Replies

And still they couldn’t spare so much as a sleeping bag’s worth of space for the likes of me.

He is a white male, of Italian extraction. Rick Santorum "looks like" him. So what's the problem? Oh yeah, he likes to bend over for men. What does that have to do with Obama's $16 trillion in debt, rule by fiat, or appeasement of Iran?

What is there about a personal preference for performing acts of sexual intercourse with other persons of one’s own sex that should merit special recognition or considerations, or benefits or privileges?
What is there about this preference, indulged by a very small minority of the populace, that the rest of us should care about? What makes it a fitting object of pride?

Seriously!! To homosexuals I say: Just do your private business in private and shut up!!

Well, there is that matter of mega-multiple, anonymous, virus-spreading couplings in those wondrous bath houses. So much for privacy.

Hm... This is a puzzler. Why on earth WOULDN'T the GOP pander to a tiny percentage of the voters, when doing so would offend a larger percentage of their traditional voting base, when even doing that pandering would do very little to change the voting habits of that tiny percentage of the voters? They must simply be evil and crazy. Clearly, there's no other reason that one could possibly deduce from the given facts.

I'll go ahead and hold my breath waiting for the MSM to wonder aloud why the DNC isn't reaching out to coal and oil industry contractors and executives.

Gays constitute a tiny minority of the U.S. population, less than 2% to be precise.

WeasleZippers are reading comprehension challenged. They say, "less than 2% to be precise," yet linked to an article stating, "estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity."

Huh.

As an aside, how is "less than 2%" precise, meaning "marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail," when the article itself had fixed a specific number? That's sloppy writing.

A percentage is irrelevant without putting a demographic number on it. Even at 1%, that number is roughly equal to the population of our 5 least populated states plus D.C. combined. At 1.7%, the lowest number mentioned in the article, that expands to 7 states plus D.C (24 electoral votes worth, between PA & FL).

WZ cherry-picked the smallest percentage in an foolhardy effort to minimize the group--a typical, flawed tactic--when there is no necessity and, more damningly, their own citation is self-contradictory.

It is a waste of time to focus on the size of the sub-population when arguing these issues not only because studies vary widely as clear in their own chosen article but because we would never stand for it when it comes to the 1.7%-2.2% of Americans who are ethnic Jews.

It's such a stupid talking-point that needless distracts from morality, tradition and other grounds. It's also self defeating. If the population is so tiny, it can be said, why all the fuss about a threat posed?