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

[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.

[eaglewatch]

REf # 18: Agape = "divine love?" Must be time for me to get a new Greek dictionary.

[detsaoT]

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

[rockprof]

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).

[rockprof]

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).

[TC Rider]

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.

[bibarnes]

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

[FreeTally]

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.

[razorback-bert]

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.

[detsaoT]

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

[Ditto]

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.

[Ditto]

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.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

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.

[FreeTally]

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.

[1Old Pro]

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

It's a start :)

[Lysander]

(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.