Homosexual Liberals to the Black Community. "You N*****s"

Homosexual Liberals outraged at the passage of the Gay Marriage Ban in California have lashed out at one of the largest groups that supported it, the Black Community. They're using language that if I dared to speak this word, I'd be labeled a racist, and a hate speech purveyor, and no amount of apology would suffice. However, there is no outrage from anyone on the use of the disgusting N word when spoken by Liberal Homosexuals. 

Although I'm posting this from my computer, I'm going to include a picture from my iPhone to let you see the love and understanding first hand. I expect that the websites will change in time. 

So is this the worst that we've seen from the left? Not at all. Roseanne Barr noted homosexual and radical leftist has derided the Black Community as ignorant. We all know that Ignorant is code word hate speech that means the same as the N word. 

They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney.

Liberal Lies: HIV/AIDS treatment

In the eleventh century, it was discovered that if you isolate, or quarantine, a person with an infectious disease, that you limited the spread of the disease. This basic truth, isolation of the infected, has been used successfully since that time to limit the spread of many diseases. 

Public Health law reflects this successful treatment regimen, requiring people to submit to quarantine when they contract a communicable disease. 

Thirty-three states permit authorities to isolate people in their homes. In most cases there are no due process protections specified out in the law.

Forty-two states permit commitment to treatment facilities. Thirty-six states require a court order to commit someone to a facility. Several do not require a court order or a hearing. Generally court orders will be initiated by a petition from public health authorities requesting a hearing. Written notice to the person concerned is usually required, but the hearing may be held with or without the patient. Only thirteen states explicitly grant the right to be represented by counsel in any part of the proceedings. Of these, eleven will provide counsel to indigent individuals.

Release is accomplished when a determination is made that the person is no longer a threat to the public health, or no longer infectious. Some statutes specify criteria for release which may be vague ("no longer a danger to the public health") or specific (evidence in sputum tests that the person is no longer actively contagious). Ten states have no statutory time limits on the length of time a patient may be held without discharge or recommitment. In many states the only explicit due process protection afforded persons who are quarantined is the opportunity to petition the court for release.

In other words, most states are legally authorized and empowered to protect public health by isolation and quarantine of infected people. 

This practice has saved literally hundreds of millions of lives in history, perhaps even billions of human lives. 

This practice, the only successful means of dealing with a communicable disease, is not followed regarding one specific case of communicable disease. It is not followed with AIDS. 

In the 1980’s, when AIDS was first identified, we didn’t know anything about it. We had no clue how it was transmitted. Yet, the Politicians decided that it was not required to isolate and quarantine people, despite the fact that it is the only successful treatment for a disease, is that very course of action. Instead, the politicians and public health workers announced that AIDS was safe, you couldn’t contract it, despite the fact that we didn’t really know anything yet. 

For the first time in history, the transmission of a disease, the spread of a disease is not inter-human contact, but lack of funding. So while a Quarantine of the infected people would work, it’s not required, what is required, is more funding to prevent the spread. 

Liberals lie about this, they endanger the general population, and they blame Conservatives for causing the spread of AIDS through the lack of funding. This claim despite the fact that Bush’s administration has given more money to AIDS treatment than the Clinton Administration. 

GENEVA--Lack of political will and financial support continue to jeopardize global efforts to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS, the head of an international HIV/AIDS prevention project told participants in a satellite meeting of the XIIth International AIDS Conference.

"Throughout the world, millions of people are dying of a preventable disease because of apathy, denial and misguided public policy," said Dr. Peter Lamptey, director of the IMPACT (Implementing AIDS Care and Prevention) Project. "Political and business leaders must have the courage and the foresight to provide adequate funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and to support enlightened policies."

So why hasn’t the disease been wiped out, if the cure instead of Quarantine, is funding and Bush is giving more than Clinton? Because the answer isn’t funding, it’s common sense approaches to public health. 

Anyone with a sixth grade education has heard about Typhoid Mary. So why don’t we take the lessons of successful reductions and disease treatments and apply them to AIDS like we do for Typhoid? Simple. The liberal agenda item of pushing public acceptance of homosexuals would be affected. 

The next time an activist tells you that AIDS is spreading because of lack of funding, ask why we haven’t quarantined the infected. The answer you’ll get will surprise you, because that common sense and historically demonstrated successful treatment is the only one that is considered hateful by the left. 

It is apparently more hateful to keep people from getting sick, than it is to allow people to contract a contagious disease. It is apparently more hateful to try and limit the number of people with the disease, than it is to allow more people to contract the disease. 

Apparently I’m hate filled, because I think that taking the effort to limit the spread of the disease is worth it. Of course, life matters to me, I’m a conservative. 

Liberal Lies: Born Gay.

The perpetual claim of Liberals is that Homosexuals are born that way, and so opposition to Gay Marriage, or Homosexual Equal Rights, is wrong. 

This is frankly, a lie. First, the perfidious argument that someone is born gay. This is the dumbest thing anyone could argue, and the fact that Liberals continue to argue for it, demonstrates that they have no clue what they are talking about. 

If it’s supposedly true that Blond’s have more fun, does that mean that most people are Genetically programmed to be attracted to blonds?

First, let’s consider if this is true, what it really means. If it was true, that a person is “born gay” then doesn’t that have wider implications for our society? For example, wouldn’t we have to recognize that NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) could be Born to be homosexual pederasts? They can’t help themselves, and they’re only following their genetic instincts right? How about Rapists? Are we going to next insist that there is a sex crime genetic marker? One that would require the holder of the genetic marker to commit violent acts? 

Take it a step further, and decide that the NAMBLA and Rapists folks are genetically coded, and we the other members of society feel we can’t allow them to participate in the behavior they are genetically predetermined to commit. Don’t we have a responsibility as a society to protect the members from genetically coded predators? Shouldn’t we just require that people with those genetic markers be aborted, in order to prevent a horrible crime from happening? 

Now, you see the slope the Liberals have put this argument on. One so slippery that it either condones crimes abhorrent to any civilized people, Child Molesters and Rapists are the obvious next step, or it sets up a pre-natal test to determine the probability of the non viable tissue mass to commit those crimes and would we then encourage abortion as we do with Downs Syndrome? 

That brings up the next question. What if it is true? What if there is an identifiable genetic marker that someone is going to be Gay? Do we then come up with a test for the little baby growing in the womb? Do we test like we do for Downs Syndrome? 

Imagine this scene for a moment if you will. Mr. and Mrs. Smith sitting in the doctors office, and the Doctor comes back in. “I have your test results Jane, and the baby shows no signs of Downs Syndrome.”

“Great” Mrs. Smith says smiling at her husband and squeezing his hand lovingly.

“However, the test for Homosexuality, well, that came up positive, so the child is likely to become a homosexual.” Doctor tells her now concerned parents.

“What? Well, what can we do?”

“Well, I’m not supposed to say, but here’s some brochures from Planned Parenthood, they have a nearly hundred percent success rate in dealing with this problem.” The Doctor says glancing around guiltily as the pamphlets are passed over.

The only good news, if there is indeed a Gay Gene, is you’ll see more Conservatives than myself, supporting abortion. You’ll also see Liberals opposing Abortions, in these cases.

The Supporters of the “Gay Gene” theory aren’t helping their case either. 

"Recent scans of the human genome reveal that some gay males share a genetic marker for homosexuality on the X chromosome. One avenue through which genes regulate homoeroticism is by instructing the brain to develop in a sex-atypical manner."

For those of you who aren’t real familiar with words like that, let me explain. Atypical is defined among other things, as abnormal. 

So instead of demanding the highest possible standard from Science, proof positive that something is true, the Liberals take one very flawed study, and run with it demanding that everyone accept Homosexuals as born gay, and stop opposing Gay Marriage.

There is an old idea that when in a Minefield, you don’t worry about things too  far ahead, instead focusing on the step right in front of you. That’s true. However, before you enter the mine field,  you’re supposed to have a good reason to get to the other side. The other side of this particular minefield is a lose/lose situation for the Liberals, and they have no plan once they get there.

Just goes to show you, when you give a Liberal the benefit of the doubt, and let them pretend to think logically, then they immediately demonstrate that as Liberals, they are incapable of thinking logically. 

Is a Cure for Homosexuality on the horizon?

Many years ago, when the discussion on homosexuality not being a lifestyle choice, but a genetic condition, I asked a question of the "Gay Rights" community on a message board. They railed, denounced, insulted, and demanded my hate speech be thrown off of the board, and me with it, for asking a simple question.

The question was simple, and straight (no pun intended) to the point. If Homosexuality is indeed genetic, and we find what gene, or chemical combination causes it, does that mean we have the power, and responsibility to cure it?

That obvious question is the one which got me labeled all sorts of things. I would link to the board, but why bother?

If we find the gene that would help someone see better, even perfectly, would we be fooling with nature, or would we be minimizing or curing a disability? What if we could cure some of the forms of blindness by that gene therapy, would that be a good thing? What if Homosexuality is viewed as another form of birth defect by prospective parents, and they take matters into their own hands to insure the child is born straight? I mean, if a child can be born gay, why not see that the child is born straight?

The reason I bring up this question from years ago, it seems that the scientists also asked that question. Can we treat homosexual tendencies in animals? It seems that perhaps we can. Of course, the idea that there might be a treatment is very dangerous to the Homosexual community which has spent years lying to the people of the world about their agenda, and their view of the future.

Look, for the record, I really could care less what you do, and who you do it with. I figure if it's between consenting adults, then whatever you want to do, enjoy yourself. Heck, I am even happy that many Liberal Supporters are gay, because that will speed the predicted population race towards my own beliefs, conservatism.

Now, from the article.

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.
The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

Now, the study began to find ways for Sheep Farmers to be more profitable. Obviously, a Ram who won't go to stud is useless to the farmer for anything but dinner or perhaps a nice stew.

However, the Homosexual community is up in arms at the thought that the "condition" might be cured. Obviously, if it is the result of aberrant gene's or out of balance chemicals, it's a condition right? If it is a Condition, like genetic probability towards cancer, heart disease, or blood pressure, then shouldn't we treat it like one of those conditions as well? There is the Rub as Shakespeare said. If it is a condition, a genetic trait, or chemical imbalance in the brain, then it falls under a medical condition which may be treatable, to correct the problem, or minimize it.

Potentially, the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents pre-natal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of a child.
Roselli has said he would be “uncomfortable” about parents choosing sexuality, but argues that it is up to policy makers to legislate on questions of ethics.
Michael Bailey, a neurology professor at Northwestern University near Chicago, said: “Allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further a parent’s freedom to raise the sort of children they want to raise.”

By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had “considerable success” in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes.
Professor Charles Roselli, the Health and Science University biologist leading the research, defended the project.
He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.

Well, he is right, Political Correctness is demanding that the research be stopped. Why stop it? Are we saying that some science is bad? What if we could adjust the hormone levels during pregnancy and eliminate the likelihood of your child being attracted to tobacco use? What if you could wear a patch like the one mentioned in the story, and increase the chances of your child having a high IQ, increasing the chances of that child being successful in many fields? What if as a side result of this study, we find ways to minimize the likelihood of Parkinson's, MS, or even treatments for those already afflicted? Would you stop this research and doom poor Michael J. Fox to a lifetime of Parkinson's? Perhaps the research into the brain chemical reactions will bring forth a treatment for Parkinson's as an unintended great reward. Perhaps the results will stimulate some researcher somewhere else who will wonder about a similar approach to Alzheimer's? We don't know what the results will be, yet we know it's dangerous according to the Liberals, because it might show that homosexuality is a condition, not genetic. It may be a brain chemical imbalance like the formally named Manic Depressive, or Bi-Polar condition, which is treatable medically today, thanks to research.

Think about it, brain chemical imbalance which leads to bi-polar disorder and can be treated so the afflicted can lead a normal life, that is good isn't it?