Never heard that one, but don't doubt it.

It's complicated. :) http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/...

Not at first. The majority came after several failures, but the development of a bunch of followers, who were true believers.

When ObumerCare significantly raised the premiums and cost for healthcare for the more than 10% of the population who has individual policies didn't BO say, in effect, "they are too small a percentage of the American population to worry about!?" Obviously then the 1.7 to "less than 4%" are too small to worry about.

Actually, he never got the majority of any vote.

The majority supported Hitler in the sense that he won his election by a majority. I don't know that I'd say, of course, that the majority supported all of his actions after that.

I agree with both of you.

I couldn't agree more, Belle

I don't know that the homosexuals are primarily
responsible. But one problem is the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. It was right to abolish the de jure
segregation that existed in the South and replace it with laissez-faire. But this is not what
was done. Instead, the government arrogated to
itself the "right" to invade private property and
violate the right of freedom of association. If a
private property owner or private business is
guilty of racial discrimination in the people he,
or it, chooses to deal with, the proper way to
handle it is through boycotts and other such
forms of ostracism; not by government intrusion.
Where the state/municipal governments were
guilty of such discrimination, of course they
should have been stopped by force of law. But,
since individual rights were ignored in the pas-
sage of the measure, now we are getting the
consequences.

I took a gunmanship class at McClellan AFB, back in about 77-78. The fourth time in my life that I picked up a handgun, I shot Expert rating. I continued shooting at that level thruogh the end of the class.

The woman to the left of me also shot Expert by the end of the class, and she got a ribbon for this accomplishment because she was in a Law Enforcement type job in the AF. The man to the right of me similarly shot Expert by the end of the class, and he got his ribbon because he was a man, even though he was in a medical squadron like I was.

I outshot them both but did not get the Expert rating ribbon because I was a woman in a medical squadron. Fortunately, I am not petty and I do not still feel rancor about this, 40 years later. I don't.

I REALLY DONT CARE. DO YOU HEAR THAT? YOU CAN TAKE YOUR BLASTED RIBBON AND JUST STU....!

OK, all better now. Thanks for asking.

Jan

Timelord -

Because I am a confident and independent woman (who does martial arts as a hobby) I am frequently (as in 50% of the time by new acquaintences) thought to be gay. So, while personally straight, I have acquired something of an insiders' eye on gay rights.

Jan

I agree with khalling. And bonobos are (if I recall correctly) almost all bisexual. Their homosexual relationships function as social bonds among sexes just as their hetero relationships function as bonds between sexes.

Also, many modern primitive tribes have staged homosexuality - all of the young boys in the Men's House have a homosexual relationship with the older men there. The adult men who have moved out into their own houses are sometimes forbidden to have any further homosexual relationships (but sometimes not...think it depends on the tribe).

There is a theory that homosexuality can promote genetic survival if it leads to greater affluence for siblings. (Think of a Medieval abbot from a poor family using his influence to improve circumstances for his brothers and sisters and cousins.)

Jan

what nonsense. If that were true there would be no homosexuality to begin with! I think the factors are very complicated. I do think genetics plays a role

Jan, I don't know if the majority supported Hitler. Only 7% of the population were party members, but I understand that might not be relevant. A woman I knew who escaped from Germany in the mid 40s was adamant that most people did not support him.
I guess my point is that it is possible for a person to rule without majority support. Like Obama

whoa. how terrible and anti-human :(

yes. well stated, timelord

One of the original meanings of faggot was "a bundle of sticks." That's how the UK came to use the word to mean cigarette.

Without looking up the etymology, those sticks were likely for building a fire, but I doubt it ever referred specifically to a fire to burn gays.

As an etymological aside, the Irish Gaelic word for rat is also the word for Frenchman.Why, you ask? There were no rats in Ireland until the French brought therm over on their boats. Or so I was told by my Gaelic teacher!

ok. let's hear the story about the ribbon-

I don't remember the last time I have seen so much mis-information and BS. The gays, the women, the Hispanics, the Christians, the, the , the... The implication seems to be that these are collective subsets in lockstep with each other, all who think, act, and do like each other... Sorry to inform you that there are right wing Hispanics, right winged gays, wild-eyed leftist Christian, "the women" have a cross-section of demographics that matches the entire population. I happen to be very conservative, AR obsessed, GWM, who thinks both sides of the same sex marriage debate are self-righteous idiots and both sides are exactly correct. Two people who love each other should have the right to spend the rest of their lives together with ALL the freedoms AND benefits (the real issue here) as their heterosexual counterparts. On the other hand, why MUST it be called Marriage, Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and woman as sanctioned by a religious and/or governmental organization over the last millennium. The gay population is not a small group, but it certainly is a minority... and does have a cross-section of emotionally/politically charged members... but, not much different than Ducks Unlimited or the NRA. The fact that we DO have government's oppressive intervention in everything we do does set the parameters of the world with which we must deal. I can not refuse service to ANY individual coming into my business based upon who they are, but I do have legal methods in which to encourage them to visit my competitors. Many in this discussion keep trying to make it "ALL" or "None", and sorry, that is just not the way it is in reality! PS... I did chose to close my business in March because of the above mentioned oppressive looter governments.

"The explicit rules for non-prejudice behavior need to apply to the government, military, judicial, voting, legislative, etc arenas and not the personal ones."

EXACTLY! I've been saying precisely that for years. Government must never discriminate for any reason.

Individuals and private businesses are free to do as they please and only need to answer to their customers.

My inconvenience has never been a consideration. If it were then I'd be supporting the abominable notion that some people have more rights than others.

Doubt it. Homosexuality renders one effectively sterile. If it truly is an inborn trait, there's no way it could be that prevalent.

I completely agree with you. It is not my place to tell someone they may not get married to another consenting adult. our govt is fed up. Fundamentals are important here and I find it disingenuous when some (who secretly are anti gay marriage) say the govt should not be in the business of marriage and then lobby against gay marriage.

I suspect that that percentage is the result of the social unacceptability of non-normative social behavior. I hypothesize that future generations will find more like 20-30% of gay and bisexual members of human societies.

Jan

Excellent, Timelord. You hit the nail on the head- protected class.

Influenced by an anteater...

I will have to remember that phrase. Point.

Unfortunately, I think that Hitler was supported by a majority.

Jan