In reply to "ahms" there, I attempted to post the following; but rather than allowing the comment, I was banned by Reuters from ever commenting on the Reuters site again.
So "ahms," your comment can certainly be turned back around on you. Homosexuals who "marry" one another do have sex with each other. The men (most of them for sure) do sodomize each other. That act is fraught with medical problems.
In addition, I find it very interesting and informative that an extremely higher percentage of homosexuals were homosexually molested as children than were children who grew up to be heterosexual. How do you explain that, or don't you bother with such facts but rather simply try to ignore them?
Oh, and the faithfulness or exclusivity with homosexual marriages is much less than for heterosexual marriages. Why is that? Where's the "love"? Is it shared around loosely?
And in the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage and tolerance has been going on for quite a while now, the rates of psychological problems for homosexuals is still much greater than for heterosexuals. What's up with that? You can't blame it on heterosexuals not "tolerating" them.
The only reason I was banned is because the pro-homosexual false-propagandists at Reuters don't want their readership to see facts that dispute Reuters' articles. In addition to having posted comments attempting to straighten out the falsehoods spewed by Reuters concerning homosexuality, I had also taken them to task for the lies about Zionism and the Palestinian horror.
An example is that Reuters falsely claims that Israel invaded Gaza because the Gazans, mostly Hamas, had been attacking Israel with rockets. The fact though is that month after month before the invasion, the rockets had gone down, down, down to almost nothing (and Israel admitted it openly; I posted the proof video on this blog at the time) and Hamas was stopping rogue elements in Gaza from firing more rockets. There's a great deal more to it than that, but Reuters toes the Zionists pro-homosexuality line. That's just how it is. Reuters is not objective.
I also made clear that the US was not saying that Iran is working to get nuclear weapons but that the US only now states that the US suspects Iran of that. The US made that change because, for one, I was saying it all over the place, in commenting, on this blog, on Twitter, on Facebook, etc. Reuters also actually changed it subsequent articles, but for how long now that they don't have to hear it from me directly in their commenting system?
I certainly didn't violate any of Reuters "commenting rules."
Frankly, what the Reuters system says is that you will be rewarded for being PC in Reuters' eyes. You can disagree but only within their bubble.
I also went from able to comment to banned in one step and without ever being informed of which supposed rule I had violated. It's pure censorship of free political speech and without legitimate justification.
You can see from my comment above that I stayed right on subject concerning another approved comment.
That's too much for Reuters to deal with though: Petty and cowardly!
I sure would like to be able to find a decent news source. All the major sources are "Politically Correct," which means pro-homosexuality, pro-Zionism, anti-Iran (no matter what), etc.: Pathetic and not to be trusted!