CDC: Only 4% of U.S. males have sex with other men...

[Xavier_Onassis]

Human beings are very far from being an endangered species.  Compered to many other species on this planet, we are an invasive species. We certainly do not need to reproduce at the current rate, which was established when half the children died before the age of three and most people did not live past 40. 

When I say that female homosexuality of safer, that is an absolute fact. Sexually transmitted diseases are far less likely to spread, and childbirth is still somewhat dangerous.

sirs and CU4 have been seriously brainwashed and are incapable of rational thought on this issue. Their irrational hatred of gays and lesbians is akin to the taboos of primitive people.  And in fact a legacy of primitive desert dwellers for whom a child to see his father naked was a serious taboo.

I have not advocated throwing kittens in the river. You felt the need to make up that particular shit because my actual argument is entirely logical and YOU needed some dumb deflection from the real issue, which is your irrational hatred of  homosexuals. By the way, I am all in favor of having my pet cat neutered, however. Perhaps that is another of your taboos. If it isn't it is only because the Hebrews did not value their cats or identify with them as fellow mammals. They were more into cows, what with the prohibition on mixing dairy and meat, as the evil Baalites did.

And again, female homosexuality is safer than what you call "natural" and "moral".

Your mortality is based on ancient taboos and such that were devised in a time in which diseases came from demons, there was no birth control pill, and people died much younger. It is antiquated and out of date and makes little sense in the world of today.

And I am not speaking for "Liberals" or "the left" I am simply speaking for LOGIC and rational thought, which your antiquated brainwashing prevents you from performing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Seals are acting against nature when the rape penguins. Their nature is attributable to the Creator. If seals rape penguins, then the all-knowing, all powerful Supreme Creator designed them that way, and since He knows Everything, he knew from the git-go of every incidence of every seal that rapes every penguin from the very beginning.

The same Creator, using the same logic, created human beings. If some human beings are gay, then He knew this. The option of designing them so they would not be gay existed and was not used. Dogs can lick their schlongs and you cannot. Why is that?  Because they were designed that way, of course. So God left humans with the possibility of cornholing one another, but he designed  humans so they could not get themselves off orally. Think about it. If you think that God created some humans so they could be tempted by members of the same sex and not others, then you have to wonder why.

I do not see a problem, because I do not believe that whatever created the Universe is omnipotent or omniscient. Dogs evolved one way and humans another. Seals are npot designed to rape penguins, and many of them never do, but some do because they can. It serves no particular purpose, it just happened that ssala and penguins evolved the way they did by happenstance.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And what is it with the comment that only 4% of males have gay sex. Do you propose that because 96% of the men that do not have gay sex should compel that tiny 4% to stop doing it under threat of arrest, imprisonment, stoning or some sort of punishment? Do you seriously think that gay behavior is something that should be decided by an election or plebiscite?

Disapproval of gay behavior is a taboo, not a crime. You might as well comment that only 4% of all people put their feet up on the coffee table.
Asians are in the clear majority in the world, and as a rule, they always take their shoes off before entering their houses.
Since they are in the majority, should there be an international law that shoes are not to be worn indoors?
It makes as much sense as your idea that 4% should be admonished by the 96% for only being different.

Even the once priest-ridden Irish have decided that gays have the right to marry. You have lost this war, and your remaining allies are guys like the fanatics of Isis, who are punishing gays even as we speak.

[sirs]

sirs and CU4 have been seriously brainwashed and are incapable of rational thought on this issue. Their irrational hatred of gays and lesbians is akin to the taboos of primitive people.  And in fact a legacy of primitive desert dwellers for whom a child to see his father naked was a serious taboo.

Your mortality is based on ancient taboos and such that were devised in a time in which diseases came from demons, there was no birth control pill, and people died much younger. It is antiquated and out of date and makes little sense in the world of today.

And what's your morality based on??  The latest edition of that great leftist book of moral equivalence and political correctness??  Speaking of incapable of rational thought, I have no hatred towards any gay or lesbian.  The irrational act here is your inability to separate acts from the person. I have no hatred towards anyone.  You think immoral acts are perfectly fine, so be it.  Sorry, but you don't get to be the arbitrator of someone else's moral compass.  That is the domain of liberals and the left, where they want to control what other people do or say, based on their arena of moral equivalence, and is about as irrational & illogical as it can get

[Xavier_Onassis]

My morality is based on logic. I do not require an ancient book filled with all sorts of silly and downright cruel punishments for minor offenses (stoning for sassy children, for example) to tell me what is moral and what is immoral.

Apparently, you do and do not think that you personally are capable of deciding on morality all by yourself. You have obviously been brainwashed and refuse to consider that this has been done to you.

But this is NOT about my morality. We are not discussing what I do, only how I should consider what others (in this case, gay people) do. You think that it is just dandy to look down your nose at them as immoral. I think that the, like me, have the right to determine what is right for themselves, being as Adam and Steve having anal sex or oral sex or whatever does not affect my life in any way. You, on the other hand, wish to deny them the right to marry, and would probably be okay with them being jailed or institutionalized because you think Jeezus told you they were immoral. I am pretty sure you would not vote to decriminalize gay sex if combined with a platform to lower taxes on the rich.

[sirs]

My morality is based on logic.

And we've all been witness to your version of "logic".  I rest my case

And one more time, for the rationally impaired... I, like most everyone else walking upright, can distinguish between a person and the acts they perform.  As such, I don't look down on anyone.  I do judge acts of others, and can praise or denounce said acts, depending on my moral compass, while still being respectful of the person.  You, apparently, are incapable of such an ability

[Christians4LessGvt]

And we've all been witness to your version of "logic".

what? logic like...lie your ass off that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor
to get control freak trojan horse legislation passed that most legislators failed to read
and is costing tons more than promised and delivering less!

[sirs]

Yep....logic like that

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not President Obama and I did not say that anyone coiuld keep their doctor.
Anyone with a brain could easily figure out that it is the healthcare insurance company, not the president, who decides which doctors are going to be on its approved list.

No one can lie about what they think will happen in the future, because the future is unknowable.

This is NOT a discussion about Obama. It is a discussion about you rightwingers constantly making dumb comments about gay people, which you despise, just as you despise President Obama.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Cigarettes are more dangerous than being gay, but CU4 does not make comments about how cigarette smokers make more unhealthy choices  or how they are in the minority. That is because the priests responsible for his indoctrination were not obsessed about smoking, but were obsessed about gay men.

It must be awful hard for celibate priests being surrounded by juicy, docile little altarboys,and no doubt that creeps into their brainwashing repertoire. Jesus had nothing at all to say about homosexuals. What there is about this is all in the Old Testament.

One has to wonder why God has not rained death and destruction down on Key West of San Francisco the way he did on Sodom and the much less mentioned Gomorrah.
One might speculate whether the Sodom & Gommorah bit ever actually happened, or whether God has somehow taken a different tack on attacking the Love that Dare Not Speak its Name. 

[Christians4LessGvt]

GAYS! IF YOU WANT TO START GIVING BLOOD, STOP BEING SLUTS

by MILO YIANNOPOULOS

8 Jun 20155

Britain's National Health Service is on a drive to recruit more blood donors.

Predictably, Twitter is ablaze with whining homosexuals complaining that they can't donate.

But can you blame the NHS? If gay men are really so desperate to donate their essential oils, perhaps they should stop being such massive whores.

The NHS doesn't ban gays because it's homophobic. It bans them because gay blood is so much more likely to have diseases, and it costs a fortune to do all the screening just to discover that yet another proud Mary is riddled with pathogens. I say "proud" advisedly, because giving blood is one of the most tedious public displays of virtue around. Ooh, she gave blood today. Isn't she brave. Are you feeling alright, hon? A bit weak on your feet? Here, have another cosmo!

Look, I'm not trying to be offensive. But I know from experience how randy queens can be. I'm the most recklessly promiscuous person I know, with a fondness for African gentlemen to boot. Fortunately, I live a charmed life and I've never had so much as crabs. But I'm a unicorn: everyone else I know emerges ashen-faced from the clap clinic on a near-monthly basis.

The clearest figures on HIV infections come from the US, where although gays are less than 2 per cent of the population, they account for 61 per cent of all new infections.  An estimated 77 per cent of diagnosed HIV infections in men is down to gay sex, according to the FDA, and the figures among gay men are going up, not down. That's why there's a lifetime ban on gay blood donors in the US. The NHS isn't even that strict, by the way: they just ask that the donor refrain from sex for a year.

I get that asking a gay man to go without sex for a year is, in practice, the same thing as a lifetime ban, but whatever. Consider the fact that younger people are more likely to donate blood and that the largest increase in gay HIV infections is in the 13 to 24-year-old category. This isn't bigotry: it's a question of public health.

The NHS is broke, and it can't test every single one of the 7,000 donors a day who come through its doors. So it has to make some hard decisions about which group is most likely to present a risk to patients. Who are these sociopathic monsters who want to put dying people at risk? Does an eighty-year-old granny in need of a bag of Type-O really need to be worrying that her local hospital is about to pump her full of HIV?

Even if the NHS were to test every blood sample, which it currently says it does, some HIV infections take up to 10 years to show up in tests. In the majority of cases, it only takes 3 months. But it's a lot more straightforward to exclude very high-risk groups to make sure no other patients are at risk.

I'm perfectly fine with the NHS turning me down, and I can't understand why my fellow homos are pretending they aren't. Not, of course, that I would ever really consider donating a drop of my blue blood to others, because eww, needles.

And there's another public health hazard on the horizon, too: what if those conspiracy sites are right, and blood contains a "genetic memory" that might transfer to another person? If I start giving blood, there could be a veritable epidemic of bitchy right-wing queens out there. It's the stuff Netflix horror series are made of.

I think one Milo Yiannopoulos is quite enough, don?t you?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/08/gays-if-you-want-to-start-giving-blood-stop-being-sluts/

[Xavier_Onassis]

What possible use is it for you to bitch and stew, piss and moan to me about gay men bitching about the NHS?

The NHS has an obligation to collect healthy blood, I do not see any problem with their refusing to take blood from gay men, if it is proven to be dangerous to do so.

People who get medical care from the NHS have the right to not take chances. 

Just as it is entirely rational not to transplant hearts of people who have had heart attacks, or kidneys from those who have had hepatitis.

Calling people sluts is not going to serve any purpose other than to announce that you are a gay-hating moron. Which, as we know, you are.

 

[sirs]

One has to wonder why God has not rained death and destruction down on Key West of San Francisco the way he did on Sodom and the much less mentioned Gomorrah.

Because he's also a merciful God, and gave us freedom of choice.....to act or moral.....or not.  Its those choices we then bring with us, when Judgement eventually comes down

[Christians4LessGvt]

Calling people sluts is not going to serve any purpose other than to announce that you are a gay-hating moron.

So the homosexual that wrote the article and used the term "sluts" is a gay-hating moron?
As SIRS says...duly noted.

[kimba1]

Actually i do believe gay men are pretty slutty but that's actually an unfair insult since it's basically calling men sluts but a slutty man is also called normal.

We can't exactly say men in general has handled urges well. We can't even blame alcohol thats how bad it is. It's the very foundation why women win so many divorce rulings