Mortal, this post is derogatory and offensive and in violation of our Code of Conduct. Please review our FAQ or check out our J-Tips for more help posting to NowPublic.
NP Rank:
You and I can see loads of evidence in the news these days about the problem President Barak Obama has been having with gays. They are not happy with him, we keep hearing. In fact, it seems to be a problem of great proportions! Our President has not been giving due attention to homosexuals, and they are down right angry about it. The headlines declare it -- they demand it: our President will have to take care of homosexual Americans' desires...or risk their ire. Didn't you know that they got him elected -- got him voted into office! So what if you voted for him, they got him into office, and they are peeved that he hasn't been listening to them like he should. Mrs. Obama probably hasn't either, as everyone knows that the wife has the ear of her husband. They should know better, and now since they both evidently only spurned the homosexual community by Barak's specifically and discreetly appointing homosexuals to high government offices and duties, they shall...(censored)...-- perhaps even the fiery wrath of Baalzebub himself! (censored)..., because you are on their list, too, aren't you -- you (censored). You only mock them behind your backs, don't you. You don't take them serously, do you? When you turn to ask a nice young man for directions and he talks like a girl, holding his hand at a "just so" angle, ...you, ...you, ...you hurt their feelings with your pent-up laughter, don't you. It isn't their fault they played with barbie-dolls and batons and baked cakes with Mother while Dad was gone all the time. You do know that, don't you? And when you see that luscious blonde bombshell in a bar, and you amble over and set your arm over her chair with a slick smile, asking what she'd like, you show your evil disgust when you wretch and heave when she talks like a man and you look around wondering who just answered. How disgusting! Why can't Americans be more blind, and not notice there are differences between boys and girls, men and women, like (some) people do? And for your evils, you will incur their loathing -- their seething, vengeful curses, rantings full of malice and tolerance. If only you had it in you to turn a blind eye like others and not care if your children are taught the finer-points of gay love by the teachers in their schools, then you would know what it's like to have a gay in your family. Then, maybe you would be willing to let all America turn gay and maybe even get on the "gay-pride-wagon", yourself, like President Obama and the liberal minions in Congress (seem to have done). Yes, America, you will learn to spurn them not, won't you. You will learn to not deal treacherously with their whopping, ...big, ...tremendously-huge, extremely large, ...meaty,...2% of the population. What? Yeah, that's right. You heard me. I said it: -- 2%, maybe 3%. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, about 2%-3% of American men are gay and 2% of American women are lesbian. In stark contrast, A 2002 Gallup Poll suggests that Americans think 21% to 25% of men and women are homosexual. That, of course is very improbable, considering the vast numbers of functionally-heterosexual family units in the nation. How do the numbers and their influence get so inflated? How does it happen with any group? What happens in nature, when a creature makes itself look larger so it seems mightier as an opponent and invincible as a prey? America has bought it hook, line and sinker, too. When kids or teens wonder if they are gay, for years, their secret, online advisors have affirmed that they surely are, right? If they have ever once kissed, screwed, sucked or even looked at a same-gender friend, or had a pleasant close friend of the same sex, they are contorted into feeling like, yep, you got it, you are definitely one -- one of the group. You definitely got..."the gene". So, there's no chance for ya, you ain't got cancer so you don't have to go home and die. Nope, you just got the "gay gene" -- we can tell: you, young man, have friends that are boys. Why, you probably touched his hand when he handed you a baseball. Yeah, you say it was normal, but they all say that. It's called denial, and your case must be hopeless, now: you just have to go home and be gay, cause it's in your genes. Just like I got the chocolate gene, my friend has the ice cream gene, and others have the smoking gene or even the fat gene, so it must be hopeless. Sniff. And if, -- if you need a place to stay, I'll put you up at my place (-heh). Well, America,...if that ain't the tail wagging the dog: 2% telling everybody else, including the President, what we all better do and not do. That's about the same number estimated for muslims in the U.S., too -- 2%. So, the total 4% of combined population of the two are dictating appointments, policies and court-room dictates...to the remaining 96% of U.S. citizens! That...is phenominal -- so much so that I begin to wonder how there has come to be such a disproportional amount of influence on our leaders. I know they aren't all muslims, but are so many of them gay perhaps? You know we heard those stories about congressmen and their interns. Is it a rich-man thing? -- You know, when you've got extra time on your hands, (do) you do whatever there is to do or something? Hmm. Well, if they don't want to listen to me and hate my religion, and they show such intolerance toward others, etc., why should I or other Americans want to bow down to them? Suppose you have a group of kids together -- 50 kids -- and one kid wants to play soccer while the other 49 youths want to play kickball. TOUGH choice, right? Even kids can figure that one out. Yeah, all those tolerant folks probably want to ...(censored)..., huh? THEY get to speak their minds, say their peace, NOT be oppressed; but, is it too much for anyone to recognize the rights of the many anymore? If I moved to Iran, would I demand my American rights there? If I moved to Mexico or Russia, would I demand my kids be taught English in school to honor my heritage? At what point is being "fair" unfair? This, America, is what you will have to decide for yourselves, and you will have to make it known; because, from what I see, your leaders aren't listening anymore. They are going after the will of the minority of everything. Problem is, even minorities are often part of the majority in some things, so it will hurt us all. It will hinder us to always try to do so. Hey, next thing you know, it could lead to decriminalization of pedophilia and man-boy love relationships, lowering the legal consensual sex-age to 13, etc. -- After all, kids have feelings, too, and perverts rights mustn't be ignored either, right? Of course, parents would still get stuck with all their children's problems: after all, they are only kids, for Heaven's sake. Yes, there are problems, and catering hand and foot to 2% to 4% of the population is not the kind of fair, unbiased, bi-partisan leadership we need. The American population could likely be sectioned out in other ways -- Chinese, orientals, Native Americans, Indians -- and we don't make sure that we create policies and appointments based on what every such category of people wants. To do every type of classifying scheme could result in constantly changing the 2% to 4% category. Wow, just think: we could spend all day AVOIDING the needs of the 96% of American citizens, couldn't we? Now, just how odd does that sound? -- Dare to reason, America. Good day!
politisite
Columbia, South Carolina, United States
RoryKearney
Voorhees, New Jersey, United States
158
St. Louis, Missouri, United States
pedropevie
United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 10:31 on July 7th, 2009
I disagree Jarrett, For once some one has the balls to say what they think in the face of dangerous social trends.
I am sick of standing by and being told to tolerate and accept while I do not receive anything of the sort in return. We are allowing persons who suffer from pathologies to perverse the foundations of our society by condoning their actions as normal. For example, if you are trans gendered, do not expect me to address you as a lady; just because you accept your pathology does not mean I will play along to humor you, no more than I would humor the folly of a schizophrenic.
I am tired of hearing how persons are born this way. Children are not born with sexual identities. But if certain behaviors are condoned or allowed during development then of course they think this behavior is normal. Further add this an alarming social trend to give global acceptance to these people. I was asked once if I thought sexuality was a choice then surely I could change mine (the standard argument) to which I reply, "no I was raised right. I understand you suffer from a pathology (which obviously per last poster less than 3% of the population make this poor choice). Why is it if I told you I was Elvis or Napoleon you would assume I was crazy but persons can claim to be "gender challenged" and we think this is otherwise normal behavior?
I will not tolerate you. I will not condone your delusions. And I will no longer be silent.
Be well.
at 08:30 on July 8th, 2009
Mr. Martineau, please do allow me to address your concerns. In light of reviewing the Code of Conduct, I'll try to respond in order.
1. I think I have been transparent enough and as advised, disclosed a measure of "bias" or "where I am coming from" in my views; and, it was duly noted as being an "opinion" article. In fact, I think the article was quite well-done and thought-provoking, treading the line between both sides, but utter intolerance is only for part of America, and the other part must only be totally submissive and utterly tolerant in the face of abuse, right?
2. I don't think there was any plaigerism in my article.
3. Oops, I guess I will have to tone it down a bit on this one, as I playfully called some people "biggoted" for having an opinion contrary to the unlawful support of homosexuality through prejudicial handouts of jobs and political appointments. Please do remember that and in the future, and be sure to be fair for any straight-haters, in like manner.
4. The material is not irrelevant. Obscene? -- Not really, if compared to common vocabularies commonly used, right? We're also all mature enough to not need to use "boink" or "zug-zug", etc. to imply something relevant to the article, and "bang" is still a rather polite term, right? No racism here: in fact, just the opposite! ...Let's see, "Sexist, homophobic,...other slurs": actually, no. You see, according to 4 out of 4 definitions of "homophobic" that I looked up in response to your perhaps implied accusations, "homophobic" includes the modifiers "unreasoning" and "irrational" to complete the definition. My statements are far from being either! They ARE reasoning. They ARE rational. They simply happen to be of an increasingly unpopular opinion -- perhaps a new minority opinion, considering the political correctness of the day. To censor MY well-thought-out, reasoned and rational opinion is to hypocritically do to me what you seem to be implying of me, right?
5. -- Not even close. It is stated as opinion, and the statements are based on facts. I have been around enough years to have seen quite a lot. I've seen and experienced addictions of one sort and another. In fact, I know what it is to have to face tremendous cravings and desires that at times seem overwhelming. What I have found is that a person has to determine what it is he/she really, really wants the most, and go for it. No, it isn't easy. If it were easy to do difficult things, there would be a lot more experts in sports, music, and every other field of endeavor, right? Also, I've seen internet forums where a youth asked if he were gay (because of such and such) and all kinds of garbage has been fed to him assuring him he was, contriving him to be homosexual with very little evidence of any kind to support such a claim, not to mention the people were likely not qualified to do so! It leaves teens and young men hopeless, and when promoters of homosexuality cheat the facts to boost their standing in others' minds, it is wrong. It is not wrong to say that bad is bad. Additionally, to say that what the Law legally condemns as a perverse crime is, well, "perverse", is also not erroneous, is it? Or do you suppose that it is a wretched thing to call pedophilia and man-boy sex a crime? If so, please let everyone here know where you stand on that, too.
6. No Laws were broken, ...especially until free speech and the right to an opposing viewpoint become things of the past, anyway.
No sir, the real main problem is just as I addressed: the intolerance of others and the problem this nation has with irrationally and unreasonably bowing down to give prejudicial, superior treatment to a very small fraction of the nation's population. In all the jobs I have applied for, I usually see a notice that it is actually i-l-l-e-g-a-l to base hiring or promotion on things such as race, gender, sexual orientation, handicaps, etc. Apparently, that is now not true for the current administration, which has seemed to have thrown out the idea of jobs being based on things like ability and merit when the selections made are based on apparently illegal motives. I did throw some light on the way people often do treat others, using a facetious wit, in case you didn't notice that. Also, homosexual men are often known to have a rather crude sense of humor at times themselves, so why the fuss: it shouldn't offend anyone's tender eyes or ears. You know the saying, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." I have a valid opinion, albeit somewhat unpopular, but brevity lightens the mood,...unless you are totally intolerant of opposing opinions: in that case, you would just have marxism or communism I think.
As for everybody else, hey, I apologize if my now-censored article seems a little choppy. It is hard to pierce through the fog of political correctness to make it all straight and nice. If you agree with me please leave a note to express that, to show that you understand the grammatical usage of a facetious wit, sarcasm, humor and hyperbole.
at 07:20 on July 25th, 2009
I would understand your POV, if it had as a basis factual information. No one is "bowing down" to any minorities in America. Quite the contrary. The fact that the gay community is active, vocal and visible only means that they are utilizing their first amendment rights to try to achieve their goals - simple equality. It's no different than what religious fundamentalists do. They are not a majority of anything yet can wield power very well as has been shown in the past. If the equal protection clause in the Constitution applied to everyone equally, there would be no need to even have this debate. However, as long as it is still legal and acceptable to discriminate in this country, the debate will continue.
at 10:22 on July 25th, 2009
Last I remember, it isn't legal to discriminate in the U.S. there are many people with Christian views who are not "fundamentalists". There are, of course, fewer practising christians -- as a percentage it seems -- than in previous years. This article is, however, more about special privileges, is it not? Our elections, while giving everyone a chance to vote, are decided by some measure of the number of votes cast, so the government and Laws are rather representative of the people. Giving special status, privileges & consideration to some over others seems rather contrary to that. If a person gets a job or a nice apartment somewhere totally due to some kind of gender discrimination or sleeping with the boss, etc., rather than based on merit or fairness, wouldn't that be wrong? Same goes for appointments and decisions of government to grant special favors based entirely on a type of discrimination that, according to our Laws, is ILLEGAL.
It would be the same as if a Republican President were to publicly state intent to appoint only conservatives or only christians to governmental positions and to give such persons special favor and status for the same reasons. What if a boss said he only wanted to hire men or that he only wanted to hire fornicating drinking buddies? Wouldn't that be unethical or illegal? Yes, it would. Therefore, to give the same kind of outright, preferential treatment to homosexuals based on their sexual orientation...is ILLEGAL, just as it is under the Law for anyone else. The President is not above the Law, nor is the Federal government -- after all, lots of people have sued the fed. gvt. over the years for various problems, including discrimination, right? Once you place a restriction or a duty for "equality", it means exactly that, not "more" for some and "less" for others. "Equality is a mediator, of sorts, sometimes elevating but also capable of lowering, lessening & restricting. Equal is equal, and that makes it all based on merit and voting and so forth.
at 09:29 on July 28th, 2009
Discrimination is illegal depending on when it occurs. Also, when it is not a civil suit may be brought and should. And please provide a source or name names because I do not recall anyone of any siginicant post such as Secretary of the Treasury simply because they are homosexual. What preferential treatment are you refering to?