Posted on 06/28/2003 8:49:26 AM PDT by yonif
Homosexual Groups Admit ‘10%’ Figure Is Wrong
Summary: In fighting to overturn a Texas law against homosexual sodomy, homosexual activists have quietly admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is homosexual is wrong.
In what will go down as one of the most underreported stories of the year, homosexual activists fighting against a sodomy law in Texas have admitted in a legal brief that 10% of the population is not homosexual.
The 10% claim has been used for more than 20 years to push the homosexual agenda—and to recruit public school children into the homosexual deathstyle.
The admission that the 10% figure is wrong appeared in an obscure footnote in a legal brief filed by a coalition of homosexual groups in the Lawrence v. Texas case now before the Supreme Court.
The coalition consisted of 31 groups including: Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and the People for the Way Foundation.
In a footnote on page 16 of this homosexual coalition’s legal brief, they admit that "2.8% percent of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."
Our thanks to the Family Research Council for pointing out this footnote and exposing the fact that homosexuals are finally telling the truth about their numbers. To read FRC’s analysis of this controversy, click here: Family Research Council: CultureFacts: Culture Facts - April 4, 2003
Read TVC’s Homosexual Urban Legend, published last year on this subject: Exposed: The Myth That "10% Are Homosexual".
Link
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/910022/posts?page=2
So dave, wrong on Bush not being in bed with homos, appointing them to positions of power and authority and wrong again on the % of homos in the U.S.. Dave, it's time to get real or if you are a homo get help! Visit Exodus International on the web. They've turned many a wayward homo around to lead the happy heterosexual life they were designed for. Denial of this is ludicrous.
Care to follow through on the Biblical perspective? ALL have fallen short however as followers of Christ we are to repent and sin no more. Have you seen homosexuals repenting and sinning no more? Or are they reveling in their sin and trying to nomalize it? Hmmmmm? Your best bet is to READ THE BIBLE in its entirety and not pick and chose what you wish to be gospel. When you do this, you misrepresent what is written.
"James 2:10 " For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (Me again!) "
True but I repeat what is a Christian to do? Repent and sin no more? Hmmmm? Or revel in the sin and enlist others to sin with he/she such as in homosexuality?
"Perverted, but brilliant."
Really? LOL! I know quite a few gays and guess what? Some attempt to think, (not brilliant though), some are stupid, dumb, fat, skinny, feminine, masculine, black, white, asian etc.. So your observation isn't valid and bases its truth on gay propaganda. You've been duped.
"If we are going to lock out anyone who practices sin from working, then most likely, your very favorite congressperson would have to be done away with."
There you go again ... pointing to extremes to give validate your defending of gays. The issue is on gays and Bush appointing gays in positions of power and authority. Topic shift doesn't work with me. Ole George goes out of his way to put these demented souls in these positions. Their judgement is fatelly flawed by their "lifestyle choice".
"In fact, I doubt you'd have a job yourself."
And of course to end you little diatribe we have the personal ad hom. LOL! You couldn't raise me ire no matter how hard you try. Actually I pity you for being so blind.
Me:He's suggesting that this is normal and they are equal in judgement to those who are atleast heterosexuals.
You: So Newt Gingrich should have been tossed out on his ear when he told his wife (while she lay in her hospital bed) that he wanted a divorce? That seems very immoral to me. (I agree with Newt on politics, but this was an utterly distasteful act on his part.)
There we go again - topic shift when cornored. I suspect you're having a cyber tantrum and lost track of the topic. The topic is George Bush and his appointing of homos in positions of power and authority. Odd how you can't defend yourself and need to drag in unrelated issues as a distraction. The truth is it's tough to defend the undefendable, isn't it? About Newt, he was divorced BEFORE she became ill with cancer but truth doesn't matter to you.
Embryonic stem cell researh disagreement:
Me: COrrect - exisiting embryonic stem cells even though he LIED to conservative organizations through letters stating that he WOULD NOT okay this. Besides it is WRONG to do this to begin with. So, he blatently lied and compromised himself on embryonic stem cell research.
You: Sorry, we disagree on this. I don't see how it could be considered a lie. The concern was the destruction of embryoes to obtain their stem cells. With Bush's decision, that is not permitted.
Me: Sending out letters to conservative organizations reassuring them that he will NOT approve further research on this is lying. In writing, no less to multiple organizations ... .
You: Fine, don't vote for Bush next time. Who will it be? Dean? Kerry? Or will you simply not vote?
Did you stomp your feet when you wrote the above also? Sounds like you're a tad pissed at what the true pictrue of George Bush is and frustrated beyond words to defend the undefendable. Oh well ... Next comes more evidence of your lack of logic. If I'm disgusted with Bush and his LACK of Biblical conservatism, why in the world would I vote for a party that is out in the open with PRO gay rights, PRO abortion and anti-Biblical stands on any issue you can conjure up? Silly boy. YOU've amused me enough today with your silliness.
You are an absolute idiot. I've been using the 1 1/2 % figure since post #112. Even if the percentage is that small its still virtually impossible for Bush not to hire a handful of gays out of ten or twenty thousand he has hired for his administration. Unlike you, I cant imagine George Bush or Dick Cheeney asking someone who they sleep with in a job interview. Appointing Condi Rice doesnt mean that Bush is in bed with strong women or blacks. To care this much about what someone else is doing in their bedroom, you must be a latent queer. What is it, are you afraid that some Bush appointee is goign to seduce you?
No but then I havent seen you repenting and sinning no more either. For one who is not sinning, you have a very dark heart. Christ's number one commandment, love thy neighbor as thyself, seems to ellude you. Better repent some more.
Funny, but out West, there's still a drought. One can always find prophecy weather somewhere if one looks around hard enough.
No, it most certainly was NOT given to Ishmael's line, as has also been pointed out quite clearly in this thread. The Bible is crystal clear that the land was given to the Abraham/Isaac/Jacob line, NOT to Ishmael. Read post 54. Sim does an excellent job of summarizing the issue as presented by the Bible.
You're relying on a single verse out of context, in which it says Abraham and his descendants. What's key to understand in that one verse is that it does NOT say it is given to Abraham and ALL his descendants. It simply says "descendants." Then, as you continue to read what else God has to say on the issue, it is brilliantly clear which descendants it was given to.
MM
MM
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.