even had their infection diagnosed, let alone reported.3

During 2009, there were an estimated 42,959 new diagnoses of HIV infection in the 40 states and five dependent areas. Adult or adolescent males accounted for three-quarters of new HIV diagnoses. The main transmission route among males was male-to-male sexual contact (74%), followed by heterosexual contact (14%) and injecting drug use (8%). Among female adult and adolescents, 84.9% were infected through heterosexual contact and 14.8% through injecting drug use.

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Male to male sexual contact: 74%.

[exlude]

This is almost as good as Frost's expertise on evolution.

[Forever_frost]

You didn't prove me wrong there either exlude.

[Maddhattter]

You didn't prove me wrong there either exlude.

Not only did he, but others corrected you several times as well. You just continued to repeat your tautologies and arguments from ignorance.

Even if you were right about exlude not proving you wrong, it would still make no difference because you didn't prove you right. That's the important part.

[racrguy]

You didn't prove me wrong there either exlude.

Yet you have proven how you can't read. You haven't backed up a single claim of yours, and even left some information out that didn't support what you say. Let's not forget the gaping hole in the link you provided, they didn't show what the statistics were for homosexual females. And that's ignoring the fact that according to your website 66% of females got AIDS from, you guessed it, heterosexual contact

I'd go so far as to say that heterosexual intercourse costs the american taxpayer FAR more than homosexual intercourse. According to your source 34,993 is the number of new cases of AIDS in 2009. Every single statistic I can find for teen pregnancy alone (under 20) is nearly 1 million. EVERY YEAR. Yes, that's nearly 40%, and that's only teen pregnancy. Need I go on?

I think you should worry less about what homosexual people are doing (as they can't have children) and worry more about what heterosexual people are doing. Between the tax breaks, and government programs heterosexual people cost the taxpayer far more than a homosexual can. Educate people about contraception, teach them how NOT to get pregnant. Let's face it, abstinence isn't going to happen so we need to teach people about the wonders of modern science and how it can be used to prevent a possibly unwanted and costly pregnancy.

So, now that your "it costs the taxpayers too much money" argument against homosexuals is shot full of holes, care to justify your bigotry some other way? I understand if you don't like it, but to give bullshit reasoning for your dislike is exactly that, bullshit. Just say "I don't like it, and I don't have a good reason" then leave it at that. Is it so hard?

[Maddhattter]

Right, would you like the links to the link between homosexuality and aids and the cost of treating aids, not only here but globally on American taxpayers? Or perhaps the link to California teaching homosexual history in schools. Seriously, you should keep on top of the news.



Just to start you off:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/us/16schools.html

You also have AIDS research, and this:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that at the end of 2008, there were 682,668 people living with a diagnosis of HIV infection in the 40 states and five U.S. dependent areas. However, the total number of people living with an HIV infection in the U.S. is thought to be more than one million.1 2 The discrepancy between these figures is due to several factors, including:

confidential name-based reporting of HIV diagnoses has not yet been implemented in all states;
anonymous tests, including home tests, are excluded from case reports;
and one in every five people living with HIV has not even had their infection diagnosed, let alone reported.3

During 2009, there were an estimated 42,959 new diagnoses of HIV infection in the 40 states and five dependent areas. Adult or adolescent males accounted for three-quarters of new HIV diagnoses. The main transmission route among males was male-to-male sexual contact (74%), followed by heterosexual contact (14%) and injecting drug use (8%). Among female adult and adolescents, 84.9% were infected through heterosexual contact and 14.8% through injecting drug use.

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Male to male sexual contact: 74%.

Let's assume you're right and this is all new information...

So what?

You've still not shown that anyone, let alone the homosexuals, are engaging in "high risk sexual behavior", nor have you shown that they "insist on that behavior being condoned and treated at tax payer expense".

If you've demonstrated anything, it's that more people who reported themselves as having AIDs claimed they got it from homosexual contact. Well, guess what? If homosexuals weren't giving it to each other, they would be giving it to the heterosexuals, by the same process, sex. No indication given what kind of sex it was, oral or anal, or even if due directly to intercourse, as open wounds can propagate HIV.

So, thus far, you've failed to support your claims.

[Parasite Eva]

Except homosexuals engage in high risk sexual behavior and then insist on that behavior being condoned and treated at tax payer expense. They also insist that that behavior be taught as the 'norm' in classrooms and have parades and other BS to encourage it's spread.

Considering the amount of people on WIC and other welfare programs, I'd say you should be more concerned with the heterosexuals and their high risk sexual behavior. :P

[exlude]

You didn't prove me wrong there either exlude.

Maybe you should go reread. Twice.







And never start your own thread again.

[LANTIRN]

Considering the amount of people on WIC and other welfare programs, I'd say you should be more concerned with the heterosexuals and their high risk sexual behavior. :P

Checkmate

[racrguy]

considering the amount of people on wic and other welfare programs, i'd say you should be more concerned with the heterosexuals and their high risk sexual behavior.

repost!