Tag Archives: Homosexual

New Gallup poll finds that Americans overestimate gay population

This is from Joe Carter at First Thoughts.

Excerpt:

Let’s take a survey: Are Americans (a) really bad at estimating, (b) really gullible, (c) both really gullible and really bad at estimating? After seeing the results of this Gallup survey, I think the answer is obvious:

U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.

As the Gallup articles points out, demographer Gary Gates recently released a review of population-based surveys on the topic which found 1.7% of Americans identify as lesbian or gay and another 1.8% (mostly women) identify as bisexual. Yet, as economist Karl Smith notes, “most Americans believe that there are significantly more gays and lesbians than blacks (12.6%) or Hispanics (16.3%) and 35% of Americans believe there are as many or more gays than Catholics (~25%).”

Why do Americans think there are so many gays in the U.S.? Maybe they are basing their estimations on what they see on television.

At the launch of the 2010-2011 television season, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) examined the five broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC) and found that 41 characters on 84 programs were homosexual. An additional 53 homosexual characters appeared on 30 scripted cable programs. That’s a total of 94 characters on the 114 shows that were counted.

Yipes. The actual number has to be 2-3% or something like that.

You can see more of the results here.

Obama administration believes that traditional marriage is unconstitutional

From CNS News.

Excerpt:

The Justice Department has announced that it will no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president and Attorney General Eric Holder now believe the law is unconstitutional.

“After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Wednesday.

Section 3 of DOMA is the portion of the law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Obama and Holder now support the claims of the law’s opponents that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Constitution.

Holder explained that he and Obama felt that the government could not defend the traditional definition of marriage as a rational distinction in federal court, saying that any morality-based defense of DOMA would amount to “animus” and “stereotype-based thinking” that the Constitution prohibits.

“The [legislative] record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against,” Holder wrote.

In other words, because Congress enacted DOMA for moral reasons, the Obama administration will not defend it, because it thinks those moral reasons amount to “animus” towards homosexuals.

Holder said that Obama had decided that the traditional definition of marriage could not be defended from charges that it is not discriminatory, given what Holder said was a “history” of anti-homosexual discrimination.

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny,” Holder said.

“The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” he added.

Congress, as the author of DOMA, can still defend the law in federal court.

It’s so strange to me that so many of the people who voted for Obama aspire to marriage and claim to love children. But they support the Democrat party that undermines marriage in so many ways. From subsidies for single mothers, to no-fault divorce, to opposition to shared-parenting laws, to supporting recreational pre-marital sex, to supporting same-sex marriage… Obama and the Democrats are opposed to traditional marriage. They do not believe in a lifelong commitment of one man and one woman, and a stable environment in which to raise children. They believe in feminism. They believe in big government. They believe in easy no-fault divorce. They believe in single motherhood and sole custody of children for the mother. They believe in sex education. They believe in subsidized abortion. They believe in normalizing the homosexual lifestyle (with the higher rates of promiscuity and domestic violence it entails). They believe in making people feel better about living in selfish, risky and costly ways.

Why do these people who vote Democrat expect children to grow up with a mother and a father? Why do they expect men to commit to marriage? After you have undermined every reason for men to choose to marry and become fathers, you don’t then turn around and expect people to marry, do you?

If you are a democrat, then don’t expect that you will be married. If you are a Democrat, then don’t expect to grow up with a father and a mother. If you are a Democrat, then don’t expect your parents to stay married. If life is about recreation and selfishness and having someone else pay for your risky, irresponsible behavior – this is the Democrat platform – then don’t expect to marry. Marriage isn’t free, and it doesn’t happen without the right conditions. If you are a Democrat, you destroyed marriage. Everything the Democrats stand for is anti-marriage. Democrats are anti-marriage. If you vote Democrat, then you are anti-marriage. You are causing the decline of marriage. And you are hurting children who need a mother and father.

Related posts

Gay activist killed by gay prostitute for refusal to pay for sex

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

After the brutal murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato last week, media, homosexual activists, and human rights groups claimed it was the result of anti-homosexual sentiments in Uganda.

However, on Wednesday police arrested a man by the name of Nsubuga Enock who they say was a sex partner of Kato’s and who has confessed to the murder.

According to Inspector General Kale Kayihura, the suspect said “he negotiated with the deceased to be paid money as he was to be used as a sexual partner.”

He said the man then had sex, but Kato did not pay. “The following day, Nsubuga confesses that he picked a hammer from the bathroom and hit him on the head,” said Kayihura.

“There is nothing concrete to suggest that Nsubuga was motivated by hate, although we are not dismissing it.”

Police also said Enock was a well known thief.

Kato was murdered on January 24. Media and activists around the world immediately decried his death as a direct attack on his homosexual stance and Kato is being described as an activist hero and “model.”

New York based Human Rights Watch issued a statement last Thursday calling for thorough investigation of the case.  “David Kato’s death is a tragic loss to the human rights community,” said Maria Burnett, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “David had faced the increased threats to Ugandan LGBT people bravely and will be sorely missed.”

Newspapers across North America last week slammed Uganda as a “deeply” anti-homosexual country and cited Kato’s high-profile involvement in activist groups as reason for the murder.  Kato reportedly had “many death threats” over the last months after he, along with other homosexual activists, was “outed” in a newspaper that published his picture.

Interesting because of the media bias, very similar to the Gabby Giffords case where Sarah Palin was blamed with zero evidence, when the murderer had favorited flag-burning videos on YouTube and he also liked to read books on socialism like the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. In short, he was an atheist and a leftist.

I think we are at the point now where the media can write stories demonizing groups they oppose entirely without evidence, and only much later does the real story emerge, if at all. So much for the objectivity of the news media.

Because of Obama’s laws restricting free speech, do not even THINK of commenting on this post.

Related posts