I know this is not what my friends in the gay community want to hear, but please, but just a little patient. President Obama cannot do anything about this now due to the elections. Idiotic as it may seem, that could be a liability in many conservative swing states. Just wait until after the election when he doesn't have to worry about reelection,then he can take a public stand on this issue and work on getting it legalized in all 50 states. We all want marriage equality now, but if we can wait just another year and get President Obama reelected and get a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, I'm sure we'll see great things.

Vince, good for you. A level headed comment. No drama until after the election. No one needs it. No one. The President did a good job including "gay" when describing a list of individuals that serve in our Military. First time I ever heard that and I am glad of it.

I was going to post a comment here, but Vince had already said pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Patience, grasshoppers. :)

Yes Vince made the a great point. Why should he put one more thing out there the GOP can pounce on, and use to freak out religious whack nuts to campaign on, against him.

Obama is a brilliant political tactician, and knows bringing up Gay marriage at this point NOT only would do Gays, but himself any good.

Don't make the topic cannon fodder for the ignorant baggers.

The best thing we can do is help people get registered to vote that aren't, and do what ever you can to help the President's cause in your area.

If he doesn't win, we are much bigger looser's than he will be. It could be 20 years or more before any more progress is made on this subject.

Another thing you MUST do is get rid of your republican congressman. Getting the house back would be huge.

Homosexuals don't want marriage equality anymore than they wanted DADT repealed; they want to be in everyone's face about it-they like being victims.

I say legalize it all and hopefully they'll quit whinning. I'm getting tired of it.

As a libertarian, I am for gay marriage. I'm for any combination of legal adults marriage. If your for gays and not multiple partners, then you're in it for the political issue, not fairness. You're not rational.

Vince-545056 - I know this is not what my friends in the gay community want to hear, but please, but just a little patient. President Obama cannot do anything about this now due to the elections.

The smart thing would be for Obama to come out in support of marriage equality shortly before the election, especially given that the issue will already be on the ballot in a number of states in November. It will mobilize the youth vote as well as garner more independents.

I know what they want the President to say ( Hey put it right in there! ). But seriously, why should they call it marriage, call it anything but that!

Really? Is that what he did about Gay's in the military?

You are either a bagger troll, or a total embarrassment to your community.

As opposed to saying whatever very few people wants to hear?

pained one, you sound like you bought into that idiotic nonsense that "the definition of marriage is under attack" that the leaders of the religious right pretend makes sense, and I think some of their idiot followers actually believe it! But I can't imagine they're all idiots so some of the other followers who parrot that redefinition talking point must be just trying to help the cause.

Listen pain, it's just a @!$%#ing dictionary definition! Your marriage isn't going to be affected one iota. And if it becomes law everywhere, Americans aren't going to start marrying barnyard animals either. Repeating that foul lie shows pure hatred. If the faithful can't see that anyone who makes a bull@!$%# argument like that isn't just a hateful liar, then they're not being intellectually honest. Let them wallow in their hate. I don't give a @!$%#.

And if those eff'ing hypocrites really cared about redefining dictionary words they wouldn't so readily do it themselves when it suits their purpose. What do you think that personhood amendment is all about? More and more lately they've been trying to redefine "person" and "child" or "baby" to include a fertilized egg. Holy crap! I just realized something. Aren't those redefinitions going to destroy "people," "children," and babies?"

Yeah right! Fertilized eggs are people now! Give me a break, if that's not how those words were used before, and all you have to do is research old newspaper articles about abortion to see that they weren't, then the religious right cannot escape the charge of hypocrisy for pretending that redefining a dictionary word is going to destroy marriage.

But, But people already marry barnyard animals... and their cousins too... o_0

Kris, You are wrong on point number two. No matter how much you wish it to be true there are an abundance of moderates who are for equal rights but not to the extent where the whole definition of marriage is re-written. Yes, the base is fired up yet both sides know it is not the base you need. It is the moderates

I hope he does. Then maybe all the fence leaning, milk toast " moderates " will see what a pathetic piece of crap he is.

If the gay community wanted to get their issues taken seriously by the democratic party they would rally together with family and friends and join the Login Cabins to become a force in the republican party. It would moderate the republicans and it would send a signal to the democrats that they can't take the "base" voters for granted. I'd even bet that there are more gay and lesbians along with supporting friends/family out there than tea party members.

there is a hell of alot more important issues than gay marriage. sounds like typical special interest. if this country is to survive we all need to forget about all this petty stuff and start working harder on the important issues like the economy, children going to sleep hungrey etc. your gay ok we get it. now get on board and stop being cry babys about an institution which, really, isnt that great!!!!!

It's not about the institution, it's about being able to pass my healthcare over to my children(whom my partner carried), being able to see my partner in the hospital, being able to not be limited to a certain number of states in which it's acceptable for me to be homosexual and married. You're very fortunate that you don't HAVE to care about marriage equality, but there are many of us who have no choice but to care about it. I'd love to care about 'petty things,' but this is no petty thing to me. It directly affects my family and thousands, maybe millions of others.

Yep, there's a lot of more important problems that we all ought to put our energies into solving instead of fighting this idiotic culture war. Agreed. But you got one thing backwards - it's the religious right who are crying like babies about it. "Oh, boo hoo, our religious freedom to discriminate against gays is getting pushback. poor us, boo hoo, sniffle, honk."

VoiceOfReason311, I'm straight but I agree with everything you said. I just voted you up.

For 20 years, President Obama listened, nodded and Amened while the Rev. Jeremiah Wright condemned same-sex sex.

I think you vastly over-estimate the actual number of people you have in the LGBT community. You are a very vocal minority. If Obama doesn't say a word, then he's in good shape everywhere. If he comes out in support of it, he loses the election. The reason being because there are a lot more people against Gay Marriage than there are for it.

The reason that this poll showed 25% wanting to know about Gay Marriage is because that community is very vocal and anytime the word is brought up they go nuts on the web. It's just a polarizing issue that creates huge amounts of drama. And lets face it, the LGBT community always did love as much drama as they can get.

He didn't bring it up. I hope Kris is right and the "movement" abandons him.

CCouple, the silent majority spoke in 2010 and will speak again in November. If it can't pass in Cali, that's telling.

@Tundrahombre Actually, you are mistaken. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans now support legalizing gay marriage. The trend has also been consistently moving in the favorable direction for the last several years. Your "redefinition of marriage" argument holds no water because marriage is a term that has been evolving throughout human history, including in modern times. The exact same argument, in fact, was used to say that interracial marriage shouldn't be legalized; i.e. that it would constitute a "redefinition" of marriage from "one man and one woman of the same race" to just "one man and one woman."

Also, moderates are overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality according to current polling data. Besides, President Obama already has a majority support among moderates anyway. The Republican base, on the other hand, is going to turn out against him no matter what. They hate him, as evidenced by one of the commenters here referring to him as a "piece of crap" lol.

Coming out in favor of gay marriage would not have cost him any significant number of votes. It would have resulted in a large net increase in votes due to the increased voter turnout from his base.

@Irrational_Brent Actually, as I said above, the majority supports legalized gay marriage. In 2010, Republicans took the House because most of the seats up for grabs were held by Democrats and the economic crisis had led to a wave of voter anger against incumbents in general, regardless of party affiliation. That, combined with inflated Republican turnout from the Teabagger movement and a lack of voter enthusiasm on the left due to Obama's excessively centrist policies, led the Republicans to victory in that election.

But be careful not to drink too much of the Koolaid. In 2006 and 2008, the "silent majority," as you call it, voted overwhelmingly AGAINST your party. If you get cocky now and think that winning one election 2 years ago means that the American people agree with all of your policies, then you've already lost.

Look at the polling data for yourselves. The numbers don't lie. Obama missed a big opportunity last night to capitalize on voter sentiment with regard to this generation's civil rights movement. Fortunately for him, the Republican candidates running against him are so laughable that he'll still have an edge going into this election.

@CCouple Again, the facts do not support your claims. For one thing, your assumption that I'm gay simply because I support civil rights for gay people underscores your own ignorance. As a straight person, I believe that gay people should have the same rights that I have.

According to the data, the "vocal minority" is actually the religious right. Most Americans now support gay marriage.

In my home state of WA, our legislature is about to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage. Out-of-state special interest groups have vowed to put it on the ballot in an effort to kill it. Fortunately, the AP reports that 55% of Washingtonians say they'll vote in favor of gay marriage if a referendum hits the ballot (with 47% saying there's no chance of them changing their minds), while only 38% say they'll vote against it. So, let's see.... 55% vs. 38%. If I remember my 2nd-grade math correctly, this would mean that the people against gay marriage are now the minority.

Face it. You're on the wrong side of history and the majority of Americans are leaving you behind with your bigotry. You may have been able to claim popular support a decade ago, but the tide has changed.

Can't resist... would that be a pipe dream?

More of a joke.... not a good one at that. :( yours was better.

He treated the gays and blacks well so far. Two out of the four GOPs and their supporters aren't going to help, that's for sure. If there is anything I'm hoping he'll do, is that he speak out louder than he has before for those the conservatives would like to kick back down the stairs. Regardless, Obama couldn't @!$%# up enough to make me vote for Gingrinch or Santorum.

Black unemployment is above depression levels and Obama still hasn't come out (pun intended) in support of gay mariage which, in his heart, he supports. I'd say that's pretty abysmal for you folks on the left, but go ahead. ..reward him with your vote. Chump.

And how is he worse for us than the greedy right wing facists coveting the White House? He believes same-sex marriage should be a state issue and I'm fine with that, but if he comes out in total favor of marriage rights in all 50 states, is that really going to bring down his ratings? The dumbass Conservatives already think he's a Communist Muslim with a fake US birth certificate.

WTF, Leland you are REALLY stretching on this one. Yeah, let's all support Obama, he means well. The 2012 slogan can be "Think'in Hard About Work'in Hard" or "Elect Me and Maybe I'll do Something Good."

Legay

Why aren't you happy paying more taxes? You worship hussein obutthole, why wouldn't you want to pay more taxes?

Now we have GAY tax laws, how nice. Go blow yourself.

Man Leland, you have low standards. Have you considered Newt, he says he has changed.

Do you pray to your GAY god?

the gay god is the best!!

Donald, the pedophiles seem to be mostly in the clergy these days. I suggest you clean up your own house before you accuse others of pedophilia.

@Bob-767984

Pedophiles come in all shapes, sizes, races and sexual orientations. The reason heterosexual pedophiles are exposed so rapidly and quickly is because the heterosexual comunity has high morals and less tolerance for such a perverted act. However, on the other hand most homosexuals would sympthaize with pedophiles and/or sex offenders(GOOGLE: NAMBLA) because pedophilia is all far too common within homosexuality.

Pedophiles can already marry, there are no known restrictions for convicted sex offenders when it comes to already legal matrimony. The Red Cross policy is outdated and based on the high HIV rate for gays at the time about 30 years ago that at present is now even, if not lower than that of hetrosexuals and intervenious drug users world wide. It's pretty discriminatory considering it doesn't apply to sexually active straight men or women who may or may not be open to having multiple sex partners. The policy also restricted or now restricts those who have lived in a certain areas like the UK or in Africa at a certain time in the early 80's or natives from certain African countries. That means you shouldn't trust an untested blood donation from a straight native of Congo anymore than that of a premiscuous drag queen with a thing for glory holes. Tell that to your straight friends who have more girlfriends than they can remember the names of.

On the issue of NAMBLA, they're paederasts, not a recognized gay rights group (or for that matter gay) anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church is a recognized Christian group by even the most conservative, regardless that their position on homosexuality is the same: "God Hates Fags". If I learned that someone is a pedophile, they would lose my respect and my association. So far I don't know any and they shouldn't even be brought up on this subject. Come up with a better argument that isn't based on blatant lies.

Donald....I couldn't have said it better myself!!!! My daughter came out 4 years ago that she was gay and it wasn't because she was born that way like everyone wants us all to believe. She made a CHOICE!! And those were her words. Now she won't be able to have a baby like she always dreamed about unless she gets some UNKNOWN DONER! How sad!

@Augure666

Techincally speaking Pedophiles and Sex Offenders are different. I know, i know it gets really confusing but regardless they all are sex offenders in the end they both get the same amount of prison time. I know, I know sounds a little ridiculous.

The Red Cross policy still stands in 2012 and has not been reformed even though you claim the STD stats are the same accross the board. Umm I don't think so, these individuals test blood for a living and fortunately they have spotted problematic areas and decided it's too high of a risk. Further proof that homosexuality is a very promiscious lifestyle.

The group NAMBLA is definitively a gay rights group. It's called NAMBLA(North American Man/Boy Love Association). They are asking for sexual equality just like homosexuals, they are asking society to reform sex offender laws , just like the LGBT community asked society to reform same-sex laws, etc.. They both are fighting for SEXUAL EQUALITY!! Scientific studies show that during the sexual act(adult/minor) the minor(if done ethically) doesn't pose any harm to the minor but the harm comes later in life after them being influenced by societies social views and social-constructs. I'm sure not every pedophile is a bad evil person, not every pedophile wants to harm minors, not every pedophile is insane or retarded, etc.. If homosexuals claim love is blind then why can't a minor love an adult? If all parties are in mutual agreement then how are they offending anyone? I think both homosexuality and pedophillia are perverted acts but that doesn't change the fact that the perverted sexual acts still don't happen. You may not want to admit it but NAMBLA is just as much of the LGBT community as Down Low men , the difference is they are proud to be themselves so the homosexual community shuns them and would rather them hide in the shadows like most of the other homosexual men.

@hmmmm

I know it is truly a shame. These people don't think about the lives of the next generation they only think about themselves. They let their perversion control them instead of controlling their perversion.

"Techincally speaking Pedophiles and Sex Offenders are different. I know, i know it gets really confusing but regardless they all are sex offenders in the end they both get the same amount of prison time. I know, I know sounds a little ridiculous."

There is nothing ridiculous about it, I believe everyone should be treated the same, regardless if it about civil rights or punishment for criminal acts. You sorta contradicted yourself there with the first two sentences. The only difference between pedophiles and sex offenders is that the sex offenders act on their urges, most pedophiles just stare at children from a distance and jack off later to their fantasies. There is however a clear difference between gays and paederasts as gay men prefer mutual relationships (casual or exclusive) with other men closer to their age, the same as straights. Sure you'll get a few 50 year olds in a relationship with a man half his age, but that's no different than a sugar daddy or cougar.

Perverts? This is coming from someone who's picture looks like it came from a gay dating site webpage wearing a pink head scarf with his toung sticking out looking like a gansta waiting for his girlfriend/boyfriend to come home with his 40s. A "down low" perhaps? Not really what we imagine of someone who speaks like a typical right winger. You as a black man should understand what we're going through- your equal rights are only about 40 years old and the conservatives trying to take over would take your rights with ours if anti-black racism had a standing as it once did. Their anti-Muslim rhetoric doesn't seem to be shocking anyone voting for them. I wouldn't be surprised if David Duke would run again if he could legally do so today. Sadly, a former grand wizard isn't that much worse than some of those that ran or is running for President today.

@Augure666

Technically, the medical difference between a pedophile and a sex offender is pedophiles are sexually attracted to indiviuals under the age 14yrs. old but again regardless they both get the same amount of prison time. There is a way to be ethical and there is a way to be unethical but for some reason society deems the act with sex between a minor and adult regardless how they feel as unethical. INSANE!! The only clear difference between gays and gay sex offenders is the gay sex offenders got caught but in hind sight both claim they are born to commit perverted sexual acts with really no definitive scientific proof to back up their claim.

Why should America not reform sex offender laws? If the minor, The parent/guardian and the pedophile/sex offender is all in mutual agreement with the relationship being approiate then how is it offending anyone? It merely is a harmless sexual act that is none anyone elses business.

Sugar daddy or cougar? WTF, are you supporting legalizing prostitution? Well then why can't a minor have a sugar daddy or a cougar?

Perverts!! Yes, Perverts!! Homosexuals know that they are perverts that is why most won't step foot in a gay club or LGBT event. Ironic, my girlfriends gay friend stated that gay pride events are nothing more than an attempt to cruise the gay scene(his words, not mine). Furthermore, mty scarf is called a du-rag and it's not pink it is red maybe while you're fixing your warped brain you can fix the color resoluition on your computer.

Homosexuality & Race are 2 completely different things. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a subconsious or consious choice based upon enviromental factors.

With all your ranting and taunting, you have no experience or evidence to back it up... typical of a biggot. You're repeating the same things as you did before. Most of us don't go clubbing or pride events because it's not our scene, not because of some innate guilt. I'm not into cruising, drag, fancy drinks and have allergies that makes body sprays and that fog crap misting in the air unbearable. I go to bars to play pool and that is part of my social life.

"Why should America not reform sex offender laws? If the minor, The parent/guardian and the pedophile/sex offender is all in mutual agreement with the relationship being approiate then how is it offending anyone? It merely is a harmless sexual act that is none anyone elses business."

Is that supposed to be sarcasm or your opinion that it's ok to have a relationship with a minor if the parents and the minor concent? You sound a little out of wack with your moral views.

While money may be an incentive for a young man or woman to be with somone considerably older than them, legally, being with a sugar daddy or a cougar isn't prostitution, so learn how to read because you're twisting my words like a prosecutor desperate for a guilty verdict.

I'm surprised that you let your girlfriend have any gay friends considering you hate them so much. Gay pride events are basically a social protest against homophobia dressed up to be a fun event, really no different than a Martin Luther King march, just alot louder. My computer's moniter resolution is fine by the way. You either need to darken your picture or wash your du rag in colour safe detergent. You'll still look like a gang banger with an attitude.

@Augure666

I am not ranting and taunting, I am merely stating the facts. Again, There is a valid reason the American red cross won't take blood from men who have sex with men, There is a valid reason community health clinics have specifically targeted STD testing catered to men who have sex with men, There is a valid reason why most homosexuals are single and deperately want to find a meaningful same-sex relationship but can't, There is a valid reason gays demean themselves and say things like "that's so gay", There is a valid reason scientist have found no gay gene when they completed mapping the entire human genome, There is a valid reason that nature doesn't allow the same-sex too natually procreate with one another, etc... This is not homophopbia, This is reality!!

If I morally accept homosexuality as being "normal" because homosexuals claim they are born gay and they are who they are then I must morally accept Pedophiles who ethically have sex with minors whom has the minors consent and their parent/guardians consent because they claim they are born to commit pedophillia and they are who they are. It is about sexual equality, right?

Well the definition of a Sugar Daddy - Sugar daddy is a slang term for a man who offers money or gifts to a younger person in return for companionship or sexual favours. Too me this sounds like a form of prostitution. Maybe your morals have been so out of wack that you fail to realize what you speak and what you type. So again, are you implying that america should legalize prostitution? If so, then why can't a responsible minor have a sugar daddy?

I don't hate gay people just like I don't hate pedophiles. They are human beings that decided to choose a perverted sexual act because they enjoyed being perverts. There are bad and good people in anything but ultimately the sexual act is not normal and is not something that is natural to human beings, it is artifical and a perversion. (Perversion meaning it is a serious sexual deviation from the norm).

Why do you keep comparing Homosexuality & Race? They are 2 completely different things. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a subconsious or consious choice based upon enviromental factors

No, you are stating outdated opinions you think are facts. Place a link to a creditable and politically or religiously neutral website to support your views or your cup holds no water. You don't know any gay people, have no experience in the matter and just spouting off what anti-gay conservatives use as statistics with no certifiable research in the matter. Gay blood is no dirtier than straight blood, gays don't use demeaning terms like "that's so gay!" Last I've heard it's used by straight teenagers and many gay people find it insulting.

I know what a sugar daddy is and while it may be a form of prostitution, authorities have never been able to convict one like a man who solicits a hooker. Such cases would be thrown out of court anyway. Stating such a fact doesn't mean I support it... and no, I do not want to legalize prostitution. If a man showers a minor with gifts for sexual favours, that doesn't make him a sugar daddy, that makes him a pedophile and should be punished accordingly. Is that clear enough for you?

You don't hate pedophiles? I don't like them and I hate it even more being compared to them. They lust after people who are too young to understand what sex is. It doesn't really matter if it is a man showering a teenager with gifts for sexual favours, a teacher grouping one of her students, a man marrying a 13 year old girl who later has his child because their religion approves of it or a some guy jerking off to naked kids on his home computer- it is a perversion that is and should be illegal.

Homosexuals prefers casual or serious consenting relationships with others closer to their age and most has relationships that are no more unstable than any straights'. Gays wouldn't be fighting for marriage equality if they couldn't keep a stable relationship for more than six months. Religious conservatives don't want just to preserve marriage as they want others to believe, they are trying to outlaw homosexuality altogether and push us back to being second class citizens with no rights, just like the good ole days. Because most people here in North America either supports gay rights or really don't care, the rightwingers have very limited support to make their agenda possible today.

Normal is a perspective! Go to another country, with a different culture, lifestyle, language, religion and foods you won't find it normal, but that life is normal for them. Those who insist on holding on to what they think is normal stifles diversity and change even so it's inevitable as the years go by. Gay rights have gone a long way in only 40 years and in most democratic countries more people accept gays as normal people than those that don't, even in the USA with it's "Christian Nation" ideology. Unless the Christian Right can brainwash the majority of Americans with theorcratic dogma by the next generation, they'll have no say in the matter and all people will be truely equal.

By the way, how is homosexuality chosen because of enviromental factors? Domineering mom and distant father? Air too cold or too hot? Global warming? I knew I liked guys before I even knew what sexuality was and it wasn't exactly trendy when I was growing up. This isn't based on my experience alone. Your knowlege of psychology is so outdated and stereotypical, it's cliché.

How am I stated outdated facts? In 2012(which is the curent year), the American Red Cross will NOT accept blood from a male whom has SEXUAL CONTACT with males, even once!! Why? Because homosexuality is a very promiscious lifestyle/perversion/orientation or whatever you want to call it. When they tested gay men's blood it came back reactive, in laymen's terms it means it is contaminated blood. The reason they are considered high risk is because most partake in anal sex which is not normal to the human body. It tears the lining of the rectum and causes STD/HIV transmisson if not properly lubricated. Either this tells us 1 of 3 things, A.) gay men are too dumb too use protection during sexual intercourse, B.) gay men love taking risk with their health C.) gay men

Sure, gays use terms such as "that's so gay" have you ever heard of the term "inner-homophobia"?

Sugar-Daddy is a form of prostitution, period. You have already stated that you see nothing wrong with a 50 year-old sugar daddy dating someone who is 30 years younger than him. So I ask again what is morally wrong with a responsible minor consenting(permission for something to happen or agreement to do something) to having a sugar-daddy if his parent/guardian consents?

Gays are seriously fighting for marriage equality because they claim they are born gay and should be treated equal, just like Pedophiles are seriously fighting for sexual equality(Google: NAMBLA) because they claim they are born too commit pedophilllia and should be treated equal. The similarity here is sexual equality, right?

The term "normal" when speaking about natural procreation in human beings is not subjective or a perspective. There is only 1 natural way for human beings too procreate and it has always been since the begining of human existance and always will be the normal way to procreate until human beings no longer exist. Do heterosexual men have anal sex with women? Of course. Is it a perversion? of course so why isn't homosexual anal sex a perversion? There is a correct way and there are many incorrec ways. Do as you wish with your sexual reproducitve organs I don't give a damn but don't go around spewing non-sense to promote your perverted agenda. There is a reason nature made them SEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS!

"Pervert...pervert...pervert...pervert..." You're like a scratched record that should have been put away long ago. You repeat the same things with nothing original. I already know the the Red Cross doesn't accept openly gay blood donors. Being a policy that is about 34 years old and it's time for a review because there are straight men who are into risky sexual activites with women they hardly know and straight women are at a even higher risk and I wouldn't want their blood in me any more than you would want ours. If I was to donate blood, it's not going to be rejected because it's positive for anything, paticularly STDs. This policy only works anyway if one is actually open about their sexuality and routine testing is alot more effective in detecting viruses than it was in the 70s and 80s. It's therefor just as discriminatory as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that was finally vetoed. I'm for one am not promiscuous and even if I do find someone, I am safe.

Where did I say that I see nothing wrong with sugar daddies? I don't approve of it. I'm must saying that it's not something that can legally enforced against unless the sugar girl is willing to turn him in. I don't know where I'm being ambiguous there.

Why do you keep bringing up NAMBLA? I'd rather be called a fag than be compared to boy lovers. This is a fringe group with no support from any gay rights groups and has no legal leg to stand on even when they do speak out for paederastic rights. Besides, as of the 90s, they have no formal chapters and such a small membership with nothing more than a website, they really don't exist much anymore. I'd be concerned more about the creepy old man standing across the street from a school with a camera during recess. Most pedophiles work alone and aren't known for previous sex crimes. They're no different than fans of serial killers as far as we're concerned.

It's not normal to use birth control or get a surgical procedure makes one sterile, it's not normal to see a specialist in hopes of being able to conceive when natural practices have failed, it's not normal to get a C-section, it's not normal to have sex in certain positions or use toys in bed... at least not according to various religious groups. Humanity has evolved so much that much of what we do is not natural anymore. Not all gays practice anal sex and gays really don't cruise around as they once did. Not really a lifestyle most of us wants. Your presumptions is no different than whites assuming that because a person is black, they are in a gang. Animals have been observed having same sex relationships and not just some story made up to promote the gay agenda. Don't worry, even when we do become accepted members of society world wide, you'll have plenty of children born each year to keep the human race thriving.

@Augure666,

You're clearly delusional and unable to accept the facts.

The American Red Cross clearly states in their DO NOT DONATE section: that males whom have sexual contact with males(gay, straight or bi) even once can't donate blood. The reasoning they decided to enact this justifiable discriminatory policy is because when they received STD testing results back they noticed that men whom have sexual contact with men have high std rates. Furthermore, most major U.S. cities community health clinics have decided to specifically target the LGBT community and set-up testing sites that cater to same-sex individuals. These policies, programs and STD testing sites still exist in the year 2012 so that would tell anyone with common logic that the STD/HIV rates have not gotten any better in the LGBT community but rather they only have gotten worse.

You are not promiscuous? Well I'm sure if you could be promiscuous then you would be promiscuous but sometimes not everyone has the gift of gab or deep pocket books to swoozle would be suitors.

I bring up NAMBLA(North American man/boy Love Association) because they're a gay organization. The definition for the word Association means "groups of individuals who voluntarily enter into an agreement to accomplish a purpose". No matter how much you don't want to accept NAMBLA as being a part of the LGBT community, it is a part of the LGBT community. I think the word "GAY" is one of the abbreviations of LGBT. The definition of gay is being sexually attracted to the same-sex. I can go on and on but I think you can connect the dots from here.

Again, the word normal when speaking about natural procreation is not subjective and/or a perspective. There is a reason nature made them SEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS!

I know full well what I'm talking about and you're just a vile homophobe looking for every negative but legit sounding diatribe to justify your hatred. Your 'promiscuous' or 'gay=NAMBLA' comments just shows how ignorant you are. You keep repeating the same BS thinking I don't understand it or doesn't believe it. I know of the Red Cross' rules against active or inactive homosexual donors, I'm saying that it needs some serious reviews because gays aren't the only ones passing STDs or HIV to others and it is very discriminating.

You seem to admire NAMBLA since they are your best weapon to use to discredit the LGBTs as human beings. They're more useful to you than they are to the LGBT community. As I said before, NAMBLA is a insignificant fringe group of paederasts claiming to have ties to a group of people that really wants nothing to do with them, not because it makes them look bad, but because they are morally opposed to children being used for sex... consentual or not. Most pedophiles keep their fantasies to themselves, which makes it hard to know how many of them are out there until they're caught for their actions. I'm surprise you didn't bring up Jeffery Dalmer, John Wayne Gacey or Westley Allan Dodd to compare to us by now. No, you don't have any creditablity.

Like I said, I'm not that easy, I do have taste, but then, you think that all men who like men will screw anything that has a dick, right? I'm getting bored and I've had better dialogue with creationists about the age of the Earth.

Really, I would suggest a new picture, because it's hard to take you seriously when you look like someone on a gay dating webpage and calling us 'perverts'.

@Augure666,

The American Red Crosses discriminatory policy against male whom have sexual contact with other males is completely justifiable. A.) Gay men(the ones that are tested) are the minority but make up most of the new STD/HIV cases B.) African-Amercian women whom contract HIV typically gets it from down low men c.) Gay men proudly flaunt and advertise bathhouses in their community, etc.... There is no need to re-review the policy, maybe the LGBT community should learn to raise their members in a respectable manner and educate them on STD prevention.

I don't admire NAMBLA and I am not using them to discredit the LGBT community. I am merely stating a fact. NAMBLA exist in 2012, if you don't believe me then google: NAMBLA. These are not bad people they are pedophiles whom have feelings, emotions, jobs, careers and hard-working tax paying U.S. citizens. They deserve special rights just like any other minority. They have faced discrimination just like any other minority class in society. They been mentioned in cartoons like the Simpsons and South park, they have been guests on the Oprah show, etc... I don't see how the LGBT community can hold any type of discriminatory thoughts towards NAMBLA when they are preaching nothing but ethical consensual perverted practices just like the LGBT community. The real issue here is sexual equality, if done so in a ethical consensual manner. Jeffery Dalmer, John Wayne Gacey or Westley Allan Dodd didn't act in an ethical manner so why would they be included in Man/Boy love movement?

Given that homosexuality is a very promiscuous lifestyle I think it's safe to assume that if a guy who looked decent wanted a sexual encounter with you that you would be on your knees at the snap of a finger. You can play these pretentious head games but we both know that most gays are single because they can't stop being whores.

My picture has nothing to do with a gay website. I have a girlfriend and 2 biological children by 2 different women. My sexual acts are natural, not perverted. Thank you!!

Mike, if you care so much about what the Bible says, maybe you should read it. There's nothing in the Sodom and Gomorrah story that says anything about homosexuality. Any preacher who's ever told you it does is lying to you. Do a little digging. You might learn something.

MacinPhoenix: You've never actually read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have you? Some homosexual men came to Lot's house and demanded he send out his male guests that they may "know" them. Shame on you.

Mac

Put down the nambla handbook and enlighten yourself.

@imnotlost - May I be the one to point out your own flawed logic, pal?

In that same chapter, Lot also offered his two virgin daughters. Then the men of Sodom and Gomorrah told him that they'd do worse to him and his daughters (the verse does not imply this directly, but it can be said this was what occurred) than they would to the men who were with him (who were angels).

Sounds to me like it wasn't an act of homosexuality, but rather an act of rape. Also, it sounds like it was an act of "violating a messenger of God".

While I agree that homosexuality was implied, I do believe rape was a more heavily implied offense (which I'm sure neither gays nor heteros would support. Right?) in that chapter.

Genesis 19 Verses 5 through 9 for those who give a damn. Also, Verse 1 for those who apparently missed the fact that the two "men" were angels - and that wasn't even made clear until Verse 10!

How's that for Biblical analysis?

Why would a person who takes the Sodom and Gomorah parable seriously even bring up science? You sound like someone who doesn't even believe in Evolution and wouldn't accept a cure for the most dangerous illnesses and disabilities if it involved stem cell research. It's not science if there is no accepted research or facts to back it up.

imnotlost, I've read Gen. 19 and according to the story, all the men town in town came "to know" what we later learn were two angels. This wasn't about homosexual lust, it's about xenophobia and lack of compassion for the needy which was the true sin of Sodom and the reason why God sent two angels: to find enough compassionate people to spare the twin cities from destruction. If there was going to be male to male sex, it would be no different than a mass prison rape by hetrosexuals who doesn't really care where they stick their dicks to get off and prove their dominance.

Mike....I'm not a christian, but I aggree... I am sick to death of tv shows shoving gay life style down my throat!! I'd have to stop watching tv all together practically to get away from it!!! I'm SICK AND TIRED of being made to think I'm a hateful person because I don't agree with someones life style!!! I'm entitled to my opinion and my moral beliefs...but apparently only the gays are allowed to have an opinion! Look out if you don't agree with them..there will be hell to pay!!

I'm sure there is some type of a pervert lack of morals ceremony. LMAO!!

Learn how to think for yourself. No conservative thinks like that. Turn off msibgay and get a life.

THANK YOU MIKE ...WELL SAID!!!!!!!

Mike your fighting against a public which more and more disagrees with you. My children and I suspect most of all of our children support gay marriage. I personally dont like gay marriage but the tide is against you and me.

Who cares what Leviticus says! 20:13 is spouted off by homophobes who wouldn't be able to follow any of the other laws in that chapter even if they wanted to. US laws are suposed to be based on reason, not religious texts twisted to justify prejudice.