Power of Hollywood and Obama

[albrecht]

When even the Obama CDC surveys and data has shown this (as also anyone's personal experience) the public still believes Obama's lies that blts or whatever are the most pressing issue of the day.  But note how the propaganda has worked! Any pretty quickly once Hollywood got involved and when Obama, for whatever personal reasons, decided it -besides an open border, illegal immigration and immigration in general- to be his most important focus.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-22/americans-vastly-overestimate-size-of-lgbt-population
It, of course, can be argued that such a small percentage of the population of any deviancy shouldn't be prevented from buying a pizza or a cake but still, so much time, effort, political capital on an issue that effects almost no one? Instead of the economy, border, the wars, etc that apply to everyone- even a dragqueen? Bizarre, but the public bought his agenda's propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Some commentators talk about a "gay mafia," which seems absurd but there certainly was a neat propaganda machine by groups, even in other countries and internationally. Ireland voted just now to allow 'marriage' and that is a fairly quick change from even a few years ago in views. Of course, a central tenant of the left is that the family, and really any tradition, needs to be dissolved to make way for "fundamental transformation." It will be interesting, at least, to see how all the Muslims our countries are importing deal with the homosexuals. Already seen how in Holland. But, no matter, as long as the country(s) are taken down it matter not how.

[136 or 142]

Albrecht,
I could rip your post to shreds but, because I like you, I won't other than to point out, that if you read the original article on this on the gallup website, you'll find that, according to their surveys, the American public has been overestimating the size of the gay/lesbian population before Obama became President (and possibly long before) and that they used to even overestimate with (slighter) higher numbers.

In regards to the alleged role Hollywood has played, I'm aware of only two programs, both from more than a decade ago with gay characters in leading roles: Will and Grace and Ellen (I believe the character on Ellen also didn't start out as a gay character).  Maybe there have been some since, but I'm not aware of them, and if there are, they likely air on channels which regularly have less than one million viewers.

While obviously many Americans were familiar with Will and Grace and Ellen, I find it incredibly hard to believe that two programs viewed on most nights by less than 10% of the adult U.S population would be a major reason that the American public would so greatly overestimate the number of homosexual Americans.

In regards to gay characters in more minor supporting roles, I'm only aware of them being on The Flash, My So-Called Life and years ago Soap, where the character was a deliberate send up of hidden homosexuals in television/movie roles.

[SciFiAuthor]

When even the Obama CDC surveys and data has shown this (as also anyone's personal experience) the public still believes Obama's lies that blts or whatever are the most pressing issue of the day.  But note how the propaganda has worked! Any pretty quickly once Hollywood got involved and when Obama, for whatever personal reasons, decided it -besides an open border, illegal immigration and immigration in general- to be his most important focus.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-22/americans-vastly-overestimate-size-of-lgbt-population
It, of course, can be argued that such a small percentage of the population of any deviancy shouldn't be prevented from buying a pizza or a cake but still, so much time, effort, political capital on an issue that effects almost no one? Instead of the economy, border, the wars, etc that apply to everyone- even a dragqueen? Bizarre, but the public bought his agenda's propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Some commentators talk about a "gay mafia," which seems absurd but there certainly was a neat propaganda machine by groups, even in other countries and internationally. Ireland voted just now to allow 'marriage' and that is a fairly quick change from even a few years ago in views. Of course, a central tenant of the left is that the family, and really any tradition, needs to be dissolved to make way for "fundamental transformation." It will be interesting, at least, to see how all the Muslims our countries are importing deal with the homosexuals. Already seen how in Holland. But, no matter, as long as the country(s) are taken down it matter not how.

The big problem is the merging of social issues with politics. It used to be that a social issue was forced upon the politics of the country by protesters and then politicians relented after heel-dragging, such as with the civil rights movement. But that's all changed, now social issues are used by the libs to create a political narrative which is then used to get elected. In short, you use the gays to get into office but once in office you don't do shit about their social complaint because you can just use it again at election time. The Republicans did that time after time with abortion. They never did shit about it, they just said they would each election cycle.

But Hollywood does not drive this, contrary to popular belief. The actors may through the mindless tabloid media, but the production companies don't. They follow the social trends that follow the political trends in order to cash in, but they remain very commercial, very capitalistic, very profit-oriented corporations. Currently, people will watch your movie or show if you have a gay character. It's "the new thing". So it shows up everywhere, just watch the last two seasons of "The Walking Dead". Season 4: a lesbian. Season 5: two gay men. This is a very thought out model designed to play on social whim. But that social whim is created by the politicians.

In the United States the whole gay marriage thing simply started with a failing Democratic city administration in the city of San Francisco. If you come up with a social issue, something to unite and fire people up, which is precisely what mayor Gavin Newsom did, then liberal people (not progressive, necessarily) will overlook your failings and you'll recover. But if you look at the history of gay marriage in the US, there really wasn't much interest in it. Homosexuals didn't see the point, it was a religious institution created by people that hated them anyway. It was better just to write wills and come and go in relationships as things happen. Yet now, gay marriage is all the rage because it was presented as a narrative, a goal, but all it really was was some mayor trying to save his career and it worked. He's now the Lt. Gov of California. He changed the status quo through using narrative and thus changed how society looks at an issue. In other words, he pulled a hell of a snow job.

If people really understood the true underpinnings of pop culture, politics, the herd instinct and the effects of the science of marketing they would be appalled at how manipulated they actually are. We've never had this in human history, we've never understood mass psychology until modern times. Now that the staffs of the professional politicians do, it flat out rules American pop culture and politics and the people haven't the slightest clue that they're being bipartisanly had in the same way we're had when we see a commercial for a hamburger on the TV and then we magically want to go get a hamburger.

[136 or 142]

From a post on Dave Leip's Atlas Forum:

"Because having access to marriage means having access to things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, custodial rights over children, etc. It's not 'just marriage', it's a whole panoply of rights that we have established via the marriage contract"

The term 'gay marriage' may be new and may or may not have become a political issue via Gavin Newsom (although, iirc correctly, Newsom was just responding by defying a court ruling on a case that had been started by gay activists), but the concept of equality for gays to the benefits of marriage goes back at least several decades.

[SciFiAuthor]

From a post on Dave Leip's Atlas Forum:

"Because having access to marriage means having access to things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, custodial rights over children, etc. It's not 'just marriage', it's a whole panoply of rights that we have established via the marriage contract"

The term 'gay marriage' may be new and may or may not have become a political issue via Gavin Newsom (although, iirc correctly, Newsom was just responding by defying a court ruling on a case that had been started by gay activists), but the concept of equality for gays to the benefits of marriage goes back at least several decades.

Bullshit. I'm for gay marriage in the legal sense. I couldn't care less what adult marries whomever they wish as long as they are an adult and not an animal or a child. If you really want to engage in a medieval religious ceremony that somehow legitimizes your love for someone before some kind of god, fine with me, whatever floats your boat, though I gave that shit up years ago after the first divorce. I mean, why? Why the fuck do people get married? It's just some old religious crap we've transmogrified into a legal problem. Is it a legal problem? Do we want the word "Legal" or do we want the word "Married"? Why are the two mixed in the debate?

As to the gay legality problems, that's an easy fix. Denmark did it first, but they didn't call it a "marriage", they simply found a legal solution and went with it. Here Newsom made it a wedge issue by calling it MARRIAGE and the narrative began. Bill O'Reilly pushed the idea of civil unions early on -- but not marriages -- and no one listened because the narrative was already rolling and the emotions flowing on the left. Thus the liberals made the initial problem unsolvable for the gays from the outset and did them a great disservice and destroyed your own credibility just to get some asshole elected. Legality was no longer the question, it had to be MARRIAGE, in the religious sense, because that's what you liberals were told to demand by the politicians using you. You were not told to demand a solution like the old days, hell bent for leather demanding change, you were told through the narrative to demand MARRIAGE, a farce, and you continue to do so like automatons. It's sad. You have lost the capacity for free thought.

Liberals sicken me.

And I'm more or less a progressive. And a conservative. Or neither.

[onan]

Yeah, the religious right isn't any form of social engineering. And everyone knows that was a liberal strategy to strengthen their base.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, the religious right isn't any form of social engineering. And everyone knows that was a liberal strategy to strengthen their base.

I know it's trite to point it out, but modern religions were and are designed to subjugate the masses; used to full effect by the very powerful to keep the lower ranks in place. You don't toe the line; then you'll go to hell boy; as will your family.

Yup, I'll do as I'm told.

[136 or 142]

You have lost the capacity for free thought.

Liberals sicken me.

Right, but you're unhappy with gays wanting to use the term marriage as well because of your 'free thought.' 
Simple question: how do gays being able to 'marry' as oppose to being able to have 'civil unions' effect your life in the slightest?

[Yorkshire pud]

Right, but you're unhappy with gays wanting to use the term marriage as well because of your 'free thought.' 
Simple question: how do gays being able to 'marry' as oppose to being able to have 'civil unions' effect your life in the slightest?

It's that conundrum isn't it? No direct impact on anyone's life apart from those directly involved, but the self righteous and 'free thinking' need to get suitably infuriated about not being involved with those they'd deny free will.

[albrecht]

It's that conundrum isn't it? No direct impact on anyone's life apart from those directly involved, but the self righteous and 'free thinking' need to get suitably infuriated about not being involved with those they'd deny free will.

Sure it does. Besides the obvious at least annoynance of having to explain to children and constantly see deviance in public and in the media we have to deal with the weird teachings at school (let's teach against not bullying based on gender identification instead of math,) pressure to ensure trannies/homosexuals/whatever etc get into positions via special preference- or fear lest they sue. Just as other "minorities" have done so with their affirmative action, grade inflation, social promotion, special government contracts/loans to "minority owned" businesses, and the like. Including public safety positions like firefighters, the military, police, etc. Where increasing "diversity" is more important in hiring than education or skills. We have, at minimum relabel bathrooms or make others because they want "gender free" bathrooms also. And little Johnny, who now is Jenny, is afraid to change for gym class with boys. Who knows what else what they start demanding more than cake and pizza So more lawsuits, more political fights, more division (which, of course, is the goal of the left), and more costs for everyone. Besides taking so much time/money and political capital to make BLT issues the number one issue means less focus on things that actually matter for everyone- not just the <4%: the economy, the open border, the various wars, our schools, etc. People now know more about some deviant (based on the government's own data) activist who wanted a cake or pizza than where we have troops fighting, and why, or the LIBOR scandal and so on. Stuff that matters.

[Yorkshire pud]

Sure it does. Besides the obvious at least annoynance of having to explain to children and constantly see deviance in public and in the media we have to deal with the weird teachings at school

You have the problem; get over yourself.

(let's teach against not bullying based on gender identification instead of math,) pressure to ensure trannies/homosexuals/whatever etc get into positions via special preference- or fear lest they sue. Just as other "minorities" have done so with their affirmative action, grade inflation, social promotion, special government contracts/loans to "minority owned" businesses, and the like. Including public safety positions like firefighters, the military, police, etc. We have, at minimum relabel bathrooms or make others because they want "gender free" bathrooms also. And little Johnny, who now is Jenny, is afraid to change for gym class with boys. Who knows what else what they start demanding more than cake and pizza So more lawsuits, more political fights, more division (which, of course, is the goal of the left), and more costs for everyone. Besides taking so much time/money and political capital to make BLT issues the number one issue means less focus on things that actually matter for everyone- not just the <4%: the economy, the open border, the various wars, our schools, etc. People now know more about some deviant who wanted a cake than where we have troops fighting or the LIBOR scandal. Stuff that matters.

Yeah; lets go back to the Middle ages or even the mid twentieth century; when a brilliant mathematician was instrumental in shortening the second world war by at least two years, probably more like five, but because of the backward and persecuting authorities he took his own life. He was working on what would have pre dated home computers by about ten-twenty years.


You have the problem about homosexuals. Maybe some self loathing going on there?

[albrecht]

You have the problem; get over yourself.


Yeah; lets go back to the Middle ages or even the mid twentieth century; when a brilliant mathematician was instrumental in shortening the second world war by at least two years, probably more like five, but because of the backward and persecuting authorities he took his own life. He was working on what would have pre dated home computers by about ten-twenty years.


You have the problem about homosexuals. Maybe some self loathing going on there?

An, when logic fails the ad hominem. Classic.

Turing wasn't a genius because he was a homosexual. There are plenty of normal geniuses also. We should celebrate him for what he accomplished- not because he like rent boys or whatever. I have no problem with homosexuals, and if adults they should be able to do whatever they wish just as anyone else, in private. I object to the cost and promoting them based on their sexual preferences and claiming it is normal (when the data clearly shows it is not.) I guess using your logic pedophiles should be granted special status and considered normal since there are likely at least as many in society? Oh wait, the BBC and government there seems to already do so....

[Yorkshire pud]

An, when logic fails the ad hominem. Classic.

Turing wasn't a genius because he was a homosexual.

I didn't say he was. He was a genius who happened to be a homosexual.

There are plenty of normal geniuses also. We should celebrate him for what he accomplished- not because he like rent boys or whatever.

And he shouldn't have been persecuted because his private life had nothing to do with his work in the war; but he was.

I have no problem with homosexuals,

Oh, but you do. Big time.

and if adults they should be able to do whatever they wish just as anyone else, in private. I object to the cost and promoting them based on their sexual preferences and claiming it is normal (when the data clearly shows it is not.)

See, you do have a problem...

I guess using your logic pedophiles should be granted special status and considered normal since there are likely at least as many in society? Oh wait, the BBC and government there seems to already do so....

Ha ha!!! Go for the paedophile card; taken from the bottom of the deck and thrown in just to see if it will make a crap hand any better.

Fact. Almost all paedophiles are heterosexual. Fact: Almost all paedophiles abuse their own children before moving outside the family. Fact: 80% plus of children abused are abused by their 'normal' family.

[SciFiAuthor]

Yeah, the religious right isn't any form of social engineering. And everyone knows that was a liberal strategy to strengthen their base.

Hell yes it's a form of social engineering, a really nefarious one that killed and continues to kill enormous numbers of people. And that's why climate change politics has a quasi-religious flavor built up around it. That was not accidental.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hell yes it's a form of social engineering, a really nefarious one that killed and continues to kill enormous numbers of people. And that's why climate change politics has a quasi-religious flavor built up around it. That was not accidental.

Erm nope. Any more than the scientists working on the Hydron Collider have a religious mentality. Or the scientists who worked on Apollo...or the scientists who work in micro biology...

[SciFiAuthor]

Right, but you're unhappy with gays wanting to use the term marriage as well because of your 'free thought.' 
Simple question: how do gays being able to 'marry' as oppose to being able to have 'civil unions' effect your life in the slightest?

I'm not unhappy with anything, call it whatever you want, civil union, civil partnership, an apple, whatever. Just don't call it marriage because if you do you'll piss off the religious folks and CREATE opposition for no reason. But because rank and file liberals are encouraged to have a chip on their shoulder and the liberal marketers and social engineers realized that massive social opposition is a great thing to use in campaigns it became another planned in-your-face confrontation. Do not for a minute think that the polarization that divides libs and conservatives is natural. It's created, planned and used to win elections on both sides.

But in the end, all that polarization does is get in the way of achieving equality for gays. Because your peeps called it marriage, an unnecessary wall was built that works against the gays but FOR liberal politicians because wedge issues are of top importance in US politics.

[SciFiAuthor]

Erm nope. Any more than the scientists working on the Hydron Collider have a religious mentality. Or the scientists who worked on Apollo...or the scientists who work in micro biology...

Not the scientists, the promoters. Climate change politics is an industry based on a science. So is the tobacco industry. It pays to remember that.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm not unhappy with anything, call it whatever you want, civil union, civil partnership, an apple, whatever. Just don't call it marriage because if you do you'll piss off the religious folks and CREATE opposition for no reason. But because rank and file liberals are encouraged to have a chip on their shoulder and the liberal marketers and social engineers realized that massive social opposition is a great thing to use in campaigns it became another planned in-your-face confrontation. Do not for a minute think that the polarization that divides libs and conservatives is natural. It's created, planned and used to win elections on both sides.

But in the end, all that polarization does is get in the way of achieving equality for gays. Because your peeps called it marriage, an unnecessary wall was built that works against the gays but FOR liberal politicians because wedge issues are of top importance in US politics.

I know it will go against your prejudices, but it was Cameron, our Conservative Prime minister in the last Parliament who pushed through the right for gay marriage.. He really isn't liberal, not a little bit.

[SciFiAuthor]

I know it will go against your prejudices, but it was Cameron, our Conservative Prime minister in the last Parliament who pushed through the right for gay marriage.. He really isn't liberal, not a little bit.

Good for him. It's one of the few competent things he's done.

[albrecht]

Ha ha!!! Go for the paedophile card; taken from the bottom of the deck and thrown in just to see if it will make a crap hand any better.

I go reductio ad absurdum while you go ad hominem
If homosexuals are "born that way" and if pedophiles are "born that way" isn't is discrimination to criminalize them both? Using leftist logic at least. The early beginning of the homosexual rights movement and protests in the USA included NAMBLA and others of that ilk. In some countries sex crimes, including pedophilia, are sometimes not even investigated because they don't wish to offend Asians. And had groups such as PIE aligned with prominent civil rights groups even (NCCL.)

At what age does your "rights" of any deviants, based on government surveys, stop? Different countries have different age of consent and marriage laws, after all. Many would be shocked at what some countries has deemed "ok." So why not the same with homosexuality? Why protest if Russia wants to have innocuous laws or if some US state doesn't want to redefine marriage to include homosexuals? Or some small business doesn't want to bake an activist a cake?

[136 or 142]

Sure it does. Besides the obvious at least annoynance of having to explain to children and constantly see deviance in public and in the media we have to deal with the weird teachings at school (let's teach against not bullying based on gender identification instead of math,) pressure to ensure trannies/homosexuals/whatever etc get into positions via special preference- or fear lest they sue. Just as other "minorities" have done so with their affirmative action, grade inflation, social promotion, special government contracts/loans to "minority owned" businesses, and the like. Including public safety positions like firefighters, the military, police, etc. Where increasing "diversity" is more important in hiring than education or skills. We have, at minimum relabel bathrooms or make others because they want "gender free" bathrooms also. And little Johnny, who now is Jenny, is afraid to change for gym class with boys. Who knows what else what they start demanding more than cake and pizza So more lawsuits, more political fights, more division (which, of course, is the goal of the left), and more costs for everyone. Besides taking so much time/money and political capital to make BLT issues the number one issue means less focus on things that actually matter for everyone- not just the <4%: the economy, the open border, the various wars, our schools, etc. People now know more about some deviant (based on the government's own data) activist who wanted a cake or pizza than where we have troops fighting, and why, or the LIBOR scandal and so on. Stuff that matters.

I personally have very mixed feelings regarding the rights of transgendered vs. the legitimate concerns of the rest of society (especially young girls), but let's be clear here, the number of transgendered people is a tiny subset of the number of homosexuals, which, in itself is a tiny subset of the population as a whole.

Regarding the rest of your post
1.Teaching civics/proper behavior in school long precedes gay rights and used to be a major thing conservatives were in favor of.  I know some people call it 'indoctrination' but, I don't see what the purpose of putting all the kids in a classroom is (other than to lower the costs) if you aren't going to teach them there are acceptable and non acceptable ways for them to treat each other.

2.I don't disagree with you in some ways when it comes to affirmative action, especially when essential standards are lowered, but this is far more a 'women's rights ' issue than a 'gay rights' issue.  I highly doubt that a gay man would have any greater difficulty becoming a fire fighter, for instance, than a 'straight' man.

[136 or 142]

I go reductio ad absurdum while you go ad hominem
If homosexuals are "born that way" and if pedophiles are "born that way" isn't is discrimination to criminalize them both? Using leftist logic at least. The early beginning of the homosexual rights movement and protests in the USA included NAMBLA and others of that ilk. In some countries sex crimes, including pedophilia, re sometimes not even investigated because they don't wish to offend Asians. And had groups such as PIE aligned with prominent civil rights groups even (NCCL.)

There are recent arguments from researchers of psychology and neurology (see Robert Hare) that free will doesn't really exist and based on that, some have argued that nobody should go to jail.  However, Hare and all of his fellow researchers have no problem rejecting that argument.

The obvious difference between a homosexual and a pedophile is that, despite what you for some bizarre reason seem to think, a homosexual doesn't hurt anybody while a pedophile obviously does.

2.The gay rights movement threw NAMBLA out of their movement very early on.  If you're going to base your support or opposition to a group based on some of the people that support them, you obviously could never vote Republican as they have the endorsement of both the KKK and the John Birch Society.

[SciFiAuthor]

Erm nope. Any more than the scientists working on the Hydron Collider have a religious mentality. Or the scientists who worked on Apollo...or the scientists who work in micro biology...

And by the way, you should probably be careful with the climate scientists. I would normally be inclined to to agree with you, science is science, but I watched Bjorn Lomborg get crucified, vindicated, crucified again, vindicated, crucified again until a group of scientists lambasted the whole thing in the "Journal of Information Ethics" which seems to have vindicated him for good. It was like watching Galileo get persecuted all over again just because the guy (who happens to be openly gay) stepped outside the box and questioned current methodology in dealing with climate change. He didn't even question climate change itself, just the methodology in how we're tackling it. So I don't know man, climate science doesn't seem to work like other sciences do. And I'm not a denier, you cannot pump an insulating gas into the atmosphere indefinitely without eventually seeing an effect, but when alternate fully scientific views such as potential geoengineering and technological solutions for climate change are being shut out by the scientists, then there's an indication of a real problem.

[albrecht]

There are recent arguments from researchers of psychology and neurology (see Robert Hare) that free will doesn't really exist and based on that, some have argued that nobody should go to jail.  However, Hare and all of his fellow researchers have no problem rejecting that argument.

The obvious difference between a homosexual and a pedophile is that, despite what you for some bizarre reason seem to think, a homosexual doesn't hurt anybody while a pedophile obviously does.

"Gay and bisexual men make up about 2% of the overall population, but account for approximately two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year. Data included in CDC’s 2013 "

"In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections."

"Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men."
Wow that is a decent amount of cost for society. Just took one quick google search. More here, and elsewhere:
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/

Yeah, I was being absurd though it is a valid question. Different countries and cultures have different ideas about age of consent, marrying age, etc. (I think even in 'socialist' Europe some countries are, or were, as young as 12 or 13. Many other countries would think that is way to low. Try that in the USA and you are pedophile and going to prison.) So what is the universal limit and why should countries, or in large countries states, also be allowed to have differing ideas about whether or not to redefine marriage? What happened to acceptance and praise of diversity of other cultures now?

The question of free-will and some of those, and other, experiments and arguments are interesting. Obviously society, or a person usually, doesn't act that we have no free will but some of those experiments seem to show that we have a lot less than we think, at least in certain area.

[136 or 142]

And by the way, you should probably be careful with the climate scientists. I would normally be inclined to to agree with you, science is science, but I watched Bjorn Lomborg get crucified, vindicated, crucified again, vindicated, crucified again until a group of scientists lambasted the whole thing in the "Journal of Information Ethics" which seems to have vindicated him for good. It was like watching Galileo get persecuted all over again just because the guy (who happens to be openly gay) stepped outside the box and questioned current methodology in dealing with climate change. He didn't even question climate change itself, just the methodology in how we're tackling it. So I don't know man, climate science doesn't seem to work like other sciences do. And I'm not a denier, you cannot pump an insulating gas into the atmosphere indefinitely without eventually seeing an effect, but when alternate fully scientific views such as potential geoengineering and technological solutions for climate change are being shut out by the scientists, then there's an indication of a real problem.

1.Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician not a scientist.  His knowledge of climate science is no greater than any other interested lay person, though he does have an ability to understand climate science papers better than the average person.  Most scientists who opposed him probably didn't like him claiming to be a scientist (or  his supporters calling him a scientists) and claiming to be an expert on climate science when he was neither.

2.The vast majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 (and methane) is now so accute in the atmosphere that only technological solutions can help solve or, at least, reduce the problem. I have no idea where you get the idea that climate scientists oppose technological solutions to global warming.  They rightly believe, however, that all of the proposed technological solutions are, obviously, untested, at least on a global scale, and that most of them probably won't work or will cause at least as much damage as they will cure.

[136 or 142]

"Gay and bisexual men make up about 2% of the overall population, but account for approximately two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year. Data included in CDC’s 2013 "

"In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections."

"Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men."
Wow that is a decent amount of cost for society. Just took one quick google search. More here, and elsewhere:
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/

Often people who quote large numbers like these leave out the actual data of the number of people who are actually effected, because that number tends to be very small.

Of course, you also left out the diseases that straight men may be more likely to get than gay men.  I don't know of any myself, but it would shock me if there aren't any.

Even if there aren't, I highly doubt that the cost born by society of these illnesses comes anywhere near the cost caused by tobacco and alcohol.  Are you going to suggest we ban those things as well?

[albrecht]

Often people who quote large numbers like these leave out the actual data of the number of people who are actually effected, because that number tends to be very small.

Of course, you also left out the diseases that straight men may be more likely to get than gay men.  I don't know of any myself, but it would shock me if there aren't any.

Even if there aren't, I highly doubt that the cost born by society of these illnesses comes anywhere near the cost caused by tobacco and alcohol.  Are you going to suggest we ban those things as well?

Sure, if the people vote that way.  We've tried prohibition of alcohol and it caused more problems than it solved but if we want to try again then vote for it. We already put arbitrary age limits on consumption or sales of same, in most countries. Why 21 years of age here in the US but 18 or 16 in other countries? Shall we force them to raise their age limit? Or at least protest them or have sanctions or make political speeches against them? I have no problem if a country, or local area, wants to ban it. Several counties around me ban the sale of alcohol. I don't like it and don't live there but it is a local option. Maybe there shouldn't be universal demands on individual countries or at least some lee-way (for example I don't mind if a country, like Australia, bans homosexual marriage but have a problem with a country, like Saudi Arabia, that kills them. Why shouldn't the people be allowed to say, you know "I don't want teenage boy Johnny, who now says he is Jenny, to use the locker-room and bathroom with my girl Sally in school?" Or "I'd rather my local school focuses on math and grammar and not so much on bullying of homosexuals or gender identity classes but if some school in California wants to focus on gender identity as a core class that's fine for them."

[Yorkshire pud]

Often people who quote large numbers like these leave out the actual data of the number of people who are actually effected, because that number tends to be very small.

Of course, you also left out the diseases that straight men may be more likely to get than gay men.  I don't know of any myself, but it would shock me if there aren't any.

Chlamydia, Gonorrhea; both passed onto women, the first can be catastrophic to women.

Even if there aren't, I highly doubt that the cost born by society of these illnesses comes anywhere near the cost caused by tobacco and alcohol.  Are you going to suggest we ban those things as well?

What? Crazy talk.

[136 or 142]

Sure, if the people vote that way.  We've tried prohibition of alcohol and it caused more problems than it solved but if we want to try again then vote for it. We already put arbitrary age limits on consumption or sales of same, in most countries. Why 21 years of age here in the US but 18 or 16 in other countries? Shall we force them to raise their age limit? Or at least protest them or have sanctions or make political speeches against them? I have no problem if a country, or local area, wants to ban it. Several counties around me ban the sale of alcohol. I don't like it and don't live there but it is a local option. Maybe there shouldn't be universal demands on individual countries or at least some lee-way (for example I don't mind if a country, like Australia, bans homosexual marriage but have a problem with a country, like Saudi Arabia, that kills them. Why shouldn't the people be allowed to say, you know "I don't want teenage boy Johnny, who now says he is Jenny, to use the locker-room and bathroom with my girl Sally in school? Or "I'd rather my local school focuses on math and grammar and not so much on bullying of homosexuals or gender identity classes but if some school in California wants to focus on gender identity as a core class that's fine for them."

1.I don't know anybody teaching 'gender identity classes' but they do teach civics and acceptable ways for students to treat other students.  Math (especially stats) and science are probably more important than those things, but I'd say they are way more important than grammar.

2.I'm not asking about how other people should vote, I'm saying that you would have no choice but to support bans on alcohol and tobacco if you believe that homosexuality should be illegal (or whatever your view on homosexuality and the law is)  based on the tiny cost born to society caused by 'gay' diseases. (Please not I put gay here in quotes)

[albrecht]

1.I don't know anybody teaching 'gender identity classes' but they do teach civics and acceptable ways for students to treat other students.  Math (especially stats) and science are probably more important than those things, but I'd say they are way more important than grammar.

2.I'm not asking about how other people should vote, I'm saying that you would have no choice but to support bans on alcohol and tobacco if you believe that homosexuality should be illegal (or whatever your view on homosexuality and the law is)  based on the tiny cost born to society caused by 'gay' diseases. (Please not I put gay here in quotes)

I'm not against homosexual marriage due to costs, solely. But regardless of the reason why should countries, or states, (that is the people) allowed to have their own culture or laws? And is there a universal age at which all societies must follow (for sex, for alcohol, for smoking, for marriage, for driving licenses, for military service, etc?) Should the US be forced to lower age of consent to 12 since that is how people feel is appropriate in some countries (I think The Netherlands was 12 a few years back but I think they raised it.) Why shouldn't countries/cultures be allowed to hold differing values? Or at least drawing a line to actual torture or killing people? Or put the redefinition of marriage to the ballot as Ireland did? Oh, I forgot, we did several places and each time it was rejected so activist judges and the Feds needed to get involved to try to "fix" it and Hollywood needed to ramp up the propaganda machine.

As I mentioned I have no problem with an area banning or limiting alcohol or smoking if the people want that way. As I said several counties and town around me ban sales of alcohol. Others allow in restaurants but not elsewhere. Many places have banned smoking. And so on. Personally I draw the line on your own property (that is you should be able to smoke or drink on your own property even if banned sales or consumption in public) but if a country wants to try a complete prohibition and the people vote for it that is ok by me. Likewise if Australia wants to ban homosexual marriage I have no problem with it, if Saudi Arabia wants to kill homosexuals I don't like that, but not going to invade them (maybe have sanctions, I won't travel there, etc could be possible. Not likely due to their oil though )  If California wants to focus on gender identity in their schools and people like it, fine. But I reserve the right to not want my local schools teaching it and instead focus on math etc.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/25/gender-diversity-lesson-california-school-riles-critics/