On gay marriage, Latinos agree with Obama

Oh, and why hasn't anyone mentioned how the Muslim-American community is going to feel about this?

And they are much more likely to go to the polls.

You see, I don't think Obama cares about gays or women or Muslims or blacks or Latinos or anybody- maybe his dog- more than he does about his "legacy".

Running on policy instead of performance is so attractive to the weak-minded who fall for the populist nonsense that strokes their egos. Liberals can't resist being told that they are somehow "special".

Cat74 wrote:

No that is your fact. People who live on the borders know how many illegals are let in every day, and the Border Patrol are not able to take care of the overflow. Democrats, and liberals lie like a cheap rug.

No, you're a reality impaired liar.

There might be more humans sneaking over the border than you like, but patrols, funding, detentions and expulsions are up under Obama.

This is not refutable.

beereel wrote:

Oh, and why hasn't anyone mentioned how the Muslim-American community is going to feel about this?

Hey stupid filth, the two Muslim members of Congress favor marriage equality.

Look it up. That way you can ignore the facts and remain ignorant, you pos.

Spotted Girl wrote:

If Latinos are so "tolerant," then why did they rape and murder a woman for being born different below?
Lib logic:
1. If a person is of a non-Islamic religion, heterosexual, legally born here, non-Hispanic and fully White, always compare to the most violent of their numbers.
2. If a person is a racial minority, a Muslim, gay, or an illegal alien, ignore any wrongs they commit and compare only to the best of them.
For instance, if we are talking about Christians, compare all Christians to Fred Phelps. However, if we are talking about Hispanic people and anti-gay bias, then only compare to the ones at a Pride rally. A Pride rally will beat anyone like Fred Phelps on any day. Assuming the worst of some races and patronizing others is just another form of racism, and like I said before, even Liberals show their true spots on issues like racism from time to time.

Posts starting with attacks directed at specific people are not worth reading.

Mitt s Hairy Denial wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey stupid filth, the two Muslim members of Congress favor marriage equality.
Look it up. That way you can ignore the facts and remain ignorant, you pos.

LOL!!! Now, THAT's an honest LIBERAL! The hate and anger and bile and lack of intelligence is right up front. Good for you. No pretending to be enlightened- I like it.

Two DEMOCRAT members of congress favor gay marriage equality. Are you so prejudiced that you think that every representative who has religion totally mirrors their constituents?

I think states should decide, once again, as Obama says.

But the Muslim community as a whole does not. The excellent website Eye on Gay Muslims clarifies the unambiguous teaching of Islam:

‘Whatever actions are carried out in pursuit of fulfilling sexual desires must be deemed unlawful unless the proper channel is followed, i.e. marriage, which Islam defines clearly as being only with the opposite sex.(snip).

There is diversity, of course, although you deny that without even understanding that you do. But Obama will lose voted with the more devout.

Just as he lost his votes with my Christian Democrat neighbors.

Mitt s Hairy Denial wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you're a reality impaired liar.
There might be more humans sneaking over the border than you like, but patrols, funding, detentions and expulsions are up under Obama.
This is not refutable.

Not any more!

Those policies of Bush's that were working so well in 2008 through 2010 have largely been shelved the last year and a half. Obama took a lot of heat for it and now he is pandering to Latinos once again now that it is pragmatic to do so.

Obama sucks ass and lies very well, and so do his adherents.

THAT is what is irrefutable.

LMAO!!

Black voters need to come back home to the Abe Lincoln party and denounce the pro gay Dems.

Obama does not care about Blacks nor Latinos and his only concern is gay hollywood.

Romney is family values.

We should find out how the native American Indians feel about gay marriage.

Somebody call Elizabeth Warren.

;)

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

Black voters need to come back home to the Abe Lincoln party and denounce the pro gay Dems.
Obama does not care about Blacks nor Latinos and his only concern is gay hollywood.
Romney is family values.

Romney might be for "family values" but he's not a Christian. Are voters REALLY going to elect a Non-Christian POTUS ?

(To be fair, we have had Non-Christian POTUSes before).

raysmom wrote:

We should find out how the native American Indians feel about gay marriage.
Somebody call Elizabeth Warren.
;)

They are against it .

Elizabeth Warren had some nerve claiming to be a native Indian but this is typical of leftist .

raysmom wrote:

We should find out how the native American Indians feel about gay marriage.
Somebody call Elizabeth Warren.
;)

No answer.

Perhaps we should try smoke signals?

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
Romney might be for "family values" but he's not a Christian. Are voters REALLY going to elect a Non-Christian POTUS ?
(To be fair, we have had Non-Christian POTUSes before).

I'm a Christian, but I don't attend regularly. Romney appears to be living a Christian lifestyle better than most of the pious poseurs who sit in the first pew every week and then go rob and cheat the other 6 days of the week.

At this point I'd elect a sihk, buddhist, taoist, jewish, spirit worshipping native American if they were going to cut taxes and spending.

mjjcpa wrote:

<quoted text>
No answer.
Perhaps we should try smoke signals?

:)

Rainbow Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
Well he *is* a minority
.
And that's why he has an instinctively intimate understanding of the plight of other marginalized people all around the world
.
You probably don't realize this; but President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/...
.
You won't find one of 'those' in a Cracker Jack box; sugar
.
;o))

We all know about Obama's Nobel Peace prize, given to him for being black. The poor idiot didn't even know he was being patronized. Clueless egoist that he is, he actually thought they respected him for his mind or some real accomplishment...NOT! In reality, it was the first Nobel Affirmative Action prize, handed out on the basis of a superficial, unimportant characteristic like race. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. If Obama had had some real class or guts, he'd have told them to stick it where the sun don't shine. As it is, he accepted it, making their racism all the more glaring and his fake prize all the more laughable. They didn't exactly call him "boy" when he came onstage, but they we're damn close. It's only slightly less racist to reward someone based on colour than it is to penalize them for the same reason. They should be ashamed for what they did. His blame is less but still a disgrace.

beereel wrote:

<quoted text>
Two DEMOCRAT members of congress favor gay marriage equality. Are you so prejudiced that you think that every representative who has religion totally mirrors their constituents?
I think states should decide, once again, as Obama says.
But the Muslim community as a whole does not. The excellent website Eye on Gay Muslims clarifies the unambiguous teaching of Islam....

Hey stupid bigot:

A cretin claimed that Muslims in the US will be up in arms about Obama's support for marriage equality. I pointed out every Muslim Congressperson supports marriage equality. The Muslim community will not vote Republican in large percentages. They won't support anti Muslim bigots.

As to your uninformed claptrap about the Koran, evilgelical fundies like to point out the five or six disputed homosex scare passages in the buybull, but we all know no Christian actually follows the buybull, just like no Muslim actually follows the Koran. It's impossible. Both books are full of internal contradictions and nonsense and outdated notions.

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

beereel wrote:

<quoted text>
Not any more!

Hey mongoloid, the other poster denied wholesale the facts: Obama increased funding, patrols, detentions and expulsions.

Even if what you said were true, that Obama has defunded all this recently, your post of "Not any more!" actually supports, unintentionally, the factual claims I made to the other unwell Tea Bagger.

Because "Not any more!" implies it "was that way."

Okay, Jedediah?

FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over Documented Risk Concerns

>

WASHINGTON, D.C.,– Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.

This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.

According to the FDA, the ban is in place because,“A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.

The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”

Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion.“At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.

“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.“If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”

Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation,” reads the FDA’s policy.

“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”

Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA.“The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said.“Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”

A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Blo...

beereel wrote:

<quoted text>

lie

another wrote:

<quoted text>
lie

Deflection

kudos

talk is cheap

now we need some pro gay actions!!!

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/758055237/happy-...