Groundbreaking New Poll of Republican Base Shows Strong Support for Gay Rights

[nevadamedic]

Time's are changing!


News Release

For Immediate Release

June 27, 2007


Groundbreaking New Poll of Republican Base Shows Strong Support for Gay Rights

Nearly 80% of Republicans Support Employment Non-Discrimination Protection for Gays

(Washington, DC) – A groundbreaking new poll released today by leading GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio shows that Republican voters support basic fairness for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation. The poll found, among other things, strong Republican support for employment non-discrimination and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military.

“This poll shows very encouraging results. It validates what we’ve been saying for a long time. Average Republicans are much more supportive of gay rights than some on the far right would like people to believe,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. “What is most remarkable is that this is a poll of self-identified Republicans—not independents or Republican-leaning voters. This poll makes it clear that the much talked about “base” of the GOP fundamentally believes in basic fairness for all Americans.”


Among the poll’s findings:


In a remarkable show of unity on a bill that will come up for a vote in the U.S. House this summer, an overwhelming 77% of Republicans believe an employer should not have the right to fire an employee based solely on their sexual orientation. Even among social conservatives, 67% don’t believe an employer should be able to fire someone for being gay. “Republicans in Congress who will vote later this summer on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should take these numbers to heart,” said Sammon. “Rank and file Republicans support this common sense legislation.”

49% of Republicans believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the U.S. military, while 42% are opposed.

43% of Republicans support either marriage equality or civil unions. 51% oppose all relationship recognition. “There’s much more work to be done educating Republicans about this issue, but we’re encouraged that almost half of Republicans support basic fairness for gay and lesbian families,” said Sammon.

53% of respondents agree that “the Republican Party has spent too much time focusing on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage and should instead be spending time focusing on economic issues such as taxes and government spending.”

When asked “What issue do you think best defines the Republican Party today?” only 5% said “traditional marriage/family values.” 85% selected other issues, including the war on terrorism, immigration, homeland security, national defense, taxes and the economy.

The poll shows sharp disagreement on a range of social issues, however Republicans are united on some core priorities:

78% believe we should balance the federal budget
66% believe the government is too big
80% believe the federal government spends too much
69% believe taxes are too high and only 1% believe they aren’t high enough
The GOP also is united in its support for enforcing existing immigration laws and waging an aggressive war on terror. “Our Party’s agenda should focus on the core principles that unite GOP voters,” said Sammon. “The politics of division is a recipe for defeat.”

The survey of 2,000 self-identified Republican voters was conducted via telephone and online between May 28th and June 3rd 2007. It has a margin of error of +/-2.2%. The poll included Republicans from all parts of the country—with the largest percentage (38%) from the South. Leading GOP pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio, from Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, conducted the survey. He served as the pollster for Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. Log Cabin joined three other mainstream Republican organizations to help underwrite a portion of this poll.

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Log Cabin has state and local chapters nationwide, full-time offices in Washington, DC and Sacramento, CA, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.

[stephanie]

Bull.........who cares...

I don't have an affinity for anyone who thinks..........their special...

I'm not bending over backwards..........for a 5% of our population, who want to tell me that homsexual...........is Normal....
If it was so normal and natural.........then why isn't our population.......50% homo 50% straight??

Move along..



:cheers2:

[OCA]

A poll lol.

I saw a poll lol that had John Kerry winning Ohio lol.

Would you like me to poll Repubs here on queers?:laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

A poll lol.

I saw a poll lol that had John Kerry winning Ohio lol.

Would you like me to poll Repubs here on queers?:laugh2:

If society changed it's mind on gays, your view wouldn't be "Normal"....:lol:

[theHawk]

What a nice spin. All it says is that we support gays having the same rights as everyone else, which they already have. They don't need special laws giving them special rights.

[Pale Rider]

Time's are changing!


News Release

For Immediate Release

June 27, 2007


Groundbreaking New Poll of Republican Base Shows Strong Support for Gay Rights

Nearly 80% of Republicans Support Employment Non-Discrimination Protection for Gays


And just where in the HELL is the link to THAT pile of crap? :link:

[Kathianne]

What a nice spin. All it says is that we support gays having the same rights as everyone else, which they already have. They don't need special laws giving them special rights.

Seldom do I read 'gay' threads, they just don't interest me much. On the other hand, tied to politics? With that said, nothing new here:


Nearly 80% of Republicans Support Employment Non-Discrimination Protection for Gays

Wow, 80% of Republicans think gays should be able to work. Sheesh. You doubt that most Republicans don't 'hate' gays? There's a huge difference between work discrimination and favoring gay marriage and special rights.

Now I'll bet even that would fall if asked if openly gays should be teaching? But the same would be true with Democrats.

This is just spin.

[Black Lance]

Does anyone know precisely what is meant by the poll being "underwritten" by several Republican groups, including the log cabin Republicans, who are more or less a "gay rights" activist group?

[darin]

Funny - because Republicans CARE about people; Democrats car about being in Power. Conservatives are MORE caring about homosexuals, in particular, because a large portion of us wants to get them the mental help they need; whereas Libs simply want to allow them to continue their destructive behavior.

:)

[nevadamedic]

Bull.........who cares...

I don't have an affinity for anyone who thinks..........their special...

I'm not bending over backwards..........for a 5% of our population, who want to tell me that homsexual...........is Normal....
If it was so normal and natural.........then why isn't our population.......50% homo 50% straight??

Move along..



:cheers2:

You bending over backwards? Thats a pleasent thought. :)

[stephanie]

You bending over backwards? Thats a pleasent thought. :)

:slap:

[nevadamedic]

:slap:

:(

[OCA]

Notice that Nevada cannot debate the topic so when heat is thrown at him he quickly changes the course of the thread.

Its hilarious.

[nevadamedic]

Notice that Nevada cannot debate the topic so when heat is thrown at him he quickly changes the course of the thread.

Its hilarious.

Get a clue.

[avatar4321]

I was unaware that gays were not allowed to work. This news confuses me considering the gays on all the fix it/fashion shows that seem to have plenty of work. Can you tell me where Republicans ever wanted to prevent gays from working like everyone else? it seems inconsistent with conservative idealogy which encourages everyone to work and not rely on the government.

[OCA]

If society changed it's mind on gays, your view wouldn't be "Normal"....:lol:

Like thats ever going to happen!:laugh2:

[OCA]

Get a clue.

Nevada we are just using your own posts against you, debate or move on.

BTW, "get a clue" is kind of lazy, don't ya think?

[Guernicaa]

The poll is probably quite correct.
In case any of you weren't already aware, far-right Republicans are a very small minority of voters...and they're quickly dying out.

Any conservatives that I've talked to (even Christians) in there late teens to early twenties are all in favor of gay rights, and stoping global warming.

It seems as if its only the small fraction of the older ones that can't keep up with science or current events.

Wake up dumb shits! Its not 1954 anymore.:finger3::finger3:

[OCA]

The poll is probably quite correct.
In case any of you weren't already aware, far-right Republicans are a very small minority of voters...and they're quickly dying out.

Any conservatives that I've talked to (even Christians) in there late teens to early twenties are all in favor of gay rights, and stoping global warming.

It seems as if its only the small fraction of the older ones that can't keep up with science or current events.

Wake up dumb shits! Its not 1954 anymore.:finger3::finger3:

There is no scientific irrefuteable evidence, well hell there is nothing that even remotely suggests that queers are from birth. They do, in fact, make a choice sometime inn life to veer from right into wrong and live the queer lifestyle.

Conservatives old and young recognize this and call them on it at every turn.................because we actually care about them.

[Guernicaa]

There is no scientific irrefuteable evidence, well hell there is nothing that even remotely suggests that queers are from birth. They do, in fact, make a choice sometime inn life to veer from right into wrong and live the queer lifestyle.
But there is more evidence that point towards they probably are born differently...something conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

[avatar4321]

But there is more evidence that point towards they probably are born differently...something conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

no point acknowledging it. its total nonsense.

[OCA]

But there is more evidence that point towards they probably are born differently...something conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

No, actually there is only theory and supposition, don't know about you but I don't live my life on theory and supposition.

Its a choice sure as hell.

[Yurt]

But there is more evidence that point towards they probably are born differently...something conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

Is a murderer born differently?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

But there is more evidence that point towards they probably are born differently. WTF? were they dropped on there heads? it's a freaking choice these perverted freaks choose
:poke:

[diuretic]

WTF? were they dropped on there heads? it's a freaking choice these perverted freaks choose
:poke:

When did you decide on your sexuality?

[OCA]

When did you decide on your sexuality?

Stop with the semantics Diuretic, we are all born normal(hetero), those who practice queerness choose to do so against their natural instincts.

[Black Lance]

Stop with the semantics Diuretic, we are all born normal(hetero), those who practice queerness choose to do so against their natural instincts.

Why would someone choose to be gay? When do you think they make that choice? I think that the vast majority of people, any reasonable person in fact, would agree that participating in the gay sub-culture is a choice, but what makes you think that homosexuals consciously choose their sexuality?

[Black Lance]

But there is more evidence that point towards they probably are born differently...something conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

Obama, contrary to popular leftist propaganda there is very little evidence suggesting that homosexuality is determined by a "gay gene". Besides the obvious problem that homosexuality is a negative trait that virtualy precludes reproduction, if homosexuality was determined by genes, inherited from parents, we should be able to find much higher rates of homosexuality in ancestral lines with homosexuals in them due to the presence of the gene, yet examinations of the issue show that this does not occur.

[OCA]

Why would someone choose to be gay? When do you think they make that choice? I think that the vast majority of people, any reasonable person in fact, would agree that participating in the gay sub-culture is a choice, but what makes you think that homosexuals consciously choose their sexuality?


Dunno, why do people choose to shoot heroin?

Personally I think its a mental defect that allows them to make such a life wrecking decision and as such that is why I endorse deep psychoanalysis of all queers even going as far as to treat their condition with drugs.

[Black Lance]

Dunno, why do people choose to shoot heroin?

Personally I think its a mental defect that allows them to make such a life wrecking decision and as such that is why I endorse deep psychoanalysis of all queers even going as far as to treat their condition with drugs.

Is doing something because of "a mental defect" the same as having a choice? I am inclined to agree that the cause of homosexuality is at least partially psychological, but I'm skeptical that a conscious decision to be gay is ever made. Also, how would you propose that homosexuality be treated? Science has yet to verify why homosexuality occurs, never mind reveal a method to reverse the disorder.

[avatar4321]

When did you decide on your sexuality?

again with the false dichotemy.

you act as if there are only two choices. choosing to be gay or choosing to be straight. there arent. There is another very likely choice: Choosing nothing.

When you choose nothing the default kicks in. And the default is being straight because thats the natural attraction between people. So there are people who choose to be gay, and those who choose to be straight. but most simply choose nothing and are straight by default.

[Missileman]

again with the false dichotemy.

you act as if there are only two choices. choosing to be gay or choosing to be straight. there arent. There is another very likely choice: Choosing nothing.

When you choose nothing the default kicks in. And the default is being straight because thats the natural attraction between people. So there are people who choose to be gay, and those who choose to be straight. but most simply choose nothing and are straight by default.

There are actually four orientations...heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual. Although heterosexual is the orientation of the majority, it doesn't make it a default. Heterosexual by default, through no choice, is one of the lamest arguments I've seen proposed. It couldn't be any more devoid of sense if you tried. You can't honestly say that you know anyone who chose to be straight and you know it.

[Gunny]

There are actually four orientations...heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual. Although heterosexual is the orientation of the majority, it doesn't make it a default. Heterosexual by default, through no choice, is one of the lamest arguments I've seen proposed. It couldn't be any more devoid of sense if you tried. You can't honestly say that you know anyone who chose to be straight and you know it.

He didn't say any chooses to be straight. He said it is the default, and there is NOTHING lame about it. Lame is supporting an argument that says the natural, biologically-correct behavior is not by default.

[Missileman]

He didn't say any chooses to be straight. He said it is the default, and there is NOTHING lame about it. Lame is supporting an argument that says the natural, biologically-correct behavior is not by default.


So there are people who choose to be gay, and those who choose to be straight

Miss this?

[GW in Ohio]

A poll lol.

I saw a poll lol that had John Kerry winning Ohio lol.

Would you like me to poll Repubs here on queers?:laugh2:

Obviously, the Republicans here are in that 20% minority in their party. They don't approve of "queers" are are quite proud of it.

[darin]

Obviously, the Republicans here are in that 20% minority in their party. They don't approve of "queers" are are quite proud of it.

www.hop.com - Check it out! :)

I don't get how adults can honestly think the way you do. Nobody here says they are against queers. I think every reasonable person here is against special rights and protections for people SOLELY based upon that group's choice of behavior. It's REALLY not hard to understand - or at least shouldn't be.

[GW in Ohio]

www.hop.com - Check it out! :)

I don't get how adults can honestly think the way you do. Nobody here says they are against queers. I think every reasonable person here is against special rights and protections for people SOLELY based upon that group's choice of behavior. It's REALLY not hard to understand - or at least shouldn't be.

When you refer to gays as "queers," as our good friend OCA does, it's clear that you're not favorable to them.

[darin]

When you refer to gays as "queers," as our good friend OCA does, it's clear that you're not favorable to them.

That's your word. And your Logical Fallacy


Obviously, the Republicans here are in that 20% minority in their party. They don't approve of "queers" are are quite proud of it.

[nevadamedic]

Obviously, the Republicans here are in that 20% minority in their party. They don't approve of "queers" are are quite proud of it.

That's because a lot of Republican's are old timer's like Pale and Gunny(no age offense just trying to make a point) and during thier time being gay was Taboo and unacceptable on all levels. That's how they were brought up. The younger generation(thanks inpart to MTV :laugh2:) has grown up really acceptable to all things which is good. Hate is a very bad thing. I think if there was a form of love and compassion that everyone had for their fellow man we would be all right, but that will sure as hell never happen, as much as I would like it to! :laugh2:

[darin]

When you refer to gays as "queers," as our good friend OCA does, it's clear that you're not favorable to them.

The more I think bout your reply here, the more pissed off I get. You cannot just simply MAKE UP things about which words somehow MEAN somebody feels a certain way. Bad form.

[dan]

The more I think bout your reply here, the more pissed off I get. You cannot just simply MAKE UP things about which words somehow MEAN somebody feels a certain way. Bad form.

This doesn't make sense. 'Queer' is a slur toward gay people, it's a word that by definition means strange or different. At this point in society, it's safe to assume that any straight person referring to the gay community as a whole as "queers" probably has negative feelings toward gay people.

This is like saying "I have lots of friends who are spics". Obviously, by using the word, you have an issue with these people.

[darin]

This doesn't make sense. 'Queer' is a slur toward gay people, it's a word that by definition means strange or different. At this point in society, it's safe to assume that any straight person referring to the gay community as a whole as "queers" probably has negative feelings toward gay people.

This is like saying "I have lots of friends who are spics". Obviously, by using the word, you have an issue with these people.


'Queer eye for the Straight guy' is a 'slur on homosexuals'?

[glockmail]

Bull.........who cares...

I don't have an affinity for anyone who thinks..........their special...

I'm not bending over backwards..........for a 5% of our population, who want to tell me that homsexual...........is Normal....
If it was so normal and natural.........then why isn't our population.......50% homo 50% straight??

Move along..



:cheers2:

Actually the percent queer is 1%, not 5 as you've been told by some queer enabler.

[glockmail]

This doesn't make sense. 'Queer' is a slur toward gay people, it's a word that by definition means strange or different. At this point in society, it's safe to assume that any straight person referring to the gay community as a whole as "queers" probably has negative feelings toward gay people.

This is like saying "I have lots of friends who are spics". Obviously, by using the word, you have an issue with these people.


Queer is a term thay the queer community has been using for a long time. I use to use the term fag until credible evidence was brought out of the closet that showed that the queers don't like that term anymore. So until you or someone else comes up with credibile evidence that queers don't like queer, I'll continue to use queer to describe this 1% of the population.

[dan]

'Queer eye for the Straight guy' is a 'slur on homosexuals'?

It's a show made by and for gay people.

[glockmail]

It's a show made by and for gay people. So obviously they are not offended by the term.

[dan]

Queer is a term thay the queer community has been using for a long time. I use to use the term fag until credible evidence was brought out of the closet that showed that the queers don't like that term anymore. So until you or someone else comes up with credibile evidence that queers don't like queer, I'll continue to use queer to describe this 1% of the population.

Approach any gay person with this attitude, using the word 'queer' and see how much they like it.

[dan]

So obviously they are not offended by the term.

When they're using it. This is a very, very old argument. Yes, there's a double-standard, yes "they use it, so why can't we", but gay people call each other queer, black people call each other nigger, and straight and/or white people are not supposed to do either one.

[glockmail]

When they're using it. This is a very, very old argument. Yes, there's a double-standard, yes "they use it, so why can't we", but gay people call each other queer, black people call each other nigger, and straight and/or white people are not supposed to do either one. That's funny, I have to queer to use the word queer. Sorry but I don't buy it. No, this is just more ubersensitivity and PC gone mad.

And its not the same as nigger, for a lot of reasons.
1. Blacks were born that way while queers choose to be queer.
2. Nigger has always been a derogatory term.
3. The fact that rappers and gang bangers say nigger makes it that much more offensive.

[Hagbard Celine]

That's funny, I have to queer to use the word queer. Sorry but I don't buy it. No, this is just more ubersensitivity and PC gone mad.

And its not the same as nigger, for a lot of reasons.
1. Blacks were born that way while queers choose to be queer.
2. Nigger has always been a derogatory term.
3. The fact that rappers and gang bangers say nigger makes it that much more offensive.

You can use either word all you want, but the fact remains that both words are considered derogatory and saying either of them makes you look lowbrow and uncouth to those around you. Hate me for saying it all you want but I'm just the messenger.

[glockmail]

You can use either word all you want, but the fact remains that both words are considered derogatory and saying either of them makes you look lowbrow and uncouth to those around you. Hate me for saying it all you want but I'm just the messenger.

The only people that I have found who are offended are queers who don't respect my opinions and their enablers, so using it works well at flushing these people out.

[Hagbard Celine]

The only people that I have found who are offended are queers who don't respect my opinions and their enablers, so using it works well at flushing these people out.

Point in case. :rolleyes: And wtf does that mean anyway? "Enablers." Do you think they wouldn't be gay if people like me would just start calling them "queers?" Give me a break. You're reaching here.

[glockmail]

Point in case. :rolleyes: Exactly my point. Some go through life not wanting to stir the pot, then there's me. :D

[glockmail]

Point in case. :rolleyes: And wtf does that mean anyway? "Enablers." Do you think they wouldn't be gay if people like me would just start calling them "queers?" Give me a break. You're reaching here.

enablers are people who accept and perpetuate the lies about queers:
1. Its normal and natural.
2. Its not a sin or immoral.
3. They're born that way.
4. No link to pedophilia.
5. etc.

The fact that you or I call them queers has no bearing on their decision to be queer, IMO.

[GW in Ohio]

'Queer eye for the Straight guy' is a 'slur on homosexuals'?

Let me see if I can explain this to you....

Calling the show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy shows that the gay men who star on the show have a sense of humor about themselves.

Let me see if this makes sense to you....

It's one thing for a gay guy to use the term "queer." He's not using it in the same pejorative sense that someone on this forum intends when he calls them "queers."

Does that make any sense to you at all? It's like when black people occasionally call each other niggers. That's one thing, but it's quite another when a white person calls a black person a nigger.

Make sense at all?

[diuretic]

again with the false dichotemy.

you act as if there are only two choices. choosing to be gay or choosing to be straight. there arent. There is another very likely choice: Choosing nothing.

When you choose nothing the default kicks in. And the default is being straight because thats the natural attraction between people. So there are people who choose to be gay, and those who choose to be straight. but most simply choose nothing and are straight by default.

No false dichotomy, just a question, which you avoided.

[diuretic]

On language. If "nigger" and "queer" were used more often they'd lose their power.

Remember when you were a kid? Remember the prohibited terms? When you became an adult you could use those prohibited terms with impunity? Remember when they lost their power?

It's just the taboo effect. Gay people can say "queer" but straight people can't. Black people can say "nigger" but white people can't. Really dumb. It just gives each word power as a weapon. Bad tactics if you're interested in achieving social equality.

[darin]

Let me see if I can explain this to you....

Calling the show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy shows that the gay men who star on the show have a sense of humor about themselves.

Let me see if this makes sense to you....

It's one thing for a gay guy to use the term "queer." He's not using it in the same pejorative sense that someone on this forum intends when he calls them "queers."

Does that make any sense to you at all? It's like when black people occasionally call each other niggers. That's one thing, but it's quite another when a white person calls a black person a nigger.

Make sense at all?


Makes NO Sense. It's defining speech for SOME as 'okay' and others as 'forbidden'. YOU used the word 'queer' - I quoted you, and you used it against me. It's YOUR problem.

Clear?

[GW in Ohio]

Makes NO Sense. It's defining speech for SOME as 'okay' and others as 'forbidden'. YOU used the word 'queer' - I quoted you, and you used it against me. It's YOUR problem.

Clear?

Okay, I tried.

Have a very nice Republican conservative day.

:salute::cool::salute:

[OCA]

Point in case. :rolleyes: And wtf does that mean anyway? "Enablers." Do you think they wouldn't be gay if people like me would just start calling them "queers?" Give me a break. You're reaching here.


Enabler=person who is unwilling to call a spade a spade when its right in front of them for fear of hurting someone's feelings. It also means someone who is willing to foster the lies of by birth etc. etc.

You might as well go out and score some hits for a junkie, its the same thing.

[OCA]

That's because a lot of Republican's are old timer's like Pale and Gunny(no age offense just trying to make a point) and during thier time being gay was Taboo and unacceptable on all levels. That's how they were brought up. The younger generation(thanks inpart to MTV :laugh2:) has grown up really acceptable to all things which is good. Hate is a very bad thing. I think if there was a form of love and compassion that everyone had for their fellow man we would be all right, but that will sure as hell never happen, as much as I would like it to! :laugh2:

Love and compassion lol. Whatever happened to tough love?

Nev's post was the diatribe of a liberal plain and simple.

I guess we should accept pedophiles too, eh?

[Hagbard Celine]

Love and compassion lol. Whatever happened to tough love?

Nev's post was the diatribe of a liberal plain and simple.

I guess we should accept pedophiles too, eh?

No, pedophiles victimize children. Gays are consenting adults. There's a difference. It's a really simple concept.

[OCA]

No, pedophiles victimize children. Gays are consenting adults. There's a difference. It's a really simple concept.

Would you like me to post evidence of queers infecting the U.S. blood supply which hurt everyone? It really is a simple thing to understand.

[Hagbard Celine]

Would you like me to post evidence of queers infecting the U.S. blood supply which hurt everyone? It really is a simple thing to understand.

Would you like me post evidence of heteros infecting the U.S. blood supply which hurt everyone?

[OCA]

Would you like me post evidence of heteros infecting the U.S. blood supply which hurt everyone?

Go for it :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[OCA]

Well we all know that queers infected the blood supply knowingly in the early 80's in the U.S.(google it you get millions of hits) but HOLY SHIT it would suck to be in South Africa today!



Gay Activists Intentionally Taint Blood Supply

(South Africa) This story is disturbing.

From the Independent Online:
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLA) yesterday declared war on the South African National Blood Service (SANBS), as scores of its members turned up to donate blood under false pretences.

And, a shocking 65 percent of the gay men who donated blood without disclosing their sexual preference are unsure whether they are HIV- positive.

On Friday, about 300 men complied with a plea by the GLA to its claimed 100 000 male members to donate blood to SANBS centres across the country, but not to disclose their sexual orientation.

The request is a part of an ongoing national campaign to protest the SANBS policy of excluding men who engage in sexual activity with other men from donating blood.

David Baxter, media director for GLA, said on Friday that 65 percent of the members of GLA who had donated blood were unsure whether they were HIV-positive. He later said one of the donors had full-blown Aids.
Someone should be prosecuted, pure and simple. Afterward, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLA) should be sued into bankruptcy. Tainting the blood supply should not be viewed as a prank.


[Update 01/22/06]

A week has transpired since South African homosexuals declared war on the nation's blood supply and largely nothing has happened except talk.

From Independent Online:
The South African Blood Service (SANBS) said on Friday it still considers a gay and lesbian organisation's claim that some of its members donated blood without disclosing their sexual status a threat.

This week SANBS publicity manager Gail Nothard said: "It hasn't been confirmed, so we still have to consider it a threat unless we know for absolutely sure. We can't disregard it as a hoax. We would never disregard a claim that we can't confirm."
On the other side, David Baxter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance said, in a somewhat watered-down followup to last week's statement, that "some members who may have been HIV positive had donated blood to SANBS centres across the country." Previously, he said that one donor even had full-blown AIDS. Also,
Baxter said he would continue to urge the organisation's members to donate blood without disclosing their sexual orientation until the SANBS change a donor questionnaire question which asks whether or not the male donor has engaged in sex with another man or men in the last five years.
Consequently, it appears that the homosexual community has issues with the screening questionnaire more than anything else. Simply put, they're protesting a piece of paper.

I sincerely must be the only person that sees this as an act of terror, or at least extortion, against the health care system in South Africa. As such, somebody should be arrested. I don't see any difference between the threat to taint the blood supply of a nation and the threat to release a cloud of sarin gas in a crowded subway system.

And for what? Adding potentially HIV-infected blood to the system provides no benefits, only more risk. Not only that, but this is all happening in a part of the continent that already has an HIV/AIDS epidemic. Even considering the political aspects of the situation, it seems clear that the South Africans need some adult leadership.

http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/2006/01/gay-activists-intentionally-taint.html

[jimnyc]

Saying that the term "queer" is offensive is absolutely absurd. Anyone ever hear of "Queer Nation"? Queer Nation is credited with starting the process of reclaiming the word "queer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation

How about "Queer eye for the straight guy"

Or "Queer as folk"

Or "Queer Nationalism"

Hell, there are bars and clubs around the world with "queer" in the name, named by them!

"Queer Cultural Center"

"Queer Arts"

I could go on for hours showing the deviants using this term on themselves over and over and over. And don't give me that crap about how it's ok for blacks to call themselves nigger and faggots to call themselves queers. It's a term, and if they can use it I sure as hell can.

Besides, I prefer to call them vile, disgusting, abnormal deviants.

[OCA]

Well we all know that queers infected the blood supply knowingly in the early 80's in the U.S.(google it you get millions of hits) but HOLY SHIT it would suck to be in South Africa today!



Gay Activists Intentionally Taint Blood Supply

(South Africa) This story is disturbing.

From the Independent Online:
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLA) yesterday declared war on the South African National Blood Service (SANBS), as scores of its members turned up to donate blood under false pretences.

And, a shocking 65 percent of the gay men who donated blood without disclosing their sexual preference are unsure whether they are HIV- positive.

On Friday, about 300 men complied with a plea by the GLA to its claimed 100 000 male members to donate blood to SANBS centres across the country, but not to disclose their sexual orientation.

The request is a part of an ongoing national campaign to protest the SANBS policy of excluding men who engage in sexual activity with other men from donating blood.

David Baxter, media director for GLA, said on Friday that 65 percent of the members of GLA who had donated blood were unsure whether they were HIV-positive. He later said one of the donors had full-blown Aids.
Someone should be prosecuted, pure and simple. Afterward, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLA) should be sued into bankruptcy. Tainting the blood supply should not be viewed as a prank.


[Update 01/22/06]

A week has transpired since South African homosexuals declared war on the nation's blood supply and largely nothing has happened except talk.

From Independent Online:
The South African Blood Service (SANBS) said on Friday it still considers a gay and lesbian organisation's claim that some of its members donated blood without disclosing their sexual status a threat.

This week SANBS publicity manager Gail Nothard said: "It hasn't been confirmed, so we still have to consider it a threat unless we know for absolutely sure. We can't disregard it as a hoax. We would never disregard a claim that we can't confirm."
On the other side, David Baxter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance said, in a somewhat watered-down followup to last week's statement, that "some members who may have been HIV positive had donated blood to SANBS centres across the country." Previously, he said that one donor even had full-blown AIDS. Also,
Baxter said he would continue to urge the organisation's members to donate blood without disclosing their sexual orientation until the SANBS change a donor questionnaire question which asks whether or not the male donor has engaged in sex with another man or men in the last five years.
Consequently, it appears that the homosexual community has issues with the screening questionnaire more than anything else. Simply put, they're protesting a piece of paper.

I sincerely must be the only person that sees this as an act of terror, or at least extortion, against the health care system in South Africa. As such, somebody should be arrested. I don't see any difference between the threat to taint the blood supply of a nation and the threat to release a cloud of sarin gas in a crowded subway system.

And for what? Adding potentially HIV-infected blood to the system provides no benefits, only more risk. Not only that, but this is all happening in a part of the continent that already has an HIV/AIDS epidemic. Even considering the political aspects of the situation, it seems clear that the South Africans need some adult leadership.

http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/2006/01/gay-activists-intentionally-taint.html


Boy makes me want to listen to Simon And Garfunkel's "Sound Of Silence"

Christ and I was all ready for this glorious evidence of normal people infecting the blood supply on the massive level that queers did in the early 80's.

[glockmail]

Boy makes me want to listen to Simon And Garfunkel's "Sound Of Silence"

Christ and I was all ready for this glorious evidence of normal people infecting the blood supply on the massive level that queers did in the early 80's.

:laugh2:

Oh I'm sure there's been a few hetero-sickos that have done this. But compared to the queers, who are sick to begin with, with their hate for normal society, those numbers would be very small.

[dan]

but HOLY SHIT it would suck to be in South Africa today!

I think this is one thing we can all agree on.


Saying that the term "queer" is offensive is absolutely absurd. Anyone ever hear of "Queer Nation"? Queer Nation is credited with starting the process of reclaiming the word "queer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation

How about "Queer eye for the straight guy"

Or "Queer as folk"

Or "Queer Nationalism"

Hell, there are bars and clubs around the world with "queer" in the name, named by them!

"Queer Cultural Center"

"Queer Arts"

Seem to know a lot about it, there, Jim.:laugh2:

Just kiddin ya!