I don't want to come off as defending someone comfortably ensconced in my top ten list of enemies, but what I understood the translator to say was ""In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."" and rest assured, Iran in NO WAY has homosexuals like we do.
Google "Folsom Street Fair" and check out the pics that show up.

Actually, on second thought you probably don't want to do that...

I think you can catch my drift.

__________________
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? - Psalm 27:1

Is that right? I wonder if Iran has the extent of douchebaggery that we tolerate in this country.

If you catch my drift.

P.S. Why are you Googling Folsom Street Fair, I wonder. Why the fascination?

To respectfully disagree, Ahmadinejad clearly meant to say that there were no homosexuals in Iran. Go back and listen to the question he was asked.

they don't have a lot of gays cuz they know how to keep peopel from turning gay

Oh, the sweet naiveté of a person who lives a shuttered life.

Yes, Olady, Iran has gay pride parades, the bathhouses of Bushehr are legendary, and the rainbow minarets atop Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Mosque make one’s heart flutter. You, my good lady, are a fool.

How could it have escaped you the terror Iranians live under? Only the most selected reading of current events and recent history could leave you in the state of blissful ignorance in which you reside.

I guess you tipped your hand a little when you stated that I must have a fascination with the Folsom Street Fair to know about it. I, unlike you, read extensively and am familiar with The Holocaust, various African Genocides, terrorists, and the state of affairs in North Korea. It doesn’t imply some sick fascination to be aware of what’s going on in the world.

__________________
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? - Psalm 27:1

On a serious tip, one funny thing about Iran's policies about homosexuals is that while Ahmenijahd may believe they have no homosexuals per se, Iran has a ridiculously high number of trannies seeking sex-change operations for its population. One of those things that kind of makes you go hmmmmm as Aresenio used to say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/4115535.stm

__________________
A song that says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqITJFGyq4s

Cultures that put women at arm's length such as in the mideast, and surprisingly to me, Japan, have huge numbers of homosexuals. That's because women are viewed as "unf*ckable" and so one can focus their lust onto more acceptable objects, which usually mean men or young boys. That a common path to homosexuality, but it's even stronger in cultures which promote weird ideas about women.

The Taliban actually got into power in part by rescuing young boys.

Trannies are created by a kind of hatred of women and they identifying them as an enemy. It's kind of like getting beaten up and then in turning learning how to fight better. You've become like your enemy! Interesting, right?

Anyway, in a culture that subjugates women around "moral reason" one could see that women have a certain power and status that a man will never have. Thus, the power freak would want to become a woman.


It's ironic that a strict culture which attempts to guard women and the family unit actually creates types of sexual perversion through it's guarding, which it then denies the existance of. I find that funny, in that kind of "I want to go crazy" kind of way.

This is how Bush/Cheney and their lackeys market their wars -- by market segmentation. They mutter darkly about how the bogeyman-of-the-moment treats its minorities to the corresponding group in the United States and thereby turn popular opinion.

Is the status of women under Saddam less than what Gloria Steinem would prefer? Let's attack Iraq (and kill a lot of women)! Would Iraq tolerate a gay-pride parade? No? Then, let's bomb Baghdad (and kill a lot of queers).

Bush/Cheney did exactly this in 2002/2003 by dispatching its toads to repeat these stories to the women's media and the gay media and the parenting media (re: the status of children under Saddam) and others. Here a 2003 State Department press release -- http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm -- that tells a somewhat different story than one from Human Rights Watch -- http://hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm -- issued about the same time.

It's ironic. The right wing opposes all social progress -- woman's suffrage, legal abortion and the decriminalization of sodomy, for instance -- and then uses that progress to justify wars against countries that haven't evolved as far.

It's my opinion that liberals are being selfish, and nearly evil, for not supporting the war and what should lie beyond it, which is the destruction of Islam. How any free thinking person could support such a blatantly fascist system is beyond me.

Since we aren't united on the issue we will lose and what amounts to Nazis will win. They won because "democracts" want to hold elected positions which they're angry they lost to Bush.

What is that.

If the right wants to destroy Islam per se, then it needs to get up on a soapbox and call for exactly that. The United States has successfully waged wars for clearly stated goals: independence from Britain, the preservation of the union and to free Europe from the Nazis. We don't do so well with fuzzy goals -- like, for instance, making South Vietnam safe for Diem or exchanging dictators we like for those we don't.

Good luck getting Americans and the western Allies behind a pogrom to exterminate the religion of a billion people.