BS: 'Gay marriage' question To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=147102
1409 messages

BS: 'Gay marriage' question

20 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM (#3407854)
Subject: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

I'd have thought one way and another this topic has been talked to death - but a letter in today's Independent newspaper (London) raises a point I haven't seen discussed anywhere before:

"A marriage comes into existence when it is consummated. How do you propose to define consummation for same-sex "marriages"? If it can't be done then failure to consummate as a ground for annulment must be removed. If that happens marriage will not be redefined and extended – it will be abolished. (S P Rouse,Ashtead, Surrey)

The point at issue being, what counts as "consummation" in the case of gay relationships, male and female? And what doesn't? And have the legislators in various places where marriage has been redefined reached a common definition?


20 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM (#3407858)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ebbie

That was Bill Clinton's defense. Kind of.


20 Sep 12 - 04:06 PM (#3407859)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Its like that judge said about pornography. You will know it when you see it.

As for myself, I'd rather have them just sign a certificate or something saying that they have consummated rather than have them describe what they did.


20 Sep 12 - 04:10 PM (#3407861)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Nah... if one partner makes another come, it's all good.

Maybe not a good joke but a stab.

In actuality, "consummation" occurs when they sign the papers. When you sign the contract you are truly fucked.


20 Sep 12 - 04:17 PM (#3407865)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST

"A marriage comes into existence when it is consummated. "

Not in British law. Nor is it putting on the ring, or saying I Do, or kissing the bride, or cutting the cake. Signing the register by both parties commences a legal marriage.


20 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM (#3407868)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S

I'll start the popcorn........


20 Sep 12 - 04:22 PM (#3407870)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Wesley... hahahahahaha!


20 Sep 12 - 04:23 PM (#3407871)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Not strictly true GUEST - signing the register commences a potentially legal marriage - if it doesn't get consummated, it is subject to annulment, which means the court has determined that there never was a marriage.


20 Sep 12 - 04:28 PM (#3407872)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri

Wesley, I'll take one.
Popcorn, I mean.

The consummation inspector for marriages presumably would check all of them, not just the heterosexual couples.


20 Sep 12 - 04:32 PM (#3407875)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"... if it doesn't get consummated, it is subject to annulment.."

Presumably this becomes relevant upon a 'complaint' by one party.


20 Sep 12 - 04:34 PM (#3407876)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos

You guys are back in the tarpit confusing civil rights with religious significances. WHen I perform a wedding, and send in the legal forms to the County office and it gets registered, that is the civil marriage, signed and sealed. Legal marriage in the eyes of the civic community under civil law.

Consummation or any other form of voodoo such as blood on the sheets or the arrival of holy spirits or the crowing of a cock is all foderol belonging to the various religious organizations who thought it would be a good idea to grab people by the shorts so as to control their lives--a very successful tactic, but not honorable, ethical, or necessary.


20 Sep 12 - 04:37 PM (#3407882)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

This is gross. Will our troops be consumating in foxholes on the
battlefield?
(:-( D)=


20 Sep 12 - 04:40 PM (#3407884)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I would say the marriage is "consummated" when a minister or judge utters the words, "By the authority vested in me by (whatever legal office), I now pronounce you man and wife." Or "husband and wife."

But under the circumstances of a same-sex marriage, in one church I am acquainted with, when marrying a same-sex couple, the minister said, "I now pronounce you duly married."

This church has married four same-sex couples, three male, one female (and whether the state recognizes it or not, in the eyes of this particular church, they are married), and as much as fifteen years later, all four couples are still together.

Something took.

Don Firth


20 Sep 12 - 04:43 PM (#3407886)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket (for 'twas he)

You are confusing a marriage which is null and void ab initio (e.g. because the parties may not legally marry*) with one which is voidable, e.g. as a result of a complaint that one party is unable or unwilling to consummate the marriage. In this second case the marriage has legal force until nullified by a court. It is to be doubted that such complaints will arise (I nearly left that 'i' out) significantly more often in the case of same- sex marriages than they have done hithertofore.

* where one party is underage, in cases of bigamy, where a person has misrepresented themself as the opposite sex, or between United and City supporters.


20 Sep 12 - 04:51 PM (#3407890)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"between United and City supporters."

For 'mericans, he means M&M...


20 Sep 12 - 04:54 PM (#3407892)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

I think you miss the point Amos - there is nothing religious about a determination by a court that a marriage did not exist on the basis of a failure to consummate. More likely to be a matter about disputes regarding property.

From a legal point of view it would be analogous to any other contract where it is allegedthat the conditions have not been observed, for example the cheque bounced.

In the case of a heterosexual couple the legal situation is that some kinds of sexual activity count in this context, and others do not. It's not at all clear what the analogous situation is in the case of gay couples.

I can envisage that court cases will arise which will centre on disagreements between partners about this.


20 Sep 12 - 05:58 PM (#3407920)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks

A situation in which UK and US laws differ, I think. The law almost certainly varies between states, but failure to consummate isn't grounds for annulment in the 3 different jurisdictions I looked at. Impotency is, however.


20 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM (#3407931)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Sprocket... hahahahahaa!

Um... I dunno if anyone that has posted so far really gets it? Am I remiss in this assumption? Perhaps it's best for me to ask a simple question. I was just making jokes but it seems to me that some people here don't even understand the true meaning of consummation, soooo...

What is "consummation"? And, don't look it up in the dictionary... the dictionary is wrong.


20 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM (#3407963)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bee-dubya-ell

Annulment on the grounds of failure to consummate a marriage is based on the idea that sex is an implicit part of the marriage contract. If either party refuses to put out, an annulment may be sought by the aggrieved party without having to go through divorce proceedings. But an annulment must be sought by one of the people in the marriage. It can't be foisted upon a couple by some third party. If a couple is happy living chastely, or if they just prefer mutual masturbation and oral sex to coitus, it's nobody's business but their own.

Also, if the nonconsummation argument relative to gay marriage is based on the idea that sex between two people of the same sex cannot create children, then any heterosexual marriage in which either party uses birth control 100% of the time could be said to be unconsummated. If that's the case, then my current marriage was unconsummated for well over ten years, until my wife reached menopause and threw her diaphragm away.


20 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM (#3407972)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

BWL... yer ALMOST there. Soooo close. I think you just explained it at about 99.99%.

Sorry... I don't mean to sound condscending even tho I do. I really wanna know if many posters actually get the concept of non-consummation and how it applies to annulment over time. Maybe there is another question... how long can annulment be sought? Is frigidity acceptable grounds for divorce under law (British Law)? How far can a spouse take that in proceedings? How do these two ineract in... maybe this is tooo much? After all, the OP asked about same sex marriages so discussing something that has little to do with sex other than procreation may be too much thread drift???


20 Sep 12 - 08:41 PM (#3408003)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude

Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means LOL

not tonight dear, I gotta headache :-)


20 Sep 12 - 08:53 PM (#3408006)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack Campin

We have kinda been here before with civil partnerships.

In Scotland, a civil partnership is MORE binding than a marriage. Adultery is grounds for divorce but it is NOT grounds for dissolving a civil partnership. Too late to look this up now, but I suspect absence of solatium (Scots-law concept resembling "consummation") doesn't feature as a ground for breakup of a civil partnership either.

We don't have gay marriage here yet. It seems odd that it would imply *looser* standards than the arrangements gays can make at present, but if that's the way the family moralists want it...


20 Sep 12 - 10:27 PM (#3408037)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means.."

nonsense... ;>)


20 Sep 12 - 10:58 PM (#3408048)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

"Consummation" in this context refers to having sex. Gay people definitely have sex. If they have sex after they get married, they have consummated the marriage. This all assumes that the whole idea of consummation and annulment are in any way important. I've never actually known anyone for whom it was, though. If your spouse won't screw you, and that's the basis for your marriage, you can always just get a divorce.


20 Sep 12 - 11:20 PM (#3408060)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Frank

"not tonight dear, I gotta headache :-)"

If Women are supposed to be able to do two things at once,
how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?.


20 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM (#3408061)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude

Good point Frank I gotta ask next time :-)


20 Sep 12 - 11:47 PM (#3408065)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos

Encoded in law or not the consummation issue is an absurd parody of sensible legal structures. Marriage and divorce are voluntary subscriptions by free individuals. Their sexuality, their religious convictions, their skins, ethnicities, or tax status have no bloody thing to do with it. These are arbitraries injected into the pattern, and the fate of all arbitraries is to give birth to more and more complexity. Get back to the simplicities. All the rest is persiflage and furbelows and absurdity. Two people wish to commit to being married; the state records and recognizes same. Two married people feel they cannot maintain the state of being married. The state records and acknowledges same. How complex do you have tio make it before your vast appetite for endless, ridiculous complications is satiated?


21 Sep 12 - 01:56 AM (#3408085)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means LOL

I think I know what you are talking about. Rodney Dangerfield?   Hennie Youngman? But we'll be married 10 years Oct 10 and I don't know it from experience.


21 Sep 12 - 01:57 AM (#3408086)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude

well Amos for a bunch of movie stars the engagement ring has to be more that 7 ct and the wedding has to cost more than 3 million


21 Sep 12 - 02:33 AM (#3408089)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Gay people engage in sexual activity, but they DON'T have sex. There is a difference.
(:-( ))=


21 Sep 12 - 02:41 AM (#3408093)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Henry, would you care to enlighten us--IN GREAT DETAIL--as to what the difference is?

Don Firth


21 Sep 12 - 03:30 AM (#3408100)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: JohnInKansas

In the half dozen states where I've spent sufficient time to be curious about the marriage statutes, the civil marriage - the thing for which you get a license - does not mention any requirement that the couple have sex, or place any limitation on what kind(s) of sex they may have.

I haven't done any particularly detailed search/study, but it appears that "annulments" are seldom granted in civil courts, and only if it is found that there was legal impediment to the marriage, which rendered it null and void from the outset.

While an inability to perform expected acts, sexual or otherwise, that one party concealed or lied about prior to the marriage might be cited as an evidence to be considered by the court/judge any decision that simple "inability or failure to f*ck" was a sufficient cause to declare the marriage void would have to be based on the judge's belief that it was "an egregious violation of common (common law?) expectations" extensive enough to violate the agreement. In most cases I would expect that a decision would rely more on the presumption that the ability or proclivity was concealed from the other party before the marriage, and "he/she knew I wouldn't" would probably be an adequate defense.

The most common reason for a civil annulment probably is one of the parties being under the legal age to marry (and lacking parental consent) at the time of the marriage. A second reason that appears fairly often would be evidence that one of the parties was coerced or not mentally competent at the time of the marriage (but if one of you goes berserk later - even on the honeymoon - a divorce would likely be required).

I have known at least a half dozen heterosexually married couples who have said their marriage was based on agreement before the ceremony that there would be no sex of any kind between them during the marriage. Their reasons were apparently rather varied - and not my concern. Those marriages were perfectly valid, under the laws of all states for which I have any specific knowledge. At least one of these couples did divorce (not annul) the marriage while I knew them.

I have known at least an equal number who obtained a civil divorce that their religion did not recognize. All parties to those marriages, except one, did not remarry so far as I knew, citing the strictures of their religion; but a primary reason for the civil divorce in all cases was that the civil court can order and enforce support for the dependant party while the churches have no legal standing to do so.

John


21 Sep 12 - 04:12 AM (#3408105)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

As part of my "interfering in health and social care" role these days, I was at a nursing home the other day. I was delighted to speak with a couple who had met when he was admitted last year and sat at the same table as her. They married last month.

Does anybody wish to ask, as she is in her '90s and he in his late '80s, if they are married or not? My own mother married again in late old age and he was her husband. Don't try telling me anything else.

I can't help wonder if this archaic word "consummated" is linked to the Catholic inspired bit about "procreation."   In which case, as I already had two grown up sons when I married the other year, I'm not married either as neither of us want children. After all, I'm to be a Granddad soon.

So we are left with a distinction with which to exhibit bigotry, and especially in the direction of gay people.

It isn't that gay people deserve an equal stake in marriage. It is that they are an equal stakeholder in society so why the fuss? The law must reflect society or it is irrelevant in a democracy.

I look forward to the Tory conference so the TV screens can show the fringe meeting that has been set up by the "pro marriage" brigade. Let us see what a bigot looks like.


21 Sep 12 - 04:14 AM (#3408106)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Sex is between a male and female and can result in reproduction. It involves the penis and vagina. Sexual activity can be with anyone and anything. People,animals, fruits and vegetables, inanimate objects, etc. I have sex,Don. You merely engage in sexual activity, Don. It's the difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk.
No brag, just fact.
(:-( D)=


21 Sep 12 - 04:20 AM (#3408109)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

"Sex" is not what you meant there, Henry. What you are clearly referring to is "sexual intercourse". The word 'sex', tout simple, has many other connotations. You merely confuse, and do not advance, your argument by such disingenuous semantic confusion.

~M~


21 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM (#3408113)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Sex is sexual intercourse.
Anything else is just monkey junk.
(:-( ))=


21 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM (#3408115)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

"Sex" is also a distinction of physical gender; and a verb meaning "to determine the gender of"; and a collective term for the members of one or other gender; and an adjective or compound-noun-former used for certain artefacts [e.g. books, films, pictures, &c] concerned with the topic of the distinction between the genders and the physical and intellectual activities thereto concomitant......

You are a confused obscurantist I fear, Mr K. If you would just use the term appropriate to the concept you desire to express, your points would be more firmly asseverated.

~M~


21 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM (#3408117)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Sex is gender distinction.

Sexual intercourse is fucking. Gender distinction is not part of the term of reference....


21 Sep 12 - 05:34 AM (#3408124)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Yea, I was going to mention the gender distinction angle, but I thought it was too obvious. Soooo, is there a gay sex?
(:-( ))=


21 Sep 12 - 05:43 AM (#3408128)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Oh I think that YOU know that there is. Your bluster is like that of a well known Republican lawmaker with a wide stance in a men's room.


21 Sep 12 - 06:06 AM (#3408142)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

I can see the lawyers having a field day with this.

Marriage involves sharing property in a civil contract that is binding in law. That means that disputes about whether a legal marriage existed is liable to involve lawyers and arguments as to what were the precise conditions of the contract and whether they have been fulfilled. There are of course physical constraints as to precisely what sexual activities could be implied conditions, given the gender of the parties involved.

I think artbrooks was right about there being differences about this kind of thing between laws in various places. Which implies that though we all use the term "marriage" the precise definition of this varies from place to place. Which will continue to be the case even more so, and give the lawyers even more fun in an era of increased globalisation of everything.


21 Sep 12 - 06:19 AM (#3408149)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Bluster?        Pshaw! I'm merely stating my case.
What's your excuse?
(:-( ))=


21 Sep 12 - 07:41 AM (#3408172)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall

Would anyone care to explain why marriage was invented in the first place? It had very little to do with sex.


21 Sep 12 - 08:13 AM (#3408175)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

"The law must reflect society or it is irrelevant in a democracy."

Very well put, Musket.


21 Sep 12 - 08:19 AM (#3408178)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Primarily as a way of trying to ensure stability of human and other resourcers during childhood. And for property reasons. Without marriage or some equivalent these things get even more complicated than they are to start with.


21 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM (#3408212)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos

It was invented to allow sole claimancy to a female by a male. Simple ownership in fee simple, and an evolutionary advantage (when exercised wisely) in stronger offspring, loyal sources of help, and so on. It evolved into a valued societal institution because it made stronger families to have stable management and a reasonable division of duties.


21 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM (#3408219)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall

Mostly to protect women an children who had no legal right to own anything. When hubby died she was destitute.


21 Sep 12 - 11:01 AM (#3408224)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

I can't see that "invented" is the right word. It rather suggest that sometime back then someone had a Eureka moment, and then set about getting other people to implement it.   

Social patterns aren't invented, they evolve.


21 Sep 12 - 11:10 AM (#3408228)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley

This question, and the interesting implications it raises, shows how much of our language/thinking about sex takes heterosexuality for granted. It's a bit like asking a gay person when they 'lost their virginity' - what counts as that for us non-hets ??? (I was going to say what yardstick do you use, but realised that might be offering a gift to the inuendo mafia!)


21 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM (#3408241)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Intelligence is something demonstrated by most of the Mudcat membership except Henry Krinkle.

Anything else is just monkey junk.


21 Sep 12 - 12:05 PM (#3408250)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Charley Noble

"The consummation inspector for marriages presumably would check all of them, not just the heterosexual couples."

Let's hear it for the Inspector General!

Charley Noble


21 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM (#3408258)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ed T

Marriage is a leading cause of divorce.


21 Sep 12 - 12:53 PM (#3408275)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Mr Mcgrath has put a rather interesting question and in response gets...lame jokes, platitudes and veiled abuse.

mr Krinkle is correct once again in his definition of "sexual intercourse"....if a woman wishes to have a child and the man cannot penetrate or ejaculate, the marriage could be said to be un-consummated and the woman could seek an annulment.


21 Sep 12 - 01:36 PM (#3408291)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

It's a bit like asking a gay person when they 'lost their virginity' - what counts as that for us non-hets ???

I'd imagine it might have a range of different meanings, with lots of room for disagreement. Even within couples.


21 Sep 12 - 02:25 PM (#3408328)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley

Absolutely. As long as the disagreement stays friendly, it's an interesting debate.


21 Sep 12 - 02:43 PM (#3408342)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Excellent discussion and ponts well made by most, even when off topic.

I still think there are points which have not been addressed which are germain to the OP but the thread has become so "diverse" and, at times, derisive/divisive that I fail to see any interjections I may make as anything more than a new can of worms.

Soooo... I'll just say this... civil union (contract) allows two "outs" and so does religion. And for VERY good reason(s). >;-)


21 Sep 12 - 02:57 PM (#3408348)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Hey, Charlie, shouldn't that be "Inspector Genital?"

####

Krinkle has no imagination. He says he has sex, but it must be boring as hell for his partner.

Don Firth


21 Sep 12 - 03:13 PM (#3408355)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"Krinkle has no imagination. He says he has sex, but it must be boring as hell for his partner."

The way he overcompensates? I doubt if it is long, I doubt that it is able to bore much either.

How about short and filled with guilt and recrimination so much so that it causes overly passionate condemnations in the public sphere? You know, like a senator with a wide stance in an airport men's room.


21 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM (#3408396)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Charley Noble

As I see it, there are many grounds for divorce and "the ability to consummate" is only one of them. The act of consummation may only currently apply to heterosexual couples but perhaps some judges would rule to broaden the definition so that it means sexual gratification by whatever method achieved. I don't think the Pope would approve.

Charley Noble


21 Sep 12 - 04:47 PM (#3408401)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Surely everyone understands that marriage is about a lot more than "sexual gratification"?

As Henry Krinkle has noted, some people get "sexual gratification" in very strange ways


21 Sep 12 - 04:52 PM (#3408402)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

I thought a bit of strange stuff once in a while was fairly common.


21 Sep 12 - 05:03 PM (#3408411)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Surely everyone understands .."

Everyone? Sorry, ake... not everyone. MOST of us would agree, but there is nothing about sexuality that everyone agrees on.

There are marriages where one side simply wants sex to be "legally guaranteed", while the other offers sex for security.... the law still recognizes them as married.


21 Sep 12 - 05:16 PM (#3408416)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

So there is no definition of marriage?
I do not recognise the two examples you quote as "proper marriage"
How does one "legally guarantee" sex? How does agreeing to sex provide security?

It just does not make sense. In this area many young people co-habit, when they wish to start a family, they get married....very few parents here remain unmarried....marriage and the family structure is still of great importance


21 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM (#3408417)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Divorce is not relevant in this context. Annulment is.

Sexual gratification? That could mean just about anything.

Presumably some kind of way of sorting out the legal issues would be arrived at, by judges if not by legislation. A different set of rules for the three varieties of "marriage" involved - and any others that might develop in time.


21 Sep 12 - 05:39 PM (#3408427)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Thank you, McGrath.

Annulment cannot be justified (read "PROVEN") in same sex marriage. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for some to understand?


21 Sep 12 - 06:00 PM (#3408433)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

How does one "legally guarantee" sex?

Like in this song *grin*

relevant verse:

♫"Her lover said "Erica, marry me.
This relationship is answering a basic need
And I'd like to have it legally guaranteed.
For without your precious love I would surely die
So why can't we make it legal?" Said Erica, "Why?
Basic needs, at your age, should be met by you;
I'm your lover, not your mother---let's be careful what we do.
If I should ever marry,I will marry to grow,
Not for tradition, or possession or protection. No!
I love you, but your needs are a very different issue."
Then He cried, and Erica handed him a tissue."♫


Do I really need to explain the concept?

Yes though... as this entire thread shows, there is a need to define marriage...and there ARE clear...but different definitions. Religious ones, personal ones, legal ones...etc.

You, Ake, just said YOU have an idea of "proper marriage"... but two people in an IMproper marriage, as defined by you, can still function in society without anyone but themselves knowing about.


21 Sep 12 - 06:28 PM (#3408448)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

It's Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
I think homosexuality is a form of immaturity. Childish behaviour.
But that's my opinion. And I know what some of you think of my opinions.


21 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM (#3408450)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You seem to leave the idea of a family structure out of the equation Bill. Surely that is the bedrock of marriage?
I agree that a few people have an unusual view of what marriage means and they are entitled to believe what they wish...but for the vast majority wordwide, marriage and the extended family structure are indivisible.


21 Sep 12 - 07:21 PM (#3408462)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall

McGrath, I was playing loose with the word. I do know the difference. I think Created is a better word. Nothing can evolve until it is first created.


21 Sep 12 - 07:28 PM (#3408465)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

Good point, kendall. First, for example, mankind created the automobile...a self-propellin' carriage that dispensed with the need for horses. And it has been evolvin' ever since.

It's like that with any created thing. Ya look at guns, books, turtles, chimps, language. They all hadda be created first, and they've been evolvin' ever since.


21 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM (#3408466)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Can't argue with that, ake. Not at all. Yer good. Yer one of the best that I ever read. Vague definitely suits you. It's what all the chick trolls are wearing this season.

Hank, on the other hand, is a hack. Homosexuality is a form of immaturity, Hank? Yer a fuckin ameteur. Sign up fer a course from ake. The two of you could compare goats.


21 Sep 12 - 08:01 PM (#3408479)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Ake... *I* am not leaving anything out. I am noting the differences in people's definitions.

Of course "extended family structure" is the most common ideal in most societies.... but marriage is legal whether the partners fit YOUR criteria or not.

As you say, people are entitled to their own views. You have a fairly conservative one on a number of things, but always seem surprised that not everyone sees YOUR point and has the same attitudes.


21 Sep 12 - 08:16 PM (#3408481)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Slow Hand


Oh, grow up and be a man.
With a slow hand.
(:-( ))=


22 Sep 12 - 12:11 AM (#3408553)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Melissa


22 Sep 12 - 12:54 AM (#3408556)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Krinkle would LOVE to have a look at Ake's goat.

Ake, watch yer goat!


22 Sep 12 - 02:03 AM (#3408562)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley

Never thought I'd see the Adam & Eve/Steve line here on Mudcat. Still, it serves the useful purpose of indicating that its user may be confidently disregarded as as a fatuous lamebrain.


22 Sep 12 - 04:16 AM (#3408576)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Speak for yourself, Jackass.
And no namecalling, Smedley. Be a good little boy and mind your manners. This is grown up talk.
(:-(D)=


22 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM (#3408623)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I wondered how long this thread would last without a slight malodour.

People have proper marriages where you are eh?Akenaton? I'll let you into a secret, people have proper marriages everywhere if they say they are married. Once the government pass a law to have the terms simplified and use one term instead of two, Nick Clegg's bigots as he rightly called them before realising they are allowed fo vote can find something else to force religious privilege on.

Of course, those whom profess to be atheists and still side with persecution of those who have same sex partners will have to sit down and think hard as to why they hate without even the feeble excuse of scriptures...

I repeat. Gay people do not need to be seen as equal people in marriage because they are already equal members in society and the government has to reflect that. And soon.


22 Sep 12 - 09:21 AM (#3408645)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Greg F.

This is grown up talk. Now that IS amusing, Stinkle!


22 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM (#3408702)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Seems to me it's more a matter of passing a law to have one term instead of two for two things that aren't quite the same, because, while they have a lot in common, they also have some not insignificant differences. Like giving apples and pears the same name.

Given there are in the UK no differences between the duties and benefits of civil partnerships and marriage, I can't see much benefit to the change. And the issues mentioned in this thread do suggest there may be some unconsidered implications that might possibly cause problems down the road.

But I can't say it worries me too much. Not enough to justify getting aerated about - on either side, I'd have thought.


22 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM (#3408714)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

" Like giving apples and pears the same name."

Pomes?


22 Sep 12 - 01:09 PM (#3408730)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks

The two things - civil union and marriage - are very different (at least right now), in the US at least. It's not too likely that there are any implications that haven't been considered here, ad nauseum. If they were the same, then the struggle of individuals to obtain the rights guaranteed by marriage would, IMHO, be much more muted.

As it is, individual states define marriage and, at least in theory, each state could redefine it to include same-gendered couples, just as many had to do so to legally recognize bi-racial marriages a few decades ago. This, of course, assumes that the religious fundies who think that their world view applies to everyone (Adam and Eve, my ass!) and who control a large monolithic voting bloc would allow this. The problem is the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which governs Federal benefits such as Social Security and government pension survivors' rights. DOMA defines "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, so gay and lesbian couples are excluded from these benefits, whether or not they are married according to state law.

This is the reason that, for example, Neil Armstrong's wife was entitled to a survivor's pension, but Sally Ride's partner was not.


22 Sep 12 - 01:41 PM (#3408740)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

That's how you do it in the States, artbrooks, so I understand how people must think the only way to ensure equality is to change the definition of marriage.

But that doesn't apply in the UK, and I imagine a whole lot of other countries. When civil partnership was introduced it was intentionally given essentially the same legal status as marriage. Those kind of inequalities you mentioned wouldn't be legal here.

It seems to me that the move towards changing the definition of marriage here is a spill over from the situation in the States - a sense that if that's the way to ensure equality there, it must be necessary to ensure equality here.


22 Sep 12 - 01:42 PM (#3408741)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks

I wish we had your system, McG.


22 Sep 12 - 01:47 PM (#3408743)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Speak for yourself, Jackass.
This is grown up talk.


Good one Mr. Wide Stance.


23 Sep 12 - 10:52 AM (#3409020)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

McGrath,

As I see it, whilst there is little difference in law between marriage and civil partnership, you then have to ask so why not the same word?

And that is is the issue. (Starting a sentence with "and" is a completely different issue.)

The benefit of the change is that people can legally say they are married rather than some Blairspeke term. It removes the stigma that bigots would prefer to remain in place. I cannot think of a better reason, decency being what it is and all that.

As my wife and I are not planning children, does that mean we are not married? The old people I referred to above? My work colleague and her wife?


23 Sep 12 - 11:38 AM (#3409035)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Maybe they should come up with a new word....Now this word would only describe THIS unique situation, and no imitations...you know, a word for two people of the opposite sex, who decide to live together, keeping only to themselves, for the purpose of having sex and conceiving their own children as a result of the sex, and lovingly raising them as their own nuclear family....the word used to be 'marriage'.

Oh wait a minute.....we've managed to destroy that concept with 'new' definitions of 'being hip', and 'permissiveness' destructive to the elements of the concept of what a family is, or should be...just to satisfy other lame behavior, and stupid decisions, horny youth, drugs and selfishness and the culture needed to accommodate unthinking people!

"Oh well, I can ALWAYS get a divorce, and get on welfare and child support...children don't need the influence of two loving parents, from the opposite sex coming together, just to have and raise them(us), just so long as I can still get MY monthly check....I'LL 'get by'."

My my, how far we've plunged, and left our children with the resentments of the role of either parent, an how easily we find it, to write that damage off!......and then have the arrogance to deny culpability!!!....and just get more permissive to let our children make up new rules as to what constitutes a 'family' or 'marriage'

Make it a 'political issue', and get the repercussions of irresponsible people away from my conscience!!

.....and for God sakes, if we find someone who is functioning as an original nuclear family, THEY must be the 'lame ones', right?????

Shows you how fucked up we've allowed ourselves to get!!!

GfS


23 Sep 12 - 12:20 PM (#3409049)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Why not the same word for things that are similar in many respects but different in others?

That's how language works. Differences, even slight differences are reflected in the existence of different words.

Even with the attempt to redefine the word marriage there'll still be linguistic differences when talking about a marriage that involves a hiusband and wife and a marriage that involves two people of the same sex. "Husband and husband"? "Wife and wife"? I suspect people will tend to talk in terms of "partners" in same-sex unions, tying in with the terminology of civil partnership.

I think it's highly unlikely that the change in the legal definition of marriage will do anything whatsoever to challenge or reduce bigotry. Any reduction in that will be a matter of time. If anything I would expect the legal redefinition to have the reveerse effect.

Incidentally, is the idea that existing civil partnerships will be rebranded as marriages, or will we have the two institutions existing alongside each other?


23 Sep 12 - 12:24 PM (#3409052)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

How about a compromise - "marriage" with its customary meaning alongside "wedlock" for analogous same-sex unions, and both called "partnership"?


23 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM (#3409054)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well, I'm looking for that magical word that describes that UNIQUE situation, as I described...not another bending of terms.
Surely, such a technically exacting language should have a word for a natural nuclear family!!........and leave the fucking politics out of it!!!

GfS


23 Sep 12 - 01:02 PM (#3409070)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

"Family" is already a word which is used to refer to a whole range of social institutions, nuclear and not particularly nuclear. Including the whole human race for that matter.

The only trouble with "partnership" as a word is that it makes for confusion with bridge and golf and business. "Wedded partner" is potentially a useful term which could be used in a way that included same-sex partnerships as well as what can still be termed married partnerships.


23 Sep 12 - 01:28 PM (#3409086)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Yeah but what would you call it if a black bloke marries a white woman?

Marriage is marriage. Why should the gender of either be of interest? Both Mrs Musket and I can use the term Dr and on that Dr Musket is either gender. Who needs to know otherwise? (Even more confusing for those with an interest in the gender of people, Mrs Musket is a surgeon so uses Miss in her title although we have a marriage certificate.

Marriage is marriage and if both have a dick or both have a cunt, the only dick or cunt is the one wanting to know their gender arrangements.

Calling it marriage has the advantage of describing what it is. A commitment. Civil partnership lowers it to the level of prenuptial contract to make the splitting up or death arrangements easier.


23 Sep 12 - 02:01 PM (#3409103)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Marriage describes certain types of lifelong commitment. Not the only kind of commitment, some of which would never be described as "marriages". For example parent and child.

Marriage is marriage. Apples are apples. Pears are pears.


23 Sep 12 - 02:27 PM (#3409111)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Agreed. Marriage describes certain types including black & white, ginger and blonde, man and woman, man and man, ginger woman and brunette woman, man who likes good football and woman who likes soap opera nonsense, woman who has a finger missing and woman who believes in God...

That's why marriage is a term that describes a commitment in love resulting in cohabitation.

Just waiting for the government to clarify an archaic point of law which goes back to when the law was allowed to be governed in line with superstition and bigotry.

A bit like the law that needs water and hay available for taxis.

One day we will wonder why marriage provoked such debate


23 Sep 12 - 03:03 PM (#3409126)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Again, no mention of the family structure aspect.
Marriage should be the foundation of the extended family structure, which is disappearing from society.
To the detriment of the whole of humanity....soon our only goal will be "self"

Simplistic nonesense like "Marriage describes certain types including black & white, ginger and blonde, man and woman, man and man, ginger woman and brunette woman, man who likes good football and woman who likes soap opera nonsense, woman who has a finger missing and woman who believes in God"

Procreation can only be fulfilled by a male+female...end of story.


23 Sep 12 - 03:04 PM (#3409127)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

Redefining is different from clarifying.

Basically it seems a pretty trivial issue. I agree one day we'll probably wonder why people cared either way - why anybody wanted the redefinition in the first place, and why anybody worried too much about it.

But I think it will throw up a few unexpected complications nobody has thought too much about, like the oddity noted in that opening post.


23 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM (#3409155)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Marriage describes certain types of lifelong commitment."

It is supposed to...and often does, but there are so many 'marriages of convenience' that it needs a disclaimer.

I have known of a fellow who 'married' a woman to give her American papers, then allowed her to live elsewhere. I'm not defending... just commenting.

(I have even known of divorces FROM 'lifelong committment' in order to get around certain tax laws which made filing separately a better economic choice. I 'think' that has since been fixed.)


23 Sep 12 - 05:27 PM (#3409158)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well that's all fine and dandy.....I'm talking about a man and a woman who have a loving commitment, and who conceived their own child(ren) through sex with themselves ONLY, not 'joined' families, not anything but their own child(ren) from THAT union, and raising that/those child(ren), from the commitment of love, for their spouse and offspring.

Surely their is a name for that that distinguishes it from ANY other sort of 'arrangement'!

Jeez, what it takes to get a simple WORD to call a spade a spade!

What do you call it?

GfS


23 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM (#3409166)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Like I said before and Akenaton is perpetuating the issue. Not that surprising though..

If marriage is procreation, my wife and I aren't married. My mum who found happiness again in later life after my Dad died wasn't married to her second husband. The old couple I met last week who had just got married weren't married. Every married couple who adopt aren't married. Every couple who cannot have children for medical reasons aren't married.

What was that shit you just came out with about everybody only thinking about self? Maybe if you thought about the rights and feelings of others, your prophesy would be that little bit further off.

But there again, you have form to go with your agenda. If gay people are married, your society will break down but the society I live in will be that much nicer, that much less judgemental and that bit more worthy of the word equal.

So; gay people, people who can't have kids, people too old to have kids. Any more on your list? Any cultural taboos to go with your gender based ones?

Fuck me, just when you thought comments had hit rock bottom.


23 Sep 12 - 06:01 PM (#3409172)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

I might add, Musket... "Procreation can only be fulfilled by a male+female...end of story."

ake... do you "read" this shit before you submit?


23 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM (#3409175)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

All those marriages you mentioned, Musket, would of course be marriages within the meaning that has had since forever. Basic rule always has been it's a commitment intended to be "till death do us part" between a husband and a wife.

Analogous commitments between people of the same sex don't fall within this definition.

If countries choose to change the way they define the word and the institution within their borders they can do it, and if people choose to use the word in that sense they'll do it regardless of whether the law changes the definition or not.

Complications may arise from the fact that many, probably most, other countries won't have made that change of definition, so that there would still be two different categories of marriage, analogous to the current situation with marriage and civil partnership. That might be more of a problem in parts of the world where international movement is more common than in the USA. But not such a big deal.

I imagine the redefinition will be introduced into the various countries in the UK before too long. But those who are sceptical about the redefinition should not be assumed to be bigots.


23 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM (#3409199)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"I'm talking about a man and a woman who have a loving commitment, and who conceived their own child(ren) through sex with themselves ONLY, not 'joined' families, not anything but their own child(ren) from THAT union".

Do you honest to god realize that you are effectively saying that if two people commit to each other, find that they can't conceive children, adopt chilren, and raise them in a loving home, those people do not have a real right to call themselves married, with a family?
Do you honest to god realize that you are effectively saying that if a man and a woman each have young children, lose a spouse to early death, then marry each other and raise the children in a loving home,
they do not have the right to call themselves married, with a family?


23 Sep 12 - 10:05 PM (#3409238)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Stop being silly!
I'm only asking for a word that accurately describes two people committing to each other in life, in love and bearing offspring from their relationship, and raising their own children, in love, with the same family commitment. Not complicated at all. Two people raising their own flesh and blood. I'm not saying adoption is bad, or anything else....just trying to get an 'acceptable', 'accurate' word from someone out there, that is unique to that description.

I know it's not beyond your concept....give it a word.

GfS

P.S.....or maybe it is......yikes!


24 Sep 12 - 03:04 AM (#3409300)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I'll give you a word.

Married

Seems to fit the bill. Unless ginger people married to Asian people need a differentiation too? Why pick out single sex for a different word? If you pick out those who don't or can't have children, you would be nearer to religious definitions and if you picked out inter racial marriage, there are many who would applaud it, sadly.

Sorry, but wanting to indicate that the two partners in a marriage are of the same gender has to be for a reason. The only one that springs to mind is bigotry.


24 Sep 12 - 03:11 AM (#3409304)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"Stop being silly!"

Do you read what you write? Ever??


24 Sep 12 - 09:07 AM (#3409391)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

I rather doubt that it would be possible to coin a unique "word that accurately describes two people committing to each other in life, in love and bearing offspring from their relationship" and spread it into common usage without some people using the distinction to denigrate the relative worth and validity of unions that aren't eligible for that exact word.


24 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM (#3409429)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

The basic word IS 'married', as several have tried to explain. It essentially MEANS 'legally joined and committed'. If a couple is M-F and has children, etc... fine! People who know them will have no problem recognizing their fairly common relationship.

Now... if you meet someone and ask "Are you married?", they can simply say "yes" or, if it seems relevant, they can say "to another man" or "to another woman".

There may be situations, now that laws are changing, where it is relevant to determine the details of a marriage relationship...i.e., for medical purposes or insurance...but otherwise it should be up to the married partners to explain...or not... their situation!

We don't need 'new' words for special situations. If an explanation is needed, a set of old words will suffice... like GfS so carefully indicates.


24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM (#3409433)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

In the UK, civil union means "legally joined and committed"

Marriage means very much more!


24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM (#3409434)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

(or, I suppose, we could invent one for GfS

.... perhaps "heteromonogamoviablesancifiedgovtsanctioned"?)


24 Sep 12 - 11:51 AM (#3409440)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Oh, I can hear it now!

"Are you legally joined and committed"? Or perhaps..."Are you united civilly?"

YOU wish it to 'mean very much more'.


24 Sep 12 - 12:34 PM (#3409455)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

Even the churches seem to accept that a wedding may not be followed by children, and most seem to be very happy to marry couples who are well past the age at which conception is likely to occur.

Since it appears that conception is not actually essential to the concept of "marriage" but merely on the wish-list, then what is the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes "marriage" from an arrangement which is apparently identical in every way other than the gender of the participants?

If, as some people seem to be suggesting, that gender difference is of fundamental importance, could they please explain why, if conception is left out of the equation?


24 Sep 12 - 12:46 PM (#3409459)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Akenaton says that marriage is much more than legally blah blah.

Quite so.

Glad that you agree with me that gay people need to be able to use the word marriage. After all, a gay couple can commit and love every bit as much as a heterosexual couple so have every right to use the same word to describe their marriage.

What was it that changed your mind? A barbequed donkey on the way to Damascus?


24 Sep 12 - 01:25 PM (#3409480)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

It's like the word 'ball'.....there are footballs, ping-pong balls, baseballs, basketballs, golf balls, tennis balls, soccer balls and of course testicles....yes, they are ALL balls, and all denote different functions. Nothing bigoted about it, nor denigrating....it appears that trying to be politically correct has left some of you less literate, as well. There is a distinction...or your politically correct homosexual arrangements marriage would not be prefaced with the word 'gay'.....so even according to you, there is a difference, and none of you are here as the result of homosexual breeding...that is unless you are a hemorrhoid.,,(an asshole on it's way down)....so unless you see yourselves as such, how about that distinct word, with a distinct meaning!

GfS


24 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM (#3409492)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

But 'ball', like 'marriage' only NEEDS explaining and naming in certain circumstances.

"Come to the picnic and bring a 'ball'." needs a little clarification.
"No, I didn't mean a medicine ball!"

Marriage needs qualification only when someone NEEDS to know that you are..or are not.. a specific type of partnership.
"Have you even been married?" can be a simple question related to legal questions about taxes.... it need not refer to same-sex or 'standard'. It might just precede "list your co-filers on this form."

The **concept** of "legally committed for relationship and legal purposes" simply does not require specification of the sexes involved.


24 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM (#3409546)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Sing if you're glad to be illiterate!


24 Sep 12 - 04:56 PM (#3409567)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

GfS, If you don't agree you are a hemorrhoid.


Yawn...


24 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM (#3409618)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

On the subject of redefining the word marriage: It really seems to me that this is not happening at all. What's really happening is that people who dislike the idea of homosexuality are grabbing the word for their own private use and trying to deny the rest of us the use of it. As has been noted here numerous times, the concept remains the same no matter the sex of the people involved. No one has yet come up with anything that disproves that.

There is no conversation about homosexuality that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. The only queer (in the older sense of the word) people here are the ones that are so worried about it that they want to have laws against it and wail about "redefining" the word marriage. Get your minds out of other peoples' bedrooms, you filthy perverts!

But of course, saying that is a complete waste of time. Akenaton and GfS are so lost to bigotry that they willing shut down their logic centers on this topic. All of these points have been made to them hundreds of times in the past, and they have never offered any logical defense for their stances. That's because they can't -- such defenses simply don't exist. The amazing thing is that they are both fairly intelligent, but are so blind on this topic that they don't even realize how stupid they make themselves sound.

My offer still stands: a moderated debate on the issue. One where the logic has to add up, all facts come from mainstream news sources, and personal attacks get you kicked out. I haven't had any takers yet -- it seems they are, on this subject, cowards. Or maybe they're not cowards; maybe they retain enough intelligence to know that such a debate would be over very, very quickly, with themselves as the losers. It's so much easier to simply not respond to points made by other people and just keep lobbing little bigotry bombs into the conversation. After all, it's the internet, where they don't have to face any real repercussions for their hate speech.


24 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM (#3409625)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

McGrath of Harlow says: But those who are sceptical about the redefinition should not be assumed to be bigots.

What else are we to call them? Everyone I have ever heard complain about redefinition has made it very clear that they think homosexuality is a perversion, a choice, a lifestyle, a sin, unhealthy, dangerous, destructive of hetero marriages, and dangerous to society. Since all of these ideas have been so thoroughly debunked, one has to assume that anyone who clings to them does so from unreasoning hatred of another group of people and a desire to limit the civil rights of that group. In other words, bigotry.

Can you come up with any other explanation that makes any sense?


24 Sep 12 - 11:30 PM (#3409740)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

John P: "Akenaton and GfS are so lost to bigotry that they willing shut down their logic centers on this topic."

Hey, you guys are the ones trying to re-define marriage...and as far as your accusation of bigotry, you are out of your mind!...but that word IS the 'left wing' refuge when running out of ideas!..Just accuse somebody of 'bigotry'..sounds good on paper.....toilet paper!..What next?..racist??..Tea Party??

Fact is, after so many FAILED marriages, and the institution of marriage so compromised, and men being so feminized, including heteros, I think a lot of you have lost the grasp of what it means....just a convenience..trying to 're-capture' the one of early youth, when it DID mean something!...Now, instead of making excuses for failures, we just include everyone with any excuse....but you still can't put a word on that first one, with all the idealism of being a natural, nuclear FAMILY, with all the original members!!!..natural children included.
Not only can't you put a name on it.....the very concept is buried under the tonnage of bullshit, people have made excuses for, for all their years of selfishness!...with, of course, the escape hatch of divorce!..Vows mean nothing..your word means nothing....except for hot air.....an there sure is a lot of it in here!

...and by the way, if homosexuals think the 'church' is so brain-locked and fucked up...then why is it so important to them they they are recognized by that same 'fucked up' brain-locked 'church'????

Hint:.....Because it's all bullshit!

GfS

P.S....and you all know it!


25 Sep 12 - 03:05 AM (#3409773)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Whoever said anything about church? It is the term married as opposed to civil partnership that is on trial here.

The church aspect is a red herring put about by pious idiots to say thy will be forced to marry gay people. As we have religious equality, perhaps they are equally worried that they will have to provide prayer mats and an arrow showing where Mecca is? It is just as daft.

The huge amount of red herrings they throw on this bonfire leads me to start believing the fairy story of the loaves and fishes, they certainly can find the bloody fish.

It isn't a "leftish" plot. Now you are being stupid so deserve the huge raspberry that I would have blown if I otherwise respected you. But till you stop wanting to label people based on your fantasy of what they get up to in their bedroom, it is best not to encourage you.

Don't worry, you aren't in a lonely place. At least one person will stick his head out of the pond and support you. Trouble is, he isn't the nicest person on Mudcat.


25 Sep 12 - 07:30 AM (#3409839)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

The Findlaw website has this to say about civil partnership in the UK:

"There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership. The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. Therefore, the main difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is religion."

It is therefore essentially a discussion over terminology rather than substance, and the right for some members of society to call their relationship by the same name as the rest of us do. It is the religions which seem to put particular store on the term "marriage" without being very clear exactly what they see as being the essential defining characteristic which makes it special. Apart of course from the obvious point about gender, but this is only relevant if procreation is essential to the concept of marriage, which as we've already discussed is not the case.


25 Sep 12 - 08:00 AM (#3409846)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"...none of you are here as the result of homosexual breeding...that is unless you are a hemorrhoid..."

"...and men being so feminized, including heteros..."

Yup. The words of a bigot.

And this multi-persona yahoo purports to be a counselor?!?


25 Sep 12 - 08:36 AM (#3409861)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"all the idealism of being a natural, nuclear FAMILY, with all the original members!!!..natural children included."

With one breath you say that I am being silly for noticing that you put down people who adopt children and raise them in love, or remarry after widowhood and raise merged families in love. With the next you let it be known that they don't deserve the word "FAMILY",


25 Sep 12 - 09:17 AM (#3409878)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Maybe I should stop calling them bigots. How about hetero-supremacists?

Have you noticed that our "liberal" media regularly interviews rabidly anti-gay people when they write stories about gay rights? Why don't they interview neo-Nazis and KKK members when they write stories about race relations? This is part of why GfS, Henry Krinkle and Akenaton can get away with talking the way they do. Unless, as I suspect, they only talk this way on the internet.

All you hetero-supremacists out there are going to be SO embarrassed in fifteen or twenty years. Or, if you keep engaging in hate speech, you will be as ostracized as the KKK.

On another note, I'm wondering about the ethical aspects of outing bigots. I've always supported the right of gay people to be closeted if that's what they want. The only exceptions are public officials who talk anti-gay and then take up a wide stance. GfS says he places a high value on people taking responsibility for their actions. What are the ethics of outing him as an anti-civil rights potty mouth to his fans and clients? Opinions?


25 Sep 12 - 11:27 AM (#3409954)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

First of all, I'm NOT haggling about homosexuals..I've ONLY asked for a word that describes two people of the opposite sex who wish to live together as man and wife, and bring children into the world, as a result of having sex with each other, and to be raised by the same two people as a family, as opposed to any other 'domestic' situation....YOU are the ones with the knee-jerk re-actions!!!

YOU are the ones projecting the attitude that you think, (or imagine) that is behind the question.....and being that the name of the thread is 'Gay marriage' question'...I just asked a question.

You've conditioned yourselves into this hostility.
YOU ALL know there is a difference, of what I'm asking, and YOU are the ones intolerant of the possibility, that it does not include homosexuals, but that is only because homosexuals aren't breeding, in that scenario.....and YOU are the ones making an emotional issue of it, when in FACT, it is just a simple biological fact...and then YOU accuse others who aren't as emotionally disturbed as you, in this area, of being bigoted, hateful etc. etc..and blah blah.

Everything I've stated, or asked is just a plain FACT, without bias or anything hostile at all..(except responding to lame, wrongly placed hostile answers....but maybe that has more to do with political conditioning, rather that realistic thinking!

...and WHO has the bias???????????????????????????????

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 11:54 AM (#3409967)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Why do you want a word that indicates they are biologically capable of having children?

Presumably so they can be told they are not in the correct clinic if they accidentally go to an IVF clinic.

Why do you want a word to describe one type of marriage as opposed to any other? What about a marriage of convenience where they accidentally have children? Do they get another certificate?

Why are you interested in what a gay marriage is about? You can go on websites to find out if you are that interested.

Or is it so bigots can point, stare and judge?

I think we have finally got to the bottom as if were.


25 Sep 12 - 12:00 PM (#3409971)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

I gave you a word!

"hetero-monogamo-viable-sancified-govtsanctioned"

You don't like my suggestion? YOU are the one who wants a 'special' word....YOU concoct one. Good luck getting it accepted. Most of us are happy with "marriage" for all legal relationships, with disclaimers tacked on for those who feel they must set themselves apart.

(It is clear you don't really want a new word.. you want all those who don't 'fit' to quit using yours.) (It didn't work with 'folk'... why should you get special privileges?)


25 Sep 12 - 12:04 PM (#3409975)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Hey... I got another one!

supermarrified! Kinda special, hmmm?


25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM (#3409988)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

OR...for the opposite, 'Queeried'...just a play on words..calm down!!

...or would that be 'Inqueering'??

It just seems that some of you have confused politics with reality!
Politics change with the winds...
Facts remain.

Maybe something to consider...then maybe some of you could get comfortable with FACTS....like, 'getting real'!

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM (#3409989)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

The last of my post evaporated somewhere:

With the next you let it be known that they don't deserve the word "FAMILY", in glorious upper case, in the same way that an entirely nuclear family group does.


25 Sep 12 - 12:33 PM (#3409993)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

another nominee for that all-important requested word"

REALLYTRULYMARRIED (be sure to use both caps and italics)

as opposed to all the other people who love each other, and children they are raising, dearly, under slightly different circumstances.


25 Sep 12 - 01:03 PM (#3410011)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

What facts are you referring to?

I am genuinely curious, it isn't just prodding you with a stick so we can all enjoy hearing you squeak.


25 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM (#3410046)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Not squeaking at all..quite the contrary...

..and.."What facts are you referring to?"

The simple fact, (because you apparently haven't been reading or comprehending), the fact homosexuals, by nature of their sexual acts with people of the same sex, cannot conceive with each other, in their 'domestic arrangement'....unless you want to argue that!

You guys are the ones who get all pissy for me pointing that out...and seeing if you have a word for those who DO conceive with each other, in their original marriage...and being as homosexuals do not, and can not, then why should it be the same word, defining two different circumstances??
I mean YOU'RE all here by natural means....now you want to deny the means, or the importance of it??...assuming you were all raised by those parents....no word for it???...or are you just lost in the maze of bullshit rationalizations justifying other sexual preferences??...and cannot distinguish the two???...so we accept the muddying of terms..

Now you can squeak...

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 02:44 PM (#3410047)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

GfS, there's already a word for two people who live together in a formal legal arrangement without bringing children into the world. That word is "married". Why do you need another one?


25 Sep 12 - 03:05 PM (#3410058)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude....unless you can answer the question, nor see a distinction...

That's what too many drugs will do to ya'!

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 03:52 PM (#3410066)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude..

No, I answered your question and asked one of my own.


25 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM (#3410071)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Ok... NOT a question!

I hereby declare that 'married' is sufficient to refer to two (at a minimum) people living in a formal, legal situation.

Expanded explanations of the gender and functional differences are at the discretion of the parties involved.


25 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM (#3410091)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude....unless you can answer the question, nor see a distinction... >>mistaken, rude and needless lecture.

That's what too many drugs will do to ya'! >> wild, unfounded accusation. Makes you appear to be extremely rude, uneducated, unhinged.

_____________

GfS

GfS, there's already a word for two people who live together in a formal legal arrangement without bringing children into the world.   That word is "married". >>Answer to question. Why do you need another one? >>New question to you.

_______

The simple fact, (because you apparently haven't been reading or comprehending), the fact homosexuals, by nature of their sexual acts with people of the same sex, cannot conceive with each other, in their 'domestic arrangement'....unless you want to argue that!

You guys are the ones who get all pissy for me pointing that out.<<
..and seeing if you have a word for those who DO conceive with each other, in their original marriage...and being as homosexuals do not, and can not, then why should it be the same word, defining two different circumstances?? <<< pointless attempted sarcasm

I mean YOU'RE all here by natural means....now you want to deny the means, or the importance of it??...assuming you were all raised by those parents....no word for it???...or are you just lost in the maze of bullshit rationalizations justifying other sexual <<
preferences??...and cannot distinguish the two???...so we accept the muddying of terms..<<< More insults, combined with illogical gibberish

Now you can squeak...<<< I'll give you this one because musket started it.


But maybe if you were to stop trying to insult other posters intelligence, and if you took the time to write coherent sentences, you would get along along better. But I warn you being logical would leave you with far less to say. In the above section you seem to be saying that the term "marriage" should be reserved for procreative, child rearing relationships. But in all of human history it has never been confined to that. Older couples could always remarry. Sterile couples did not have their weddings revoked, etc. If you had just written down your point and looked at it before pressing "send." You may well have thought, "this is horse manure" and found something else to talk about.


25 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM (#3410104)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"...and as far as your accusation of bigotry, you are out of your mind!...but that word IS the 'left wing' refuge when running out of ideas!.."

Bulletin, GoofuS. The same-sex marriage issue is NOT a political issue—neither Left nor Right (although those who oppose it are mainly Right-Wing conservatives). It is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

Also, there ARE main-line Christian churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples (whether the local laws recognize them as "marriage" or not) and have done so! I attend such a church (Lutheran).

Also, GoofuS, I have yet to meet anyone who consistently uses works like "queer" and "fag" as you are wont to do who is NOT a bigot.

That's the liguistic equivalent of refering to a black man by the "N-word"!

Don Firth


25 Sep 12 - 06:19 PM (#3410132)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don, Are you feeling alright??...You are saying it's not a political issue, it's a CIVIL RIGHTS issue?????????????????

..I'm pointing out the biological issue..which has nothing to do with the politics of any of it.....but we've been around this bush before...and let me see..a 'civil rights' issue...hmmm, that's because it is of what RACE, CREED or COLOR????......oh wait...let's re-interpret the law in order to spin a new definition.

How or what people do sexually in not a matter of race, creed or color....AND..as WELL established..it is NOT genetic either.

I have NOT attacked homosexual domestic partnerships on this thread, whatsoever!!!
I have alluded to distinct differences to original spouses and families, and homosexuality, though..and that is merely because there is...like it or not.
I have not attacked marriage to widowed, or or joining families of previous marriages, as alluded....all I've asked for is a word...because 'Words' are sounds or a group of sounds that relate an idea...and the idea of original people starting their own families, from parents who did the same, by conceiving their own offspring, from their own sexual activities, is a different idea, than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.
That 'little specialness' which the child often creates, about his parents, having come from those same two parents, would be missing from the equation....I mean if anyone actually gives a damn.

So, do you actually have a point, or just trying to sound like it????

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 06:26 PM (#3410134)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

".and the idea of original people starting their own families, from parents who did the same, by conceiving their own offspring, from their own sexual activities, is a different idea, than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring."

My marriage fits the latter definition. We got married in out forties.

Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?

You are a short sighted stupid bigot and a blow hard.


25 Sep 12 - 06:50 PM (#3410141)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Hey 'Jack the Bright'......what about "..than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.".. don't you understand??

Don't you think that if you were rearing your OWN offspring, between you, that it might just have a 'slight' effect on your own pair-bonding???
I never brought up the homosexual issue about it...and BTW, it DOES effect the relationship....I mean can you imagine how your family dynamics would change if you had a couple of children (young or grown) demanding your time and attentions,away from the things you'd normally have on your priorities??..Throw into the mix, that you and your wife conceived them..maybe even delivered them....and life would be the same, without them?????
So as to your query: "Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?"

I was thinking of asking you the same question...now that you brought it up!

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 07:00 PM (#3410146)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"Hey 'Jack the Bright'......what about "..than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.".. don't you understand??"


I understand it very well. That is MY MARRIAGE you stupid asshole. I just said so. Go fuck yourself you arrogant idiot.


25 Sep 12 - 07:01 PM (#3410147)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

GoofuS: "....AND..as WELL established..it is NOT genetic either."

That has NOT been established AT ALL. In fact, geneticists are pretty well agreed that there is a major genetic component to the issue.

Remembering what you let slip in another thread a couple of years ago, I am aware of why you want to BELIEVE sexual orientation is a matter of choice rather than a matter of genetics.

You're afraid. Which is why you're so rabid on this subject!

Don Firth


25 Sep 12 - 07:08 PM (#3410149)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

It is rabid on pretty much every subject. It appears as though that it is often rabid before it reads other people's posts and thus does not comprehend them.


25 Sep 12 - 07:32 PM (#3410157)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don: "..That has NOT been established AT ALL. In fact, geneticists are pretty well agreed that there is a major genetic component to the issue."

In theory....but without conclusive evidence..it's only a theory...perhaps borne of wishful thinking??
No gene, Ol' Bucko!

Until then, I'm sticking to the greater probability of 'receptors'.

And poor Jack, "I understand it very well. That is MY MARRIAGE you stupid asshole. I just said so. Go fuck yourself you arrogant idiot."

...and I posed the question back to you, that don't you think if you had children between you, that it might just affect the 'family dynamic'??
..or is it the thought of it that outrages you into a frothing idiot?
See, if you look back...wait, I'll cut and paste your post.....

Here:
"My marriage fits the latter definition. We got married in out forties.
Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?
You are a short sighted stupid bigot and a blow hard."

So, what you are saying, is that because I accurately described your present marriage, that makes me a short sighted bigot and a blowhard'?????

Wow!! That marriage must be more fun than shaving your head with a cheese grater, while chewing tin foil!!!

GfS


25 Sep 12 - 07:44 PM (#3410163)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

You're raving, Goofus! You've been busted!

You're terrified of coming out of the closet--especially to yourself!

Don Firth


25 Sep 12 - 08:48 PM (#3410189)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

I think MY brilliant analysis of the linguistic issue is being pointedly ignored.


25 Sep 12 - 09:11 PM (#3410197)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Far from it! We all recognize you as a cunning linguist.


25 Sep 12 - 10:24 PM (#3410212)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

READ this one JACKASS.


You are saying that childless marriage is not marriage.

I am saying that my wife and I have no children and we are just as married as anyone else.

We are just as pair bonded as anyone else. And what kind of idiot are you for bringing that up? Here is some news. Lots of male/female parents get divorced while they are raising their kids. That means that the special pair bonding you are talking about only exists in your tiny insulting blowhard head.

Read your posts before you hit "Submit Message". You make about as much sense a chimp randomly banging a keyboard. Filter yourself. You jackass.


26 Sep 12 - 12:52 AM (#3410258)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

OKAY, radical idiots.....:

Jack the Jack-Ass: "You are saying that childless marriage is not marriage."

I never said that..YOU DID!...I just asked for a word to describe a union comprised of original parents with their own children....and you are having a hard time conceiving of the notion!

TIA: "We all recognize you as a cunning linguist."

Eat your own heart out!

Bil D: "I think MY brilliant analysis of the linguistic issue is being pointedly ignored."

...and what again was that?? It wasn't very well articulated.

Don Froth: "You're raving, Goofus! You've been busted!
You're terrified of coming out of the closet--especially to yourself!"

Busted for what??...That certain ideological morons in here with big fat opinions, cannot think of a word, to describe a first time original family?????????????........and I'm terrified of coming out of the closet to myself??????.....You've REALLY outdone even your own 'clown factor' this time, 'Mr. Activist'...How about activating your brain, into reality?????

This is so much frothing nonsense, you all should be embarrassed to sign your names to it!

GfS!


26 Sep 12 - 01:59 AM (#3410276)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

You know exactly what I'm talking about, Goofus.

And everybody else here knows what your hang-up is as well.

Don Firth


26 Sep 12 - 02:56 AM (#3410284)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Are you trying to program everyone else, AGAIN with your asinine assertions??? Do you REALLY think EVERY one is as dumb and stupid, as it takes for you to pull this shit...AGAIN????
Give it up!..You know as well as I, and anyone else who has ANY objectivity, that you are just up to your old games...of misquoting then commenting on your misquotes!..and misinterpretations, of things NEVER said!!!

Now, if you have a question on homosexual marriage, stick to your questions...if you have NO questions, then I guess you are an expert...and we all know that is a bunch of shit!...because you've been far too wrong, too many times!!

GfS


26 Sep 12 - 02:59 AM (#3410285)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Hello sailor!

Here. You let him off with one of his comments on the basis I started it.

You also once had a pop at me for Hurling insults.

Nice to see you have found your own limit to what you will read before exploding! I for once am in total agreement with you. He is seeming to fit your description of him perfectly.

I too was annoyed with his distinctions as like you, I married (second time lucky in my case) in my forties with no intention of having children. Hence his wanting to label me as different to my first marriage is rather obscene really.

Who knows, give it a year or so and there might be another debate with you broadly supporting the same as I do on a particular subject.

In the meantime, I'll sign off now to allow the goofer to squeak.


26 Sep 12 - 05:17 AM (#3410313)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Did you have children from your first marriage??
..and your ASSUMPTIONS of wanting to 'label' you as anything, is just an empty assumption.
For that same reason, the cat seems to have everyone's tongue...
Just think, if I threw a 'label' at you, then you'd have a reason to bitch...until then, a lot of you just appear to be plain stupid, fearful and dishonest.

Think about it...

GfS


26 Sep 12 - 07:48 AM (#3410363)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Yeah, goofy, everyone is stupid except for you. That's it. :-)
If you look around the card table and can't spot the sucker its you.

Also, if you look around a forum and everyone is crazy and stupid but you, it is you.

Its you, Get it? You are the frantic one. You are the stupid one. You are the one that hits "Submit Message" without understanding your own posts.

It is you.

understand?

You.

"Here. You let him off with one of his comments on the basis I started it."

I was trying to make a point about why everyone is convinced that GfS is a boorish idiot. No one is going to fault him for bantering with you. But the rest of that stuff. Pretty good evidence of astoundingly poor social awareness. All I can say is that he appears to have made 6590 posts without expressing a single coherent thought.


26 Sep 12 - 09:57 AM (#3410430)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Idiot. You can't even tell that my pun was intended for BillD, not you. It's not all about you you know. Although you try desperately to make it so with all of your pathetic verbal flailing.


26 Sep 12 - 10:06 AM (#3410434)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

OK, you win. Let's go along with that..

You are saying then that my first marriage needs a different word to describe it than my second?

Why?

Just out of interest, I call it my marriage. I called my first attempt my marriage. The many differences include where we live, the restaurants we use, the cars we drive, the places we go on holiday, new friends, blah blah. The differences also include the fact that we had children in my first marriage as that was our intention. My second marriage hasn't, and that too was part of our plan.

If we accidentally had children, would we, and I repeat, need a new marriage certificate to denote the new term?

If it wasn't for the Mudelves, I would call you a disgusting pathetic, homophobic, covered in pondweed ... But they would not publish my post, so best not then.


26 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM (#3410445)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

I think I've come up with a way to make it possible for us to deny gay people the right to marry without running afoul of the equal treatment clause in the Constitution. All we have to do is remove any and all marriage benefits for everyone, including the right to be consulted and/or present during a medical emergency or death. No tax breaks, no assumption of common property, no family prices to get into National Parks. I think it will be an easy sell to the current crop of Republicans, since it fits in so well with their stated philosophy: we all ought to be completely on our own.

I know it's a waste of time to try to talk to GfS, but just in case he has one of his rare moments of coherence, here's a question:

GfS, please ignore, for the moment, definitions, health issues, your concept of normality, and everything else that goes on in your head. This is a straight-ahead, yes-or-no Constitutional question. Do you think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else?


26 Sep 12 - 10:34 AM (#3410456)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Musket, first of all, Thank You...your post was straight ahead,...and no, I don't think that they need different names...It is the supposition of all the fanatics that think that I'm trying to get people to draw a line, by asking the question that I did. That's their problem, not mine.
Did you find in your first marriage a different 'feeling' and 'motivation' than the second? I know that when marriages dissolve many people have the 'need' to have another, and some do not. In any event, going into a second has different trepidations than the first, which often was more 'innocent'. I don't know your exact situation, so I wouldn't venture a guess....but what I can say, is that the second usually has a different set of 'cautions'...as not to repeat the pains of the first...and those pains, I'm sure, affected the children, as well, and for that, I'm sorry for all concerned.
It just seems that for all intended purposes, that only if the first on, with the children could have gone to it's full measure.
I think what I'm getting at, is that one word, or feeling that separates those two experiences apart from each other....as opposed to a 'third. or fourth, or just co-cohabiting with no commitment whatsoever. Also, the pair-bonding that goes on between parents and each other, and that with your children, is in itself a unique experience for all concerned.
Thank you for your response.

GfS


26 Sep 12 - 11:11 AM (#3410466)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks

"A word that describes two people of the opposite sex who wish to live together as man and wife, and bring children into the world, as a result of having sex with each other, and to be raised by the same two people as a family, as opposed to any other 'domestic' situation." Clearly, the plural noun "breeders" meets this requirement. If the individuals involved wish to have a legal or quasi-religious affiliation as well, than they can join the rest of us under the much broader heading of marriage.


26 Sep 12 - 11:37 AM (#3410485)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

That's what I thought artbrooks. After all, in the quote you have repeated, I see no reason why marriage would be necessary in the first place. I know plenty of people who have raised children successfully without getting married.

In promoting marriage by giving the status financial incentives, government only manage to promote the financial rather than the spiritual reasons for marriage.

I suppose religious bodies feel they have some ownership on marriage. The Archbishop of York, someone who despite his eccentric stunts is a deeply thoughtful and for a Bishop, rational man. Even he said that governments cannot make marriage laws because only God can decide what is a marriage. He went down in my estimation for that as I am irreligious so wonder how he has the bare faced cheek to denigrate my marriage too.

I do seem to be defending my own status a bit here, and the thread is about "gay marriage" which as a term should be as obvious as "dark night" or "large double decker bus."


26 Sep 12 - 11:41 AM (#3410487)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks

Substitute "inter-racial" for "gay", and this becomes a subject that most of us hoped we had put behind us decades ago.


26 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM (#3410642)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Misquoting you, Goofus? I don't think so.

For the enlightenment and education of all, shall I post a link to the post on that thread of some time ago where you inadvertantly revealed the REAL nature of your hang-up?

Keep it up, Goofus, and I'll blow your cover wide open.

Don Firth


27 Sep 12 - 05:12 PM (#3411056)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley

Gone very quiet, hasn't it ?


27 Sep 12 - 05:48 PM (#3411075)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Conversing with parrots soon becomes boring.


27 Sep 12 - 07:09 PM (#3411107)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Y'Art!... "Substitute "inter-racial" for "gay", and this becomes a subject that most of us hoped we had put behind us decades ago."

There ya go.


27 Sep 12 - 07:18 PM (#3411115)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Oh, come now: ya don't have a choice as to your racial identity, but everyone except people brainwashed with thatthere liberal agenda knows that "gay" is a sick, unnatural choice that some guys make because they weren't parented right.


27 Sep 12 - 09:15 PM (#3411152)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

I remember well the day I decided to be heterosexual. I was thirteen, and this girl at school suddenly became the only thing I could think about, specifically about kissing her and . . . stuff . . . that I didn't really know anything about yet. I remember thinking, "Gosh, I could be a homosexual if I want. I wonder if I should? I could try to kiss a boy . . ." And then, of couse, I decided to go ahead and like girls after all. I'm sure everyone remembers that moment when you decided what you will be turned on by. Fond memories . . .


27 Sep 12 - 09:43 PM (#3411164)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

It happened kind of early for me. I had a good buddy who lived across the street. One day I crossed the street to see him. It turned out that he wasn't home, but his younger sister was there. We stood on the front porch and chatted for quite some time. Turned out I decided she was as cute as a bug's ear and she seemed to think I was kinda neat. I'd take her for rides in my little red wagon.

I was nine. She was also nine, but a couple of months younger than me.

So I decided that I wanted to be a heterosexual. I pulled out the questionnaire and checked the appropriate box. Been hetero ever since.

Don Firth

P. S. She WAS a cutey!!


27 Sep 12 - 09:45 PM (#3411165)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

And get this! I was living in California at the time!

Don Firth


28 Sep 12 - 02:37 AM (#3411220)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I remember the day I found out I was heterosexual.

The doctor told me if I didn't follow a "straight" path, the alternative would make my eyes water.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

I often wonder why some people are so quick to question the lifestyle of others. I do all the time. I question the lifestyle of burglars, fraudsters, gangsters etc. Mainly on the basis that I could be affected by what they do if I were unfortunate enough.

But questioning a choice that has no effect on me, driving lifestyle underground until gay relationships are frowned upon by society's sheep, leading to fractious and therefore short term relationships which leads to promiscuity which leads to public health issues which can affect us all?

There you go goofus and Akenhateon, there's your excuse to hate. Unfortunately it also shows the responsibility your odious views have in creating the rare but real concerns.

Just think, gay marriage and stability could neuter your somewhat irrational fears!


28 Sep 12 - 04:59 AM (#3411252)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Homosexual "marriage" does not seem to have altered the abysmal health figures for MSM. They continue to rise steadily...but I suppose that doesn't concern you very much?

How high must hiv rates go before you understand that there is a problem that "equality" cannot fix?


28 Sep 12 - 05:53 AM (#3411266)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

The dropping figures (HPA) are a cause for celebration.

They need to go a hell of a lot higher before I stop celebrating the low figures in homosexual people. Now, the slight rise in heterosexual women is a cause for concern.

"But I suppose that doesn't concern you very much."



Mow many statistics will you twist till they suit your views? I say "views" as we are debating in polite company. I thought views like yours could have been consigned to history. I feel a Godwin moment coming on. (If you get a pair of calipers to measure people's noses, you might be able to check to see if they are gay? or is that Jews? I get confused when people are concerned that not everybody has their lifestyle.)

Or at least the lifestyle they say they have...


28 Sep 12 - 06:04 AM (#3411272)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

Asserting that homosexual marriage and public health are equivalent is willful ignorance. It is just not fact.

Ake, do you have anything musically folk, or folkly musical to share with us? Or is this just a playground for you to "share" your pathological fear of people who do not share your (presumably) perfect sexuality? Just wondering.

Saul


28 Sep 12 - 06:44 AM (#3411284)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

'Homosexual "marriage" does not seem to have altered the abysmal health figures for MSM.'




Homosexual marriage is still repressed in the vast majority of locales because of assholes like you, so how can this be a valid argument?

"MSM promiscuity is a risk factor for HIV, therefore we should vehemently oppose an institution that supports monogamy, awwwwk, Akenaton wants a cracker, awk."

Wow you're right...it does get boring.


28 Sep 12 - 07:25 AM (#3411305)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

It all seems nasty to me. Nasty.
(:-( o)=


28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM (#3411431)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with "marriage"

The people who want it are the same people who want nothing done about the exploitation of our children and who see any discussion of the immigration issue as "racism"
They of the wooly minded silencers of "liberalism".


28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM (#3411432)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

What seems nasty? Homophobia, pointing at homophobes and laughing at them or gay marriage???

This thread has the lot. I know because I purposely cause some of it!

Akenaton seems to not like a gay lifestyle, whilst the more correctly spelled Akhenaton had gay lovers, (or that hieroglyph had the bloke upside-down and was misinterpreted....)


28 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM (#3411448)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I think Akhenaton had rather too many children to be a homosexual.

He was I believe, a bit of a family man, as he is often depicted amongst his wife and children.

Had he been a homosexual, I would still have admired his vision.


28 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM (#3411452)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with "marriage"

Wow,,,and you did this survey where?


28 Sep 12 - 02:22 PM (#3411459)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Just research any of the take up rates.....no survey.
They've had homosexual marriage for nearly fifteen years in Denmark.

Take up rates a low and "marriages" are of much shorter duration than hetero.

But I've already posted that on other threads ....why do you keep repeating the question?


28 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM (#3411488)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

In the UK the proportion of the population getting married has fallen by a third since 1981. Perhaps we'd better stop heterosexuals marrying too as it's not very popular.

The issue is not whether you approve of homosexuality. In a fair society you don't deny someone rights just because you don't like them. We are not even discussing what those rights should be, because they already exist under the name civil partnership. The debate is just over what to call them.

Marriage in this context is an arrangement under civil law which gives couples certain rights and obligations over and towards each other. I don't see the objectors suggesting that we need different words to describe a lease, a mortgage or other legal arrangements by same-sex couples. Could someone please provide me with a reasoned argument, without resorting to abuse, why we should need a different name for marriage?


28 Sep 12 - 04:09 PM (#3411495)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake says, "Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with 'marriage.'"

Patently untrue.

And, as usual, Ake cobbles the information in a feeble effort to support his prejudices.

The Danish parliament voted 85-24 to legalize same-sex marriage law on June 15th, 2012!

Hardly enough time to develop any kind of meaningful statistics!

I know at least four couples, three male couples, one female couple, who have been in stable, monogamous relationships for a number of years—and would like to have all of the legal rights that heterosexual married couples have—but are denied them by people with the same kind of prejudices that Ake spouts.

In the coming November election, a same-sex marriage law is on the ballot for Washington State. Immense amounts of money are pouring into the state in an effort to defeat the measure—mostly from out-of-state religious groups! One of the major groups is Romney's very own Mormon Church.

The same thing happened in California when Proposition 8 repealed the California same-sex marriage law.

Some people are still living in the Dark Ages and are hanging onto their archaic beliefs like Grim Death.

#### By the way:

Ake and Goofus, have this made into a sampler and hang it on your wall, and have it tattooed backwards on your foreheads so that you can read it every time you look in the mirror:

There is a lot more to a marriage than just sex!

Don Firth


28 Sep 12 - 06:37 PM (#3411536)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"The first country at all to introduce a legal recognition of same-sex unions was Denmark in 1989".


28 Sep 12 - 08:35 PM (#3411554)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Most homosexuals are too promiscuous to care about marriage. They'd rather hang out at some Glory Hole.
(:-( o)=


28 Sep 12 - 08:42 PM (#3411556)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Civil unions, yes. But NOT full-fledged marriage.

Fully recognized same-sex MARRIAGE was passed by the Danish parliament on June 15th of THIS YEAR.

Look it up!

Don Firth


28 Sep 12 - 09:05 PM (#3411560)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Are there hetero glory holes?
Lesbian glory holes?
What is it about gay men?
And glory holes?
(:-( O)=


28 Sep 12 - 09:12 PM (#3411561)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Pull your head out of yours, Henry!

Don Firth


28 Sep 12 - 10:16 PM (#3411577)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Glory be!
(:-( o)=


29 Sep 12 - 03:27 AM (#3411616)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Akenhateon would respect Akenhaton "even if" he had gay lovers. Added to "he had too many children to have had gay lovers" we finally get the disgusting old sod to come clean.

His comments are based on prejudice and bigotry. Nailed by his own words.

At least he doesn't have to fabricate conclusions from weird statistics any more as justification of his stance has its own malodour without spewing out bollocks to try and prove decent people are wrong.

I wondered where Harry Enfield got his inspiration for The Self Righteous Brothers from....


29 Sep 12 - 02:49 PM (#3411820)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie

There is a lot more to a marriage than just sex!


29 Sep 12 - 03:14 PM (#3411826)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Yeah, but Hank the Crank doesn't understand that his deplorable comments that ignore the logical inferences involved in that regard may be taken in three ways... either he is an idiot or a troll or both.

Bet ya a dollar Crankle asks me to explain something to him or just shits on me if he can't figure this shit out or just ignores this post altogether or says something really fucking stupid again... oh, wait, strike that last one... that's a given.


29 Sep 12 - 04:29 PM (#3411858)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

Not having been gaily married yet, I feel underqualified to answer any questions about it. ;-)


29 Sep 12 - 06:06 PM (#3411895)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

I never married either. A lawyer said you get married to have children. If you don't plan to have children, there's no point in getting married. And I agree with him.
(:-( ))=


29 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM (#3411901)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

My wife and I married thirty-five years ago. We like children, but we don't have any, and we never really considered it. We thoroughly enjoy each other's company, like the same things and the same people, and we share a lot of interests. And on a number of things, we work together.

Simple. We love each other. Sex, yes. But children? No. That's it.

And as I said above, there's more to marriage than just just sex. Or procreation.

Don Firth


29 Sep 12 - 07:20 PM (#3411923)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Crank... "If you don't plan to have children, there's no point in getting married. And I agree..."

Told yas.


29 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM (#3411926)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

(:-( D)=


29 Sep 12 - 07:59 PM (#3411930)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian ...your last post was jibberish.....see a doctor.

You have the impudence to accuse me of hatred when you post stuff like that......perhaps you are drunk, but even that is no excuse

Calm down and try to get a grip on reality.


29 Sep 12 - 08:28 PM (#3411938)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

200 is enough. Right?


29 Sep 12 - 08:29 PM (#3411940)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Ian? Who the fuck is Ian? And what was his last post or portion thereof that you dis? Please get some internut manners and explain your post as best (sometimes that would take too long but ya gotta fuckin TRY to give us a hint!) you can.

I scanned the last fifty posters names and there ain't no Ian THERE. Maybe some Ian posted but not under the handle Ian (my goggles COULD be fogged up so help me here, eh, ake?)?.


29 Sep 12 - 08:51 PM (#3411944)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Traumatic brain injury? Or just Wet Brain?
gnu? I'm talkin' to you.
(:-( O)=


29 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM (#3411946)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Krinkle, you're incoherent. What the hell are you talking about?

Or--what are you smoking?

Don Firth


29 Sep 12 - 09:01 PM (#3411947)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Here Don. Just for you. And gnu....
Wet Brain


29 Sep 12 - 09:55 PM (#3411960)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Although I can't speak for gnu, he seems pretty together, so I don't think he suffers from that condition.

As for myself, I eat right, get a good balance of vitamins, and as far as alcoholic consumption is concerned, I occasionally have a (one) glass of wine with meals, usually when we have guests, and I do enjoy an occasional cold beer on a hot afternoon.

Korsakoff ("wet brain") Syndrome? Is that what you are suffering from?

That would explain a lot.

Don Firth


29 Sep 12 - 10:57 PM (#3411977)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Musket is Ian Mather.

Krinkle, is a suffering from smartarsemischiefmakerism


29 Sep 12 - 11:43 PM (#3411986)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

I can see any number of good reasons for marrying...whether or not one plans to have children. I can see any number of good reasons for not marrying too. It just depends on the individual and how they look at life, that's all. Some people are made for marriage, some are not.


30 Sep 12 - 04:58 AM (#3412016)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Thanks Jack...nice to see somebody is paying attention.

Its a bit difficult when gnu occasionally asks a civil question.
I don't like to be thought rude.


30 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM (#3412166)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Is there any chance at all that some of you would stop mucking up our discussions by responding to Henry Krinkle, who has never contributed anything except trollery on this forum? I don't blame someone who is a complete asshole for acting like a complete asshole, but when we respond to the assholes we don't have a conversation anymore. I'm really tired of discussions on Mudcat being ruined by otherwise intelligent people responding to trolls. Pretty soon we're spending all our time talking about assholes instead of the subject at hand. JUST SAY NO! Or rather, just say nothing . . .


30 Sep 12 - 02:29 PM (#3412212)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Point taken, John. You're right!

Don Firth


30 Sep 12 - 03:54 PM (#3412242)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Youse cannae help yursells... kin ye?


30 Sep 12 - 04:19 PM (#3412250)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

We always wear a great big smile
We never do look sour
We hang out here at Mudcat
Laughing every hour.
(:-( D)=


30 Sep 12 - 06:48 PM (#3412294)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

But the fact of the matter is, Don, gnu, Bobert, SRS, Jack and several others follow me all around Mudcat like a litter of little puppydogs.
I think they want a treat or their ears scratched or their heads patted.
Good little puppies all.
(:-( ))=


30 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM (#3412297)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

Meanwhile the battle for equal primate rights goes on! When will marriage between Chimps, other apes, monkeys, and Humans be made legal? When, I ask you?

When I'm elected president, that's when! Vote APP in November.

- Chongo


30 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM (#3412310)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

ake... "Thanks Jack...nice to see somebody is paying attention. Its a bit difficult when gnu occasionally asks a civil question. I don't like to be thought rude."

Not everyone reads every post on a thread and not everyone knows there is only ONE (is there?) Ian that you refer to so it is ONLY being polite to EXPLAIN yer post. What is so hard to understand about that that you have to go out of your way, MOST incorrectltly and illogically, to shit on me?

Keep it up trolls. Keep supplying your own rope.

Following you around, Cranky? More like I am trying to shake off a yappy little dog biting my pantlegs. Fact is, yer a toothless little yapper and, yeah, I am kinda fond a you in an odd way. Or, maybe it's more curiousity as to what inane shit you will post next. Like when you simply post troll shit with nothing to do with a thread it seems like you take the inane to a whole other level. It's like when some people can't avert their eyes from a horrible accident. Yeah... you are a horrible accident that I can't take my eyes

So, ake... please do try to be polite (as I do.. read my posts and you might get an idea of how to do so) when you are being such a twit. It's just rude.


01 Oct 12 - 10:28 AM (#3412541)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Good news! California has banned the screwball therapy that purports to turn gay kids straight. They've decided it is child abuse, since it not only doesn't work, but often leads to severe depression and suicide. The therapy has been widely condemned by real therapists. Social "conservatives", of course, are screaming that it is an invasion of the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Article in New York Times


01 Oct 12 - 11:19 AM (#3412570)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

Sounds like a typical California-style controversy, all right. They got poodle psychiatrists there too, don't they?

- Chongo


01 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM (#3412576)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

They can still take them to a minister to pray away the gay.
Thank God.
(:-( ))=


01 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM (#3412579)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

That's Mr Musket to you. (Or Dr Mather, Mr Mather or plain Mather, even that twat for all I care. ).

But calling me Ian infers a familiarity that is just not appropriate. I drink with nice people and drink with idiots. I work with nice people, I work with idiots. I etc etc.

But I draw the line at civility with the appalling individual we know as Akenaton.

When Akenaton sees others lifestyle choices as something to "do something about" I cannot for the life of me begin to take his stance as a debating point. I don't discuss the merits of shitting on a carpet with a puppy. I rub his nose in the stuff till his behaviour reaches an acceptable standard.


01 Oct 12 - 01:49 PM (#3412629)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You should try debating with your puppy Ian, they say everyone finds their own level in debate.

By the way, I dont want to do anything about homosexuality, it seems it will always be with us, but I certainly do want to do something about legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthly lifestyle; to the extreme detriment of the family structure and homosexuals themselves.

I don't advise getting too deeply involved in debate with fido, as intellectual defeat could lower your self esteem even further.


01 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM (#3412632)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

gnu...I dont wish to "shit" on you, or even to be on unfriendly terms, but many of your posts are personally offensive and I find it difficult to start into a conversation with someone who seems to have taken an extreme dislike to me personally.
I have stopped responding to some members, whom I see as either liars, or just not worth the effort...I have never catagorised you as such.

I have friends here who's views differ widely from mine yet, on a personal level I value them greatly.

I am a registered member and am committed to what I post, I would never waste my time for so many years trying to wind people up.

You seem to have a very good understanding of many issues...especially political issues....so what is the problem?


01 Oct 12 - 02:19 PM (#3412637)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

Musket, there's a difference between another person and a puppy. A puppy is a small, helpless creature who is in your care. That means you have control over him and you have the responsibility to train him, thus are in a position of superior power and authority in regards to him.

This is not true of the other people you are talking to on this forum. Accordingly, I don't think your puppy analogy works, nor can it be expected to yield the results you anticipate or desire.


01 Oct 12 - 05:54 PM (#3412716)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Yeah but it works for me.
Although a puppy might have some redeeming features.

After all, every ruddy post, he cannot help himself. Just go up a couple of posts. Lamenting that homosexuality will always be with us. Who the flying fuck are "us"?? Then goes on to show concern about legislation that promotes equality.

Ok running his nose in a shitty carpet isn't perhaps appropriate. But at least we can get a vet to neuter the sod?

In case anybody has lost the plot, this thread is about gay marriage. It invites both sides of a debate, granted. But I am not sure there are two sides to this.

You either see "gay marriage" as a term to describe two gay people making the same sort of commitment as any other couple, or you have views that have no place in decen society. He cannot even hide behind superstition as he claims to be atheist.

I could be quiet. I could let it pass. I could try and agree to disagree.

Acceptance or complacency however just encourages and perpetuates bigotry and hate. Fuck him, I'll point and glare if that's the same to you. Such ignorance and hate brings out the worst in the rest of us, me included.


01 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM (#3412730)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"I could be quiet. I could let it pass. I could try and agree to disagree." .....or you could just be wrong, but you are much too arrogant to even contemplate that.


01 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM (#3412731)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Your arrogance has also caused you to completely miss the point of Little Hawk's post.

Foolish chap.


01 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM (#3412735)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

ake... "but I certainly do want to do something about legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthly lifestyle; to the extreme detriment of the family structure and homosexuals themselves." "so what is the problem??

ake... ABOVE in this post is my problem... YOUR logic. Legislation will not turn YOU or anyone else gay. Don't be afraid. It does not mean YOU have to turn gay.

As for "safe and healthly", well, I guess I just gotta say, what fuckin stone age bullshit is that?

Listen up all and sundry... gay exists... it ain't goin away. The only thing that needs to go away is intolerance and ignorance. Fact is, I don't know ANY gay people (that I know of fer sure... I got some suspicions). But I surely wouldn't treat them any differently than I treat anyone else. Why would I do that? I just ain't a prick, period. I was raised not to be a prick. To treat... nevermind.

And, I GOTTA say it again... them gay parades?... shove em. THAT kinda shit pisses me off BIGtime. Be gay but don't shove it in my face eh? When ya do that yer just another ignorant, intolerant no-mind asshole like the people you rail against. It certainly detracts from everything you wish to gain.


01 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM (#3412745)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

You find it incomprehensible that a fellow atheist (something you apparently very much approve of) could possibly disagree with you about something else than religion, Musket??? ;-) That's funny. Your own post is so redolent of various unconscious forms of unthinking bigotry and rigid stereotyping of other people based on the most superficial assumptions about them, that it doesn't really surprise me that you are so keen on hunting out evidence of bigotry in others.

There's stuff I disagree thoroughly with Akenaton about. There's stuff I agree thoroughly with him about. There's other stuff where we might partially agree and partially disagree. I have learned, through long experience, that one cannot instantly categorize a person's relative worth/intelligence/morality/fundamental beliefs or anything else based on his opinion about just one of the world's many contentious issues.

If you were to read everything Akenaton has spoken about on this forum in the last few years...rather just confining your attentions strictly to his comments about gay rights issues and legislation regarding same...you would soon find out that he is not the vicious homophobic monster who haunts your particular anxiety closet. You probably agree with him about a great many other things in life. Just not THIS particular thing. And you don't begin to comprehend why he has the opinions he does. You don't wish to even try. You want to either "save" him (by making him change his views), intimidate him into silence, or condemn him eternally amongst the circle of your peers as an antisocial bigot (which means, reduce his value to a zero quotient in the eyes of yourself and others).

He's much more complicated a person than you imagine. I find it hilarious that you are confounded by the fact that he is an atheist, and that...

"He cannot even hide behind superstition as he claims to be atheist."

You were expecting him to be a Christian fundamentalist? Well, too bad. He doesn't fit that stereotype at all. "claims" to be?????? His atheism is dead obvious if you bothered to pay any attention to the stuff he's been posting here for years and years.

Nope. He's not the stereotypical gay-bashing monster that you imagine in your mind. Not even close. You've pigeon-holed a bird here that is not even a pigeon in the first place.

Remember: When one is on a witch hunt, what does one find? A witch! Every time. And then one burns the witch.

My suggestion is not to go on a witchhunt in the first place, because the probability is that there is, in fact, no witch for you to find here. There are just other people here, people as complicated and multidimensional and unstereotypical and unpredictable and unique and idealistic as you yourself are. If you treat them with the respect you'd like them to treat you with...it might eventually be possible to get to know them AS real people, rather than as "political enemy" stereotypes.

There are certain things I'll never agree with Akenaton about. So what? I could say that about almost anyone. It doesn't change the fact that he also has many good qualities and useful thoughts to offer.


01 Oct 12 - 07:15 PM (#3412748)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

Anybody who, in this day and age, calls homosexuality a lifestyle is seriously out of touch with reality and, I submit, would benefit greatly by doing some research into the subject.


01 Oct 12 - 07:17 PM (#3412750)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Hmmmm No need to thank me ake, I was just telling Gnu what he had no good reason to know. Not everyone pays as much attention to Mather as you do.

As for the "puppy" analogy, think of the Mudcat at a multi-seat outhouse. People sit and shoot the shit. Some disagree like Ake and he who must not be called Ian, but that is cool. Its the dirty little yappy poodle which chooses to occupy the basement and bark up at people's butts occasionally swallowing someone else's turd that makes this place the delight that it is.


01 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM (#3412754)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Hear!!!!Hear!!!!
(:-( 0)=


01 Oct 12 - 10:44 PM (#3412849)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

He's not the stereotypical gay-bashing monster that you imagine in your mind.

Who cares? I know that Akenaton is intelligent and writes with depth and subtlety on other subjects, but a gay basher is a gay basher. I don't really care what causes a person to be so perverted. I can't speak to what's going on in his head. On this forum, in this thread, he's a gay basher. A pervert. A person who wants to have something to say about what other people do in bed. A person who wants to deny civil rights to a large group of other people. A person who ignores all facts on the subject. A person who won't and can't defend his perversion with any form of facts or logic. A person who reads health statistics and thinks they mean that other people should be second class citizens.

And you know what, Little Hawk? People who defend bigots are almost as bad. Maybe even worse in some ways -- you're supposed to know better. You should consider getting your head out of your ass on this subject. Some of us have gotten to the point where we stand up to hate speech and call it what it is. We're tired of playing nice with bigots, and they don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. If they weren't passing laws I wouldn't pay them any attention, but that's not the case. Akenaton and all the other bigots want to make other people illegal because of who they get turned on by, which means it has an immediate and large impact on me and the society I live in.

If Akenaton was on this forum going on about how black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people because that would be the ruination of society, would you be defending him? What's the difference between that and what he's doing with gay people?


02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM (#3412895)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Little hawk is the best example of real liberalism that we are likely to encounter here or anywhere else.
You and perhaps three others here are closed minded ranters who do not deserve to be on the same page as him.


There are many questions concerning the effects on society of the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy...there are many questions regarding the re-definition of marriage, both religious and secular, but to some people it all boils down to one word, equality.

This word requires to be examined and its true meaning determined.
Does it mean rights for all regardless of how we behave and how our behaviour affects society and ourselves?


02 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM (#3412911)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Should pedophiles be permitted to marry children because they get them turned on?
Homosexuality is deviant behaviour. Plain and simple.
(:-( o)=


02 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM (#3412920)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

And you have such a pottie mouth, Jack. Did you pick that up from the other sailors scow? What would your mum think?
(:-( o)=


02 Oct 12 - 05:06 AM (#3412921)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

See?

Littlehawk, your logic is without doubt commendable and on many subjects, I would wonder who this self opinionated prick is? I am not typing as in conversation though. I am not being Ian, "Musket", "well hung stud" or any other name I regularly answer to.

I am making a point and making a point isn't connected with putting two sides over, it is pushing said point. My point is that society shall forever debate subjects such as gay marriage, mixed race marriage, women priest and dare I say it, people with learning disabilities being in love, whilst ever there are those who look down on lifestyles and social norms that are different to their preconceived views. (Getting bored with saying bigot, I am describing it instead.). All those subjects have been debated at political party conferences here in The UK over the last few years. In years to come, those of us still around may wish to hang our heads in shame if we didn't speak out about the absurdity of debating where society should be accepting without condition. It isn't about having a different view, it is about the global accepting everybody as an equal. That is the start of debate, not the result.

But where people question how others live, it is up to them to question their own views, not for decent society to lower its moral outlook to accommodate them. If Akenaton has a problem with gay relationships, fine. But his insistence on quoting lies and propaganda to justify his position is not nice, not clever and frankly, bordering on disturbing.

I'll happily debate why people have issues accepting ideals that had not hitherto been accepted. I can even on occasion see the perpetrator of crime as a victim nonetheless. But in this day and age, debating gay marriage is about trying to understand why the likes of Akenaton have such extreme views rather than trying to find common ground with the bugger.

By saying what you just did, and backed up by Jack The Sailor waking up and typing, all it has done has, from his last post, is make him feel that his views are worthy of consideration. All views are I suppose, but that's why we have people trained in dealing with personality disorder and to be honest, in trying to understand his stance, that's about as far as my regard for him can go on this subject.


02 Oct 12 - 10:29 AM (#3413038)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Mister Lather! I haven't backed up Ake's views, If that is what you were saying. All I said is that you and he disagree. I did mock the little name game that you were playing. But only because it is childish and stupid for you to whine and complain about about being called your own name.


02 Oct 12 - 04:57 PM (#3413266)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Crank... "Homosexuality is deviant behaviour. Plain and simple."

???

Your behaviour is deviant, intolerant and disgusting. You are seriously fucked up. Unless you are just being a troll and then it's worse.


02 Oct 12 - 05:41 PM (#3413282)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

In my opinion, for what it's worth, two guys going at each other anally is just nasty and gross. Creepy too.
(:-( o)=


02 Oct 12 - 05:44 PM (#3413283)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Please don't feed the poop poodle any more turdy treats.


02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM (#3413290)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

There you go again, Jack. Pottie mouth.
Your Mum would be mortified to hear her little boy talk like that. Mortified.
(:-( O)=


02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM (#3413291)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

I'll try not to do so, JtS. But, if it barks something intelligent or funny, should I still ignore it or am I allowed to compliment it?

Hahahahaaa... just shittn ya, buddy. Like that is gonna happen very often. Hehehehee... minds me of the line from the old song, "Hank, why do you crank the way you do?" >;-D

Anyway, I really don't care about anyone's sexuality within the confines of respectful behaviour and the topic has been done to death so... gnightgnu.


02 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM (#3413292)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Trudeau was right about one thing. "The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."


02 Oct 12 - 09:06 PM (#3413380)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA (wearing Akenaton's hat)

From the CDC:

"In 2009, black women accounted for 30% of the estimated new HIV infections among all blacks. Most (85%) black women with HIV acquired HIV through heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women was more than 15 times as high as the rate for white women, and more than three times as high as that of Latina women." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/)

Those of you who support legal marriage for black women are the real bigots. Don't you care about black women? It is your knee-jerk-liberal support of marriage rights for black women that is leading to the HIV epidemic. If you promote monogamous marriage for black women, it will make black women marrying seem "normal", and that will lead to more black women having sex, and more HIV among black women.

And this is all backed up by CDC statistics.


02 Oct 12 - 09:15 PM (#3413385)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

TIA... I am SO glad I checked back on this thread one more time. Thank you.

That is the best post I have ever read. Bravo!


03 Oct 12 - 02:56 AM (#3413449)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

The CDC statistics use a slightly different population profile to the HPA figures for The UK as you would expect. One similarity though is the alarmingly higher rate (and not exactly falling) amongst heterosexul women.

Part of the commentary in their annual report for 2010/11 (the most up to date I have to ready hand) suggests a drop in gay infection incidence over time that matches increasing c society acceptance as equal stakeholders.

So, both sides of the pond, methinks it is the bigots who need to ask if their odious views drive responsible lifestyle apart?

Hello Sailor! Never said you agreed with him. I may sometimes wonder which planet you are on with some of your more irrational comments on other threads but don't confuse accepting his view with being willing to debate it. Either way just encourages him by giving his position a veneer of respectability.

I don't have any hang up whatsoever with my name. It's Ian Mather. I just changed it to Musket (an old school nickname of dubious origin) when someone involved with the government regulator I advise and carry out work for googled me and found my Mudcat posts. Considering I occasionally send myself up, polarise my views to make a point and generally poke sticks at people to flush out sanctimonious drivel, I wouldn't always stand by every last comment or stance.

If you love me as much as you seem to, you might cut and paste the above in order to denigrate anything I say on any subject in the future you disagree with.

Anyway, you started it ages ago by getting precious over my comments re the geographical location of Dumbfuckistan.


03 Oct 12 - 03:49 AM (#3413460)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)

I dunno. I thought this whole gay liberation thing was something that came out of the '60s sexual liberation/free love movement. Turns out now that all the gays want to do is settle down and get married. Bless.

A couple of women I know have just embarked upon same-sex marriages. I'm as happy for them as I would be for anyone else. Why would you not be?

As it happens, a number of ex-girlfriends of mine have subsequently become lesbians. My take on it is that after me, no man could possibly measure up so really the poor things were left with no alternative.

I'll get me coat.....


03 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM (#3413464)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Tia....you really are a silly girl/guy.

At a rough estimate, how many "Black" women do you think there are in the good old USA?

2/3% of the population(MSM) account for over 70% of new hiv infections.

Dont play with me on figures!


03 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM (#3413488)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Aye, playing with figures is your party piece.

You say that a rabbit is going to appear out of a hat and massage the figures till it pops out, to the joy of your sycophants all sat in a circle clapping.


03 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM (#3413491)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

It seems to me that Akenaton put his finger on the main issues in his post of 02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM. It's a pity he won't debate any of them.

There are many questions concerning the effects on society of the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy...

Monogamous sex, whether hetero or homo, is safe and healthy. Promiscuous sex, hether hetero or homo, is risky. Traditionally, one of the defences against promiscuity has been marriage.

You can't have it both ways: you can't complain that gay promiscuity causes health issues and then object when they want to form stable relationships to avoid it.

there are many questions regarding the re-definition of marriage, both religious and secular...

This is about civil marriage. What the different religions do is up to them.

but to some people it all boils down to one word, equality.

This word requires to be examined and its true meaning determined.
Does it mean rights for all regardless of how we behave and how our behaviour affects society and ourselves?


No, but it should mean equal rights for people who behave the same way. Why shouldn't all people who wish to form stable relationships and have these recognised by the law have the same rights?


03 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM (#3413552)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

No, no, no...please. Let's do play figures!

Like these from UNICEF:

"In Swaziland, as in many African countries, women are the backbone of the communities; they maintain the household, generate income, and shoulder the burden of caring for sick family members. This stabilizing role played by women is fast eroding as the HIV pandemic takes its toll. **Women between the ages of 15 and 49 are reported to constitute more than half of all infections.**" (http://www.unicef.org/swaziland/hiv_aids.html)

Don't you care about Swazi women? If we allow Swazi women to get married it will make sex with Swazi women seem "normal" and exacerbate the HIV epidemic among Swazi women, right?









And BTW, I must agree with you. These are completely silly arguments. (And that is exactly my point....Ouch).


03 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM (#3413763)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Howard....perhaps you haven't noticed, but I have spent years debating the issues that you mention....there have been several very long threads on the issue of homosexual "marriage", in which I notice you have not been a participant.

Perhaps you could find the time to read them before you state that I am unwilling to debate any of them. I have always only been against legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthy practice....It patently is not so.
I have quoted the male homosexual health figures on numerous occasions
The low takeup rates for homosexual union/"marriage"
The fact that homosexual unions/"marriages" in general terms only last a fraction of the time that hetero marriages do etc.

These statistics point to the conclusion that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and indeed the figures for sexual partners are many times higher for male homosexuals than for heteros.

These debates always end with the pro "gay marriage" side falling back to their default position of "but its just not fair".

I have drawn to their attention that other sexual minorities(like those who practice incest) are routinely deprived of rights, even if they agree to be sterilised......but no answer is forthcoming.
The whole sorry charade is media driven.....homosexuals being flavour of the decade.

You mention that marriage would put a brake on homosexual promiscuity, but that is not neccessarily true; I know several married people who are not strictly monogamous......what applies the breaks on masculine predatory sex, is the extended family structure.

Children are the key....in general terms.


03 Oct 12 - 02:28 PM (#3413769)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall

The fact is, homosexual behavior is NOT deviant to them!


03 Oct 12 - 03:18 PM (#3413796)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"masculine predatory sex"

I think this phrase was just used as a synonym for homosexuality.

Wow. Homosexual relationships can't possibly be consensual.


03 Oct 12 - 03:43 PM (#3413807)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

>>>That's Mr Musket to you. (Or Dr Mather, Mr Mather or plain Mather, even that twat for all I care. ).

But calling me Ian infers a familiarity that is just not appropriate. <<<

or

>>> I don't have any hang up whatsoever with my name. <<<

Which of these is true? Please pick one and stick with it. LOL

BTW, You mean "implies" not "infers"


03 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM (#3413825)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri

I can understand that some people will, in any thread mentioning homosexuality, inevitably begin discussing anal sex. I don't know why so many other people join in. I don't know why people like arguing the same shit repeatedly, and often, at length.

You have men who have sex with men, and you have Black women, probably who also had sex with men. I think we can blame men for spreading HIV. If some people blame male homosexuals, it's logical to just blame ALL men.

Personally, blaming either group seems fairly stupid.


03 Oct 12 - 04:28 PM (#3413831)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

It's all your fault.
(:-( ))=


03 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM (#3413838)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow

"masculine predatory sex"

I think this phrase was just used as a synonym for homosexuality.


Pretty evidently it wasn't. Read the first half of the sentence that came from.


03 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM (#3413839)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Tia...I'm sorry, but you come across as being a little dim.

Is this a debating tactic?


03 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM (#3413867)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

Sordid.
(:-( o)=


03 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM (#3413869)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Okay, so are we saying that "promiscuous" and "predatory" are synonyms?


03 Oct 12 - 05:19 PM (#3413873)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

TIA is coming across as bright enough. Your tactics are being reflected back at you. Is it you who is dim?

"what applies the breaks on masculine predatory sex, is the extended family structure."

I don't understand this, do cousins of Gay men go to the bars and tell potential sexual partners that their relatives are "playas?"


03 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM (#3413876)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Haha.
Sorry back atcha good fellow.
Calling someone dim when you run out of rational arguments is definitely a debating tactic.
In fact, there is even an official name for it!


03 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM (#3413878)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You may be saying that, the possibility had not occurred to me.


03 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM (#3413881)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

You are a funny man ake! :-)


03 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM (#3413883)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Mr McGrath seemed to understand nmy meaning well enough?


03 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM (#3413887)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Your meaning is nonsense. If McGrath "understood" nonsense then bully for him.


03 Oct 12 - 05:50 PM (#3413898)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Maybe its the difference in nationalities....Goodnight Jack :0)


03 Oct 12 - 07:06 PM (#3413934)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

ake... "Tia...I'm sorry, but you come across as being a little dim."

UnFUCKINreal. You actually posted that for everyone in the world to read for eternity?

Are you really that brain-dead?

Not that *I* or anyone else who read this thread NEED an answer.


04 Oct 12 - 11:46 AM (#3414253)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Hello Sailor!

You can call me Ian all you like. Akenaton however cannot. It would mean I was comfortable with his familiarity. I am certainly not. When I said I have no hang ups with my name, I was referring to members of the human race as evolved.

I suggest people read his last longer post a few posts above where he explains his stance and view.

I doubt I have anything to add to it. He describes homophobic bigotry so well, you'd think he had inside knowledge of the condition.


04 Oct 12 - 07:05 PM (#3414501)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

You are being pretty childish Musket. If you don't want him to call you "Ian" why don't you be polite and simply ask. "Please don't call me Ian." You are attacking ake personally for honestly and civilly expressed opinions. Banter is fine but it becomes tedious when the other person does not banter back. Half banter is no banter.


05 Oct 12 - 03:07 AM (#3414642)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Hello sailor!

You are obviously far more mature and rational than I am.

He may be putting his views in a civil manner, but the views themselves are far from civil.

As I said before, by trying to be rational in debate with him, you inadvertently give him a veneer of respectability. I try to see other viewpoints on most subjects but where people try to justify despicable bigotry with twisted "facts" rather than good old plain ignorance, I give no quarter. You see, the problem is, he isn't just a fat headed idiot in the pub with a tabloid hangin out of his back pocket. No, he appears to be intelligent. My refusal to even try and see his view is possibly because he would not see reality if it hit him in the gonads. Spouting homophobic views and trying to influence people with lies is not free speech, it is abusing the concept of free speech.


05 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM (#3414647)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

His acting rationally gives his opinions a veneer of respectability. Your attacks and petulance give yours the stench of irrationality. I agree with you for the most part on gay rights but he seems more reasonable. You may think you are calling him names to defend what you believe are rational ideas. But clearly it is not working.


05 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM (#3414740)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Problem is, my seafaring friend..

If we don't attack and denigrate those whom prefer two tier society, we end up with apartheid South Africa, The USA up till recently etc. It was people saying no, there is no place in society for having less rights based on creed, colour, sex etc that started the road to equal society.

I don't have rational ideas. Society does. I am merely reflecting them. If you think he is being reasonable, I suggest you have a good hard think before putting such thoughts in the public domain. I am sure you are a nicer person than that...


05 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM (#3414907)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

If it wasn't so pathetic, I could just about manage a laugh.

What fucking irony.....it's exactly as Little Hawk said!

You're a brave man Jack, to champion the right to express an opinion on this forum. Knowing you for all these years,I would "suggest" that you need no one to tell you how to think!   Ian loves liberty until it conflicts with his version of the truth....I took the time to respond to Howard's invitation, now he has disappeared into the ether;
If my stance is built on lies and bigotry how come no body can point out the lies or bigotry in these pages.

All we ever get is "It's just no' fair mister" and a heap of abuse.


05 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM (#3414934)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

I dont need to. I just read your posts. I am not spouting a truth, not having versions of anything and not putting an opinion versus any other. I am reminding you and others that equality is the reality so why say otherwise? If you don't think equality is the reality, you are not grasping reality and expressing a view of how things should be in your mind. Fine, but opening your mouth or typing upsets people. decent honest people. Just remember that. If a gay Prime Minister made you second class for not being Gay, you might legitimately complain. But till that day, stop celebrating the stigmatising of others.

You are saying that a legitimate lifestyle choice should not be encouraged and then come up with spurious statistics that do not stand up to scrutiny when applied to your hypothesis. I spend time in a professional capacity these days looking at clinical evidence based guidance, as health and social care providers in England are regulated on reflecting such guidance and I cary out inspections and assessments for the regulator. There is nothing nowhere in any UK published guidance that acknowledges a single part of your "they are all promiscuous and spread disease" stance. You and your mates at The Daily M*il exacerbate a problem that should not even be there in the first place.



See? he quotes decent honest contributors such as Little Hawk and Jack the Sailor, and by doing so he feels propagating his version of reality is legitimate.

No fucking surrender. Get back under your stone and on the way, issue an apology to the people living their lives, not interfering with yours, whom will remain stigmatised whilst ever hate speech is entertained by shallow people.

Fuck you.


05 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM (#3414960)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

You know, in all this, er, "discussion," I have yet to see someone say, "A homosexual act harms me because..." and fill in the blank. You may get weirded out by seeing it. Don't look. How many people are unpleasant to look at for any number of reasons? Are they touching you inappropriately? Are they kissing you? Are they enticing you into their "cult?" Of course, not. Unless you are predisposed to being enticed. And aren't you free to be enticed into whatever cult you choose?

No, through all the arguments I have heard or read, I have yet to hear someone state exactly how they are hurt by a homosexual act. Alright, I can hear you sharpening your swords. No, this doesn't include minors, the mentally handicapped, or people whose minds are chemically diminished. And it does not include force or any form of coercion. These are the same terms that apply to heterosexual sex, and they are quite reasonable. So don't try to "red herring" this one by using children or animals, or any other absurdity. You know exactly who I am talking about and what the parameters are. So...How are you harmed?

Saul


05 Oct 12 - 03:13 PM (#3415004)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

I wish we could discuss morose marriage in depth for a change. ;-) After all, it's a lot more common than gay marriage.

Musket - You still seem surprised by the fact that Akenaton is an intelligent person. And not a religious fanatic. And not a rightwinger. And not a drooling yobbo covered in swastika tattoos.   Gosh! What a surprise! You'd be even more surprised if you read many things he's posted here about other subjects than this particular one, and discovered that he's got many other good qualities too, and is quite politically progressive in a number of respects, and totally opposed to, for example, the Religious Right in the USA. I don't think you comprehend his position on gay-related issues...nor why he takes that position. It's not that he hates gays. It's not that he wishes to persecute gays.

There's no reason why Akenaton should not have "a veneer of respectability" on this forum. He is a respectable person.

Your desire to categorize him as a "bigot" reminds me of how some people will characterize anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government about anything as an "anti-semite"....or anyone who objects to something Obama has done during his presidency as a "racist"...or anyone who criticizes anything Hillary Clinton does as a "woman-hater", "sexist", etc.

It's similar to the Inquisition labelling someone whose opinions they didn't like a "witch". The accusation, once made, cannot be disproven to the one who hurled it. This doesn't make it true.

saulgoldie - I've never felt that any homosexual act harmed or threatened me, and I couldn't care less about other people's wish to engage in same, if that's their choice. Nor to marry if they want to. I simply don't care one way or the other. It's a non-issue to me. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even object to someone marrying their dog...as long as it was clear that the dog was in agreement with the arrangement. ;-) If they could find a church to sanctify the arrangement, I wouldn't mind that either. Their choice, not mine...cos it's their life, not mine.

What I do object to is cynical politicians using certain highly emotional wedge issues to divide and conquer the public by continually harping on those issues in an exaggerated fashion and setting people against each other. And that's what's been going on around gay rights for quite some time now, as well as around a number of other "hot button" issues that get people all worked up. It's calculated. It's manipulative. It gets far more media attention than it deserves...and that was the plan all along.


05 Oct 12 - 06:56 PM (#3415112)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian....I have said it before and I say it again,you are becoming irrational.
" I am reminding you and others that equality is the reality so why say otherwise? If you don't think equality is the reality, you are not grasping reality and expressing a view of how things should be in your mind."......Do you know what these words convey to me?   The rantings of a religious fundamentalist....isn't that ironic?

"I spend time in a professional capacity these days looking at clinical evidence based guidance, as health and social care providers in England are regulated on reflecting such guidance and I cary out inspections and assessments for the regulator."

If the above is true, I fear for the National Health Service, and the poor souls who are the subject of your "inspections and assessments" ...I "suggest" that you see a doctor.

Saul...trail your red herring somewhere else, we are discussing bad legislation here, not whether we can be "harmed" by the sexual behaviour of others.
One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour.

Now unless Howard returns from the outer reaches, I shall draw a line under this. Thank you to the good men and few, who were prepared to stand up to the Fascism of the "silencers". Good night and may Aton protect you.


05 Oct 12 - 07:19 PM (#3415122)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

"One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour."

As are many heterosexuals harmed by their sexual behaviour - it is their behaviour that is causing the harm, not their sexual orientation. Why is that so hard for you to accept?


05 Oct 12 - 11:08 PM (#3415227)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

LH: Your desire to categorize him as a "bigot" reminds me of how some people will characterize anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government about anything as an "anti-semite".

Sorry, Little Hawk, that's a really, really bad analogy. In fact, it demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you want it to. It is demonstrably true that many people who disagree with the Israeli government are not anti-Semites. Those who say otherwise are ignorant boobs who make assumptions about other people based on their membership in a group. On the other hand, it is demonstrably true that, both legally and ethically, gay people should enjoy the same civil rights as everyone else. People who say otherwise are ignorant boobs who make assumptions about people based on their membership in a group. So the people you are defending in the first part of the above quote are just like the people you are castigating in the second part.

You say you don't care about civil rights. I'm so sorry for you.


06 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM (#3415274)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Yeah Littlehawk. Pointing out where others may agree with him on othe matters makes his stance on homosexuality ok. The Kray twins loved their old mum. [insert other examples of "surely can't be that bad"]

Ok I'm a fundamental lunatic who it isn't worth debating with because I am so far up my own arse I refuse to consider the merits of hating a broad section of society based on their choices in love and companionship.

I'm comfortable with that.

I'm reminded of Arlo Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant having to discuss father rape And all kind of groovy things, based on those he was sitting on the bench with.

This thread is about gay marriage. Everybody seemed to be discussing gay marriage till he came on board with his well worn prejudice and hate. I don't frankly care that he may have views on subjects that may resonate with mine. I don't care that he may disagree with a stance of mine on a subject that could make me think and alter my view. (I have altered my view on many subjects through being informed by debate, contrary to what you say.) But acknowledging bigoted hate is too big a price to pay to pretend to look reasonable. I'd rather be seen as forthright and stubborn.

Bigotry is a term banded around to describe anybody who disagrees with you. However if you wish to see it in pure dictionary form, try to imagine yourself as a gay person reading his diatribe. In fact don't try to put yourself in other's shoes, read them as the reasonable person you undoubtably are.



Sorry if I refuse to see the merit in encouraging him.


06 Oct 12 - 04:21 AM (#3415282)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

Whether or not the law catches up, society is moving on. People are increasingly talking of gay couples being "married" - "civil partnered" is too cumbersome and somehow too impersonal. I have noticed that reports of one of police officers killed in Manchester have referred to her intended civil partnership and how she was enjoying planning her wedding - the word wasn't enclosed in quotes or used ironically, and I suspect the papers were simply reporting the words used by her friends and colleagues.

I suspect for most people it isn't an issue. For those for whom it is an issue, the issue is homosexuality rather than marriage.


06 Oct 12 - 08:07 AM (#3415328)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Ian Musket Mather Blather. Look below to see what a reasonable argument looks like.

>>>"One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour."

As are many heterosexuals harmed by their sexual behaviour - it is their behaviour that is causing the harm, not their sexual orientation.<<<


06 Oct 12 - 08:10 AM (#3415329)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Howard...Homosexuality has been with us for ever....it is not an issue as you say, it is a fact of life,as are various other minority sexual practices.

However, legislation to promote homosexual practice as "safe and healthy", certainly is an issue; and although "most people" on Mudcat or in certain sections of Western society may support such legislation, "most people" where I live are against the re-definition of marriage to accomodate a sexual minority no matter how powerful or well represented they may be politically.


In the UK, all "rights" are contained within the Civil Union legislation......Tho' taking the very poor civil union rates into consideration, I reiterate my view that homosexuality and monogamy go together like chalk and cheese.


06 Oct 12 - 08:36 AM (#3415341)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

That is a weak argument. As I understand it, marriage rates in the UK are at historic lows. It does not logically follow that mixed sex couples should not be allowed to marry.


06 Oct 12 - 09:19 AM (#3415351)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie

Ake, you didn't even pretend to address what I said. OK, let me rephrase it. Exactly how are you harmed if two adults of sound mind and clarity of thought and free from coercion get married?

If someone steals from you, they have caused you material harm. If someone punches you, they have caused you bodily harm. If two people get married, you are harmed exactly how? Remember, no animals, minors, force, or people of diminished mental capacity. They are all red herrings, and you know it. And...go.

Saul


06 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM (#3415370)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Saul, my stance is that homosexuality is an unhealthy practice and should not be promoted as "safe and healthy" by legislation to make it part of mainstream society, in the same way as we presently proscribe people who practice incest.
I dont understand what you mean about homosexuals "harming" me personally. Of course most of the "harm" is done to male homosexuals themselves, by their generally hedonistic lifestyle.

As far as the general public are concerned, it is the "institution" of marriage and the family structure which many see as being harmed by re-definition to include to people who were never intended to reproduce....in the the eyes of my friends and neighbours here...and indeed the whole country...the marriage template is mother /father/ children/ and extended family.
Should people within that template chose not to reproduce, or sadly, be unable to reproduce for medical reasons, that is fine, but the template remains, and any attempt to alter it weakens the "institution"


06 Oct 12 - 11:42 AM (#3415403)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

"....homosexuality is an unhealthy practice..."

Homosexuality is neither of those things, it is an innate sexual orientation. Anyone, hetero, homo, bi, trans etc. is capable of engaging in unhealthy practices hence, by your logic, it can be said that heterosexuality is an unhealthy practice.


06 Oct 12 - 11:52 AM (#3415411)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"Homosexuality" is not a practice. Unprotected and unsanitary sex are practices which are unhealthy whether it is same or different sex couples or groups that engage. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about a married couple doing their thing.

Guy's and girls give each other diseases. Guys and girls do kinky things. Marriage tends to decrease the risks substantially.


06 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM (#3415435)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

If we are concerned with everything people do that is unhealthy, then we must broaden our list of concerns much more widely than just with homosexuality. How about skydiving, motorcycle riding, getting a tatoo, eating any of a variety of substances that pretend to be called "food," playing soccer, playing cricket (whateverthehell THAT is), doing gymnastics, falling in love, or, or, playing the banjo? How about striking a match? How about talking on cellphones...anywhere??!!! Are we supposed to protect everyone from these by making them illegal, or at least making the participants subject to persecution, ridicule, and deprivation of human rights?

Protecting the institution of marriage? Well, haven't people and our ancestor species been doing something resembling marriage for millenia? No? Well then, how did you get here? And if it is all that strong, why is there so much infidelity and divorce? If the "institution of marriage" is so fragile that it must be "protected" from homosexuals, then it is weak, indeed, and should fall anyway.

Saul


06 Oct 12 - 01:59 PM (#3415493)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

So I take it that a chosen lifestyle is unhealthy.

Ok. Why? You are making a mental leap that all gay people are as you say hedonistic.

This thread is about gay marriage. Sorry if a state of love and mutual desire to settle down as a couple doesn't fit your statement of unhealthy lifestyle. Between my marriages , I had a hell of a time thanks to Internet dating. You could say heterosexual hedonism. I would.

So, and I am trying to be civil here, could you either name something uniquely homosexual that is unhealthy or kindly shut the f... Sorry, I am trying to remain civil.

Here's a statistic for you. Of all rapes on The UK that were reported between 1998 and 2010, over 99% of the victims were women.

Unhealthy hedonistic bastards strike again. Pity they weren't homosexuals eh Ake?


06 Oct 12 - 02:15 PM (#3415501)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"Of all rapes on The UK that were reported between 1998 and 2010, over 99% of the victims were women".

Yep; we need to do something about the western cultural practice of allowing women to go out in public without a male family member to chaperone. Look what allowing this to be accepted as normal and mainstream has led to!


06 Oct 12 - 02:42 PM (#3415518)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"/// should not be promoted as "safe and healthy" by legislation to make it part of mainstream society


Not only is is not "a practice"... it is not "being promoted as healthy"

It is being recognized as one of the several human sexual orientations! What is healthy or UNhealthy is a separate issue.

Sorry Ake, but no one here believes that your concern is merely about health, but is your simply your cover story for a basic 'aversion' to homosexuality. It is not clear whether you have admitted that to yourself, or have really convinced yourself that 'health' is the issue.

You have been asked several times whether *IF* health problems were solved, you'd relent... but you mostly dance around that question.


06 Oct 12 - 05:16 PM (#3415583)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

About those who are overly concerned with what other consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes, I have grave suspicions as to what motivates their concern.

Don Firth


07 Oct 12 - 04:32 AM (#3415753)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Is incest an "innate sexual orientation"?


07 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM (#3415754)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian.....HIV rates in UK/USA.


07 Oct 12 - 04:38 AM (#3415757)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

No. Incest means you are too lazy to go outside of the home where you were raised to find a mate. It is the sexual equivalent of couch potato.


07 Oct 12 - 04:51 AM (#3415761)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Bill... Do you believe that printing your posts in bold script and casting aspertions on my motives, give these posts more gravitas or make them seem more sensible?

If you do, you are sadly mistaken....and will soon find yourself in the company of Don T and Dont F, who are among the inhabitants of the "slightly deranged" Mudcat annex.


07 Oct 12 - 04:56 AM (#3415763)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Hi Jack...what are you doing up a this hour?

I think you are being a bit unfair, it may be genetic.


07 Oct 12 - 06:26 AM (#3415779)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

UK. Falling amongst homosexual men, rising in heterosexual women. Source - Health Protection Agency (HPA) Annual reports, consistent since 2002 to latest publication covering year 2010-11.

That said, the rise is from a baseline of rising in line with population numbers and Townsend deprivation scores.

USA, I don't have any figures to hand, I would have to get them the same as anybody else. UK figures are ready to hand near my desk. Are you saying USA figures, (and there are many USA figures to go by, WHO use an amalgamation of them) are not reflecting a similar picture? I would find that odd if it were.

So, even when being civil and trying to see where you are coming from, the facts fail your prejudice. Even if they did coincide with your preconceived views, the answer does not lie in your second class citizen model.

So perhaps it would be best if I stopped this short excursion into being civil with you. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth anyway.


07 Oct 12 - 07:33 AM (#3415792)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

"Is incest an "innate sexual orientation"?"

Incest is not a sexual orientation it is a sexual deviation.


07 Oct 12 - 09:41 AM (#3415819)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Aren't the two interchangeable?

Doesn't some peoples orientation deviate from the normal path?

Ian. you are clutching at straws.
20% of new hiv cases amongst "black or white heterosexual women is a medical problem.
70% of new cases amongst male homosexuals is an epidemic.
CDC says that in major US cities, 1 in 5 carry the virus.


07 Oct 12 - 09:49 AM (#3415822)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

May 2012 HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men
Fast Facts
•• Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).
•• Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
•• From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the
population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history
of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted
for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an
estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.
The Numbers
New HIV Infections2
•• In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new HIV
infections in the US and 79% of infections among all
newly infected men. Compared with other groups,
MSM accounted for the largest numbers of new HIV
infections in 2009.
•• Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400
(39%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest number
of new infections (3,400) occurred in those aged
40–49.
•• Among all MSM, black/African American MSM
accounted for 10,800 (37%) new HIV infections in
2009. Whereas new HIV infections were relatively
stable among MSM overall from 2006–2009, they
increased 34% among young MSM—an increase
largely due to a 48% increase among young black/
African American MSM aged 13–29.
•• Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for
6,000 (20%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest
percentage of new infections (45%) occurred in those
aged 13–29.
HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths
•• In 2010, in the 46 states with long-term confidential,
name-based reporting, MSM accounted for 78% of
estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13
years and older, and 61% of estimated diagnoses
among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.
•• At the end of 2009, of the estimated 784,701 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810, or 51%, were MSM. About 48%
of MSM living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 30% were black/African American, and 19% were Hispanic/Latino.


07 Oct 12 - 10:36 AM (#3415833)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

From the source quoted by Ian.

"The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence"


07 Oct 12 - 11:31 AM (#3415865)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

The only way for Akenaton to get from health figures (whether or not they are accurate) to legal discrimination is to assume that homosexuality is a choice. This is true both in his desire to discriminate against (punish) gay people and in his stated reason that accepting homosexuality as "normal" will be bad for society. The only way it could be bad for society (if you accept that whole concept) is if it encouraged people to become gay who wouldn't have done so on their own.

Akenaton has never responded to any of the inaccuracies or faulty logic his arguments are based on (which means they aren't real arguments at all), but the issue of choice is the hook that all of his logic, such as it is, hangs on. He thinks, contrary to his own experience, that people choose their sexual orientation.

His bringing the question of religious freedom into the debate is ironic, since religious belief IS a choice and probably should be protected in some way other than by being lumped with race, ethnicity, and gender, which, like homosexuality, people don't choose.


07 Oct 12 - 12:01 PM (#3415878)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

What are the health risks to a couple (of any sexual orientation) in a faithful monogamous relationship?


07 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM (#3415880)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Still confused at this end.

He hasn't mentioned any public health figures from The UK yet still seems to throw the term UK into his diatribe. His USA figures are selective and drill down into groupings where there are clusters and ignores groupings where the picture does not support his preposition.

Funny that.

As he then talks about all homosexual activities being bad for the health of everybody, his prejudice shows through. Why does he use carefully doctored statistics, available on websites of Christian fundamental groups but not anywhere else to make us want to shun sections of society?

He already has Jack the Sailor saying he has the right to try and influence debate on the basis he seems more reasonable than me. What if anybody else was as gullible?

Of course, that is his aim. Why Akenaton? Just why? What gives you the right to copy and paste massaged figures and say"There, that's why we need to hate and discourage lifestyle choices, because thy are all hedonistic irresponsible people", even when all they want is their monogamous marriages to ge recognised as such (remembering what this thread is all about)

John P makes the point that you do not necessarily choose to be gay. However, don't forget that doesn't mean someone isn't comfortable and content with their sexual orientation. Akenaton has cried that this is just down to left wing governments and agencies encouraging them on the basis of political correctness. Well fuck me drunk, I must be right on after all, instead of the filthy rotten capitalist I really am, according to another interesting character on these threads.

Oh, and the legal definition of epidemic; at least get something as simple as that right if you wish to bandy figures. I am no genius and rely on consultant doctors in the field of public health for edipemiology advice, or did when I chaired an NHS body. But even I know what makes an epidemic and selective cluster figures, even if they reflected a larger picture, which they don't, do not mean epidemic. We have gone a long way since the complacency of the mid '80s and accepting a gay lifestyle by the rest of society has been one of the big success stories in combating the health issue by removing the stigma.

Hence Akenaton's stance being so utterly appalling.


07 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM (#3415923)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian, the post referring to the source you quoted(distortedly),

pertains to UK hiv figures....a man in your elevated position should be capable of a little concentration?

Allow me to re-post for the intellectually challenged.

HPA
"The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence"


07 Oct 12 - 03:01 PM (#3415950)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

dan_savage_to_tony_perkins_sure_sue_me


07 Oct 12 - 03:16 PM (#3415958)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

3000 new cases of HIV, out of a UK gay population estimated to be 3.6m, doesn't seem that many to be getting in such a state about. It's considerably fewer than, say the number of new cases of TB (more than 9000 new cases reported in 2011).

But I'll ask the question again, if you're so concerned about the health threats to gays, why are so opposed to allowing them to be monogamous relationships and for these to be fully recognised in law?

By the way, not all gays seeking to get married are male - HIV is almost unheard of amongst non-drug using lesbians.


07 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM (#3415972)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Howard, the latest estimate from HPA(Ian's organisation of choice), is just under 430.000 MSM in the UK and infection rates are rising steadily.


07 Oct 12 - 03:53 PM (#3415974)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall

Smoking is unhealthy, drinking to excess, texting while driving etc. the bottom line is this: Who I marry is none of your f*****G business.

In no way does it threaten traditional marriage. The control freaks are jumping at shadows.


07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM (#3415977)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Howard, you have noticed.

His figure are extremely selective. Not only that, they fail to take into account the statistic I mentioned above. It is a bit like saying they cured cancer tomorrow and the day after, The Daily M*il leading with "Heart disease. Biggest killer"

Tell you what. Let me hypothetically say OK Akenaton, your cluster figures represent the overall picture. After all. I am we'll used to meetings with politicians whom presume tabloid interpretations require action rather than HPA figures.

Even then his solution is not tenable in the 21st century, at least not in polife society.

So do me a favour Akenaton. Don't try to win the figures argument because even if you did, you fall at the hurdle of solution. You can't tell a stakeholder in society that society disapproves of your right to a peaceful private life.

If your (or those whom you get your figures from) figures painted the picture, NHS health promotion budgets would have to be seen to reflect doing something about it. In reality, health promotion is rightly targeting the HIV issues.


07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM (#3415978)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry to double post(pressed the wrong button).

There are approx 9000 cases of TB reported annually in the UK, from a population of 64,000,000.

Please stick to percentages.


07 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM (#3415979)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"Smoking is unhealthy, drinking to excess, texting while driving"

Kendal, you are correct, and all of the above have been criminalised in one way or another in the UK.

Next?


07 Oct 12 - 04:09 PM (#3415984)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian...There are no winners associated with these terrible figures, only losers and most of them are homosexuals.
Of course that is of no importance when set against the survival of "liberal" ideology.


07 Oct 12 - 04:29 PM (#3415990)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Losers occur when society finds excuses to marginalise them.

Liberal ideology is about living together in harmony. Or so I'm told. Wouldn't know, living in my ivory tower.

Using your warped logic, parents over the age of 45 have a marked increase in giving birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome, so let's stigmatise fucking in middle age eh?

Or would that make too many people "liberal" whem they oppose such an idea..

Let's not encourage poor people to have televisions. After all, they'll only use them to watch lowest common denominator daytime telly, thus leaving less budget for high brow programmes for clever important people like you.

Let us not encourage gay people to marry. Obviously, it is better if they are promiscuous hedonistic poofters. That way, it's easier for you to point and blame.

Let us welcome idiots having computers and half a brain. Then we can see the state of society should dangerous idiots have their way. Jack the Sailor appears to have a point after all....


07 Oct 12 - 04:45 PM (#3415994)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian....Homosexuals are many times less "marginalised" today than they were twenty years ago, yet hiv rates are many times higher amongst them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but do not parents of Down's Syndrome pregnancies have the option to abort the feotus?

I never watch television.(hardly ever), I am not "clever", I have had limited education.

Whether you own or merely borrow the computer you use, is none of "my fucking business"


07 Oct 12 - 05:03 PM (#3416008)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"......but do not parents of Down's Syndrome pregnancies have the option to abort the feotus?"

Not if the self-appointed "guardians of morality" and "right to lifers" have their way.

And the same "guardians of morality" would also deny same-sex couples the right to form legally recognized stable relationships, which would be a strong incentive for the reduction of promiscuity.

There is something hypocritical about your claims of concern about the spread of HIV and your opposition to gay marriage, Ake.

There is a fundamental contradition there.

Don Firth


07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM (#3416009)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"There is a fundamental contradition there."

Ahh........but is it "folk"????

Who left the fuckin' gate open?


07 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM (#3416035)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

You're dodging the issue, Ake. And clumsily so.

Don Firth


07 Oct 12 - 09:53 PM (#3416104)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"..printing your posts in bold script and casting aspertions on my motives..."

One was a simple failure to properly do HTML...was meant to be only a couple of words.

The other... ah, the other....I ...and others..still have my doubts about your motives, since you STILL avoid a truly direct question about them. I don't read minds, and I wish this was merely a debate about facts - but people have been disputing your analysis of the relevance of certain statistics for many months, and you still seem to be comfortable with glibly asserting that it is merely 'health' issues that cause you to pursue this reasoning.
Why would anyone NOT cast aspersions on such a superficial analysis? HIV/AIDS is a serious issue, and at one time it was spread 'more' thru homosexual partners, but this is no longer true.

In any case, it has been pointed out that many, many gay people are in long-term, careful, non-promiscious stable relationships...yet you STILL wish to object to them having the same rights as others... and you seem to define attempts to obtain those rights as "promoting an unhealthy lifestyle".
You need to review and reconsider a definition of 'promoting'.


ummm... dare I ask again whether you'd continue to object to homosexuals being married and having rights IF the "health issues" were solved tomorrow?

Check A for yes and B for no:

A.

B.


07 Oct 12 - 10:14 PM (#3416109)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

I came back to see where this million post thread is at and I read...

From:akenaton - PM
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

"There is a fundamental contradition there."

Ahh........but is it "folk"????

Who left the fuckin' gate open?
***************************************************************

Who left the gate open INDEED! Ya gotta be shittin me? I can't tell you how funny that strikes me. I am chuckling consistently. Thanks for the laugh at your own expense.


08 Oct 12 - 09:48 AM (#3416318)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Folks, all the myriad flaws in Akenaton's reasoning have been pointed out to him literally hundreds of times over the last few years. Are you really expecting him to suddenly come up with responses to you? One of the things about bigotry is that there is no defense for it. He doesn't have the answers to your questions because those answers don't exist. Akenaton has, for years, put forth his unethical ideas, been soundly refuted in 100 ways, waited a few days in silence, and then put forth the same ideas again, all without ever having to respond to anyone, other than to tell them they are stupid liberal sheep.

I think he has proved that he's not going to get any better at this. Give up on him. Since his particular form of bigotry is tied in with his sexual orientation, he probably can't help himself.


08 Oct 12 - 11:09 AM (#3416371)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Give up on him."

well... that might be a plan!

I am reminded of a story.

A biology professor was trying to get his class to follow some of the details of a chapter on reproduction by having them read parts aloud. When "Miss Jones" was asked to read she kept substituting, when she came to the word 'pregnant', "unwell". After a minute, he stopped her and asked: "What was the woman's condition, Miss Jones?"

"Umm...she was 'expecting'."

The professor sighed: "Miss Jones, the word is "pregnant" P-R-E-G-N-A-N-T....your mother was 'pregnant', your grandmother was 'pregnant', and by the grace of God and the help of some young man, someday you too, will be 'pregnant'!"

Well, Miss Jones gasped and ran out of the class in tears. But the incident was reported to the Dean, and the professor was ordered to apologize...in class! So, a couple days later, the professor came in, sat his books down and announced:

"The other day I made a mistake when correcting Miss Jones. I now wish to retract what I said...I do not believe Miss Jones will ever become pregnant."


-------------------------------

There's no way to change some folks' mindset... so....


08 Oct 12 - 04:59 PM (#3416571)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry Don...you're right, that was a stupid joke....apologies.

But I am not trying to dodge anything, I keep getting asked the same questions and I think I am answering them adequately.

Howard and Ian were trying to distort the figures, so I quoted direct from CDC and HPA. I may not be well educated, but I am not stupid, I can spot games people play, a mile away.

Bill I have answered your question many times.
I am against legislation to bring forward homosexual marriage mainly on health grounds. I have advanced facts to back up my stance many times, surely I dont have to go through it all again.

I am also anti on the grounds of damage to the very important family structure......details above.
So in conclusion, if the hiv rates among MSM were to drop to anything approaching hetero levels, I would still be against the legislation.
I have stated this many times before.....why is it so important to you?

On "equality" the only issue the pros can bring forward, I notice that no one has addressed the position of people who wish to live as man and wife with a close relative.

There have been cases when these people have offered to be sterilised, so that there would be absolutely no health problems, yet they are denied all "rights" even civil rights insurance rights etc which are now available to homosexuals.
They have to live a secret life, always in fear of prosecution, yet the "liberals" look the other way.....I smell hypocrisy.


08 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM (#3416582)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Only one question for you Bill....respectfully.

Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?


08 Oct 12 - 06:10 PM (#3416618)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

ake... "on health grounds"... that is exactly your own arguement that you deny.

Sigh... another million posts won't get you to understand. When someone argues illogically against their own arguements ya just can't teach them their arguements are inane. I'll check back later, maybe. I doubt if any of this crap will change... in a million posts. It would take some intelligence and some modesty.


08 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM (#3416717)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?"

Yes, Ake, I would agree with the statement.

As to the "why," homosexuals are not allowed to form legally and socially recognized stable relationships. If they were, there would be a measure of social pressure to form such relationships, the same as heterosexual couples with the concomitant social pressure against promiscuous behavior.

That is the fundamental contradiction in your position. Decrying the amount of HIV infections among homosexual men, you would deny them a legal and social means of mitigating the situation.

I don't think it is because you can't see this, it is because you refuse to see this. And this raises questions about why you refuse to see the obvious.

I have mentioned the church that I sometimes go to. It not only accepts same-sex oriented people, but it has performed a number of same-sex marriages, and whether state law recognizes them or not, this church—and its congregation—does.

There was a lot of discussion of this issue a couple of decades ago, and we were warned that the congregation would deminish to a very few people. It didn't happen. I think we lost a total of three members. Out of a congregation of--what?-about two hundred and fifty or so.

By the way, this has NOT become a "gay church." It is a main line denomination. Lutheran. The number of same-sex oriented people in this church reflects the demographics of the community at large.

The first same-sex marriage ceremony was performed nearly twenty years ago, and ALL of the couples are still together, and NONE of them have contracted HIV/AIDs.

As to the "marriage is for procreation" argument, two of these same-sex married couples have children.

One of the couples adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Believe me, these kids are having—and will continue to have—a far better life than they would have had if they had been left were they were. And they are healthy, happy kids. One of them is an acolyte in the church and the other is a bit young for duties like that yet.

There are a fair number of kids out there who are wards of the state or who languish in orphanages who would be far batter off in circumstances like these two lads have.

Another couple decided they wanted to have children that were biologically their own. They contracted the services of a "surrogate mother." Fertilization by artificial insemination. The first man had a baby boy. Then the same surrogate mother (they wanted the children to be, at least, half-siblings) was artificially inseminated by the second man.

BAM! TRIPLETS!!

It's a real snort to see these kids in church on Sundays.

As to the matter of feminine influence on the boys, all of the men involved have sisters and various female friends who dote on the lads, so the boys are not in any way deprived in that department.

And as to the knee-jerk charge about the dangers of pedophilia, no way in hell! These men regard these youngsters as their children and themselves as fathers. And the youngsters themselves see nothing particularly unusual in their families and are obviously healthy and happy.

By the way, there are at least five main line churches (denominations that have been around for centuries) that I know of in this area that recognize same-sex marriages and conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, whether, as I said, state law recognizes them as valid or not.

[Let them choke on that at the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference!]

It is in the state's recognition: community property laws, inheritance laws, and things like hospital visitation rights where legal recognition becomes important. THIS is the nucleus of the civil rights issue.

No, Ake. Your objections don't wash. And although I tend to think you are a pretty intelligent guy, that you don't seem to be able to grasp THIS really makes me wonder why.

I have some theories, which I'm quite sure you don't want to hear.

Don Firth


08 Oct 12 - 10:43 PM (#3416745)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Ake...this is a compliment...

It is precisely because many here can tell that you are intelligent that many are pretty sure you have a hidden agenda.

You seem way to smart to actually believe the self-contradictory argument that you cling to.


09 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM (#3416780)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

But I keep telling you, infection rates have not decreased over the last ten years when legislation has become more "liberal", civil union, homosexual "marriage", less marginalisation etc.
They have massively increased!!

If that is the crux of your objections to my stance, then it is you who are being unreasonable.

Please stop insinuating that i am latently homosexual. This is an intellectual debate, and that line makes you all look foolish.

gnu is obsessed by "trolls"....surely this does not mean that he himself is a troll?


09 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM (#3416801)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm

They have massively increased!!

If massively increased means stayed stable with a recent dip.
Rose gradually from 2000 in 2002 to 2900 in 2007 and back down to 2500 now looking at the graph. AIDS diagnoses slowly decreasing.


09 Oct 12 - 05:25 AM (#3416812)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle

The whole (pun?) concept(pun?) is heinous (pun?)....
(:-( 0)=


09 Oct 12 - 07:23 AM (#3416847)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

From Jack's link.
By the end of December 2011, 53,161 MSM had been diagnosed with HIV in the UK.7 The number of new HIV diagnoses among this group has been steadily increasing since 2001 - peaking in 2007 at 2,811. It is likely this trend is due to an increase in HIV testing, although a rise in high risk sexual behaviour has also been suggested as a contributory factor.


09 Oct 12 - 07:44 AM (#3416855)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Yeah Keith. So there is increased testing and the increase, year to year is anything but "massive." Akeneton. Do you have another point to make or shall we consider this topic closed?


09 Oct 12 - 08:11 AM (#3416870)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Okay then, if we are to follow your line of logic, here is a very simple question:

In Swaziland, HIV is epidemic, and affects women at approximately twice the rate of men.

Would you favor making marriage to Swazi women illegal?


09 Oct 12 - 08:23 AM (#3416875)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

To return this question of "marriage": in the UK, we have had for some years now the availability of a legal "civil partnership":

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce. Wikipedia

So the objections which Ake keeps raising are irrelevant ~~ the sort of relationship he predicates 'marriage' as liable to open the way for has been, in all but name, available for the past 8 years. Five couples in my close and immediate acquaintance, all of whom had faithful & stable partnerships for years previously, have entered into such partnerships. Four of them are still together; the other has been terminated by death.

So all that is really being discussed here is whether it is appropriate to use the word marriage, in place of 'civil partnership' for such arrangements. Baleful prognostications about potential health hazards seem to me to be the day-before-yesterday's tired controversies. It is simply a matter of nomenclature with which we are concerned here, surely?

~Michael~


09 Oct 12 - 11:34 AM (#3416954)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Bill I have answered your question many times.
I am against legislation to bring forward homosexual marriage mainly on health grounds."

You have NEVER answered the specific question I asked. You couldn't even check the "no" box.

"I am also anti on the grounds of damage to the very important family structure. That is nonsense... straight people can continue to marry in the same way... allowing gays to marry changes nothing except a few dictionaries.... and dictionaries reflect common usage, not universal truth.

(BTW... *I* have never even hinted that you were latently homosexual. I have only wondered about your basic motives, given your reluctance to approve of even the idea more 'gay rights' if the health issue were solved.)


09 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM (#3417023)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Jack....what you have quoted are the figures for ALL new hiv infections.

Indeed infections are falling in all demographics except MSM.

MSM hiv figures are rising steadily, and are massively higher than they were ten years ago.

HPA
"The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence"

Beware of all data from Avert.com......Stick to govt sites
CDC in USA.... HPA in UK.


09 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM (#3417041)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

You know, all this attention on one deluded individual runs the risk of him thinking he is important. He even appears to have found a website about The HPA that like the real HPA gives out epidemiology statistics. His though seems more selective than the one I use from time to time to inform my work.

But, whether you use raw, weighted, standardised or drilled down data, even if the actual figures support the selective pickings he quotes; the mental leap he makes from it is utterly appalling. I doubt he can deduce his view from the facts. I am led to believe he deduces facts from his views.

And that sadly puts him beneath contempt.


09 Oct 12 - 03:20 PM (#3417066)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

What is appalling Ian, are not my views, but the horrific rates of death and disease which inflict MSM.

It is beneath contempt to ignore these rates, pretend they don't exist, or even worse to distort the figures to make them look acceptable.

However you are in good company, as some websites are now presenting hiv figures without demographics...hence giving the impression that the epidemic amongst MSM(CDC's words) is under control

As I explained to Jack, HIV rates in total may be falling,but amonst MSM rates continue to rise, standing presently at around 70% of new infections.

How high must these rates get before you conceed that something is wrong and some course of action requires to be taken?

No word on the "rights" of other sexual minorities?
No answer to my question Bill?


09 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM (#3417093)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I believe that if the figures for same sex couples who are married or in civil unions were broken out of the other figures, you would find a drastic decrease in the spread of HIV/AIDs.

I've been acquainted with a number of gay men, some of whom, over the years, have contracted the disease. But NONE of the gay men I know who are in the kind of monogamous, stable relationships that would be encouraged by the legalization and acceptance of same-sex marriage have contracted the disease.

Ake is mixing apples and oranges.

Further. In a frank conversation I had some years ago with a young gay man when the church my wife and I attend was considering adopting the "Affirmation of Welcome," we discussed the matter of choice versus inbred, probably genetic. He told me that he had made no choice. He always knew he was "different." Then he added: "Considering that being 'gay' opens you up to all kinds of contempt and insults from certain people, can get you dragged into a back alley and beaten up—repeatedly—and can even get you killed—who in his right mind would ever CHOOSE to be gay!??"

Point taken!

The Affirmation of Welcome which, within recent years, has been adopted by a number of churches, including Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, to which my wife and I are members.
As a community of the people of God, we are called to minister to all people in our world, knowing that the world is often an unloving place. Our world is a place of alienation and brokenness. Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by the Gospel to be agents of healing within our society.
             We affirm with the apostle Paul that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). Christ has made us one. We acknowledge that this reconciliation extends to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
             Because gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons and their families are often scorned by society and alienated from the Church, we wish to make known our caring and concern. It is for this purpose that we affirm the following:

•that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities share the worth that comes from being unique individuals created by God;

•that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities are welcome within the membership of this congregation upon making a common, public affirmation of faith; and

•that as members of this congregation, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities are expected and encouraged to share in the sacramental and general life of this congregation."
Central Lutheran's congregation voted almost unanimously to adopt the affirmation.

Now, civilization waits for the laws to catch up.

Don Firth

P. S. In the coming election, Washington State's residences should vote FOR Initiative 74.


09 Oct 12 - 03:56 PM (#3417101)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ebbie

"How high must these rates get before you conceed that something is wrong and some course of action requires to be taken?" ake

In the past I recall your having responding to the question of what you perceive can be done about it- but I don't remember what it was. Would you give it again? What "new course of action" requires being taken?


09 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM (#3417106)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Of course those in a union or "marriage" are less likely to contract HIV,(usually older men I believe), but only a tiny percentage of MSM want to remain monogamous....according to "marriage"/Union take up rates. So you have presented a moot point Don.


09 Oct 12 - 04:11 PM (#3417112)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Perhaps it's that way in the UK, Ake, but not here in the US.

And only older men? No. Most of the gay men I'm acquainted with who want to see a same-sex marriage law passed are in their twenties and thirties.

An encouraging trend, I would say. And you would kill it a-borning?

Why?

Don Firth


09 Oct 12 - 04:13 PM (#3417115)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Hello Ebbie, thank you for your courtesy.

Firstly a national medical inquiry into the reasons for the huge hiv rates amongst MSM
Compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups....almost half of MSM under 30 who tested possitive, were unaware of their status.


09 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM (#3417125)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Crucial question:

What percentage of the MSM under thirty who were tested did NOT test positive?

Don Firth


09 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM (#3417207)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

The graph I was referring to was for MSM.


09 Oct 12 - 08:23 PM (#3417228)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"No word on the "rights" of other sexual minorities?
No answer to my question Bill? "



To be VERY clear... I would tend to allow ANY personal arrangement of not compelled or pressured, dedicated, honest, human beings.

I would allow any pair of humans to apply for a marriage license thru normal channels. Then, any other combination (3 or more) would have to submit a detailed contract stating financial obligations, plans for raising children...etc., etc. These would have to be approved by lawyers, counselors and possibly other officials. **This is only a theory** Many of such plans would likely NOT be approved due to doubts about sincerity, schooling, finances...etc.... but they would not be prevented from applying.

For an example of what 'might' be approved, read "Proposition 31", by Robert Rimmer. (The sequel to "The Harrad Experiment")

Of course, I do NOT expect such laws to be forthcoming.... though you can bet that some such situations already exist 'under the official radar'.

So... "other sexual minorities" would have all the common rights as long as they are consenting, sane and of legal age.


10 Oct 12 - 01:59 AM (#3417334)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

First part of question unanswered.
Second part seems very complicated, taking into account that you and others consider...."All you need is lurve", for homosexuals?

Conclusion.....You are bullshitting.


10 Oct 12 - 02:25 AM (#3417336)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Wondered what that smell was? Trouble is, it hit my nostrils before Bill replied. So wonder where it was coming from? Can we guess, children? Yes! That's right. Uncle Ake has woke up in his chair and farted.

If you develop reasonable policies based on cluster, it is ineffective. If you base discrimitory policy on cluster, you would never be forgiven.

That, away from the hoo haa and froth of this thread is why people who use selective figures to justify prejudice can never ultimately succeed in their petty crusade.

Society, guided and advised accordingly needs to address all aspects of modern infections. The encouraging figures of lowering (and we are talking much lower) healthcare associated infections is down to tackling the cause, not shunning the victims. As this approach seems to work. I am encouraged to see that lifestyle based infections are lowering overall through the same approach. Still a long way to go but the direction is clear. HIV and AIDS grew in incidence before equality became reality and decreased once the stigma of your orientation started waning. Funny that.


10 Oct 12 - 02:59 AM (#3417345)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry Jack...didn't scroll down.

Your graph shows real numbers, NOT transmission rates.
Although the annual numbers for both (hetero and homo) are about the same, this means that rates of transmission are massively higher for MSM than for heterosexuals.

Rates of infection amongst MSM have increased dramatically in the last decade.
Approx 25% of all new infections, to approx 70% at the end of 2011

HPA also say that when all the figures for 2011 are available, the real numbers will be in the order of 3000 new cases.....appox the same rise in MSM infection rates as previous years.


10 Oct 12 - 03:55 AM (#3417360)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

HPA acknowledge in their preface to the most recent published report a marked increase in screening success and that higher new case numbers reflect an overall decrease in incident.

A bit like when a party in opposition decry the UK mortality rates for x, y or z. Failing to point out their selective cases are based on returns from The NHS that are not available in multi healthcare provider scenarios in many other countries.

Bored now. I shall see if anybody still wishes to debate gay marriage as anything other than a phrase as obvious as wet water.


10 Oct 12 - 08:05 AM (#3417442)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

I have been trying to, Musket ~ see my post of yesterday 8.23 am. But for some reason most seem to want to discuss HIV figures, which, in the context of 8 years of legal Civil Partnership which = marriage in all but name; which IMO has nothing to do with the case.

I repeat, surely this thread is about appropriate nomenclature for the associations entered into by persons of a certain orientation; not the baleful consequences supposed by some to result from such relationships?

I agree with Musket that that is what we should be talking about. So Ake, do shut up with your boring statistics, will you please?

~M~


10 Oct 12 - 08:56 AM (#3417461)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks

From the article linked by JtS: " It is likely this trend is due to an increase in HIV testing".

I am reminded of the old saying, "figures don't lie, but liars use figures".


10 Oct 12 - 10:41 AM (#3417511)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

First part of question unanswered.

What do you call my last sentence?

"other sexual minorities" would have all the common rights as long as they are consenting, sane and of legal age.

You are inserting that "all you need is lurve" remark as YOUR version of what I and others have said. When you consider that many 'natural' man-woman marriages have little or NO "lurve", it becomes silly to establish that as a condition.


10 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM (#3417582)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Let's just concede the meaningless statistical arguments.

If the CDC and the like are Ake's trusted source, then let's quote them:

"Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination put MSM at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether MSM seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services. Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts, and bullying and violence. These dynamics make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm


So, if our *real* concern is health, perhaps we should drop the homophobia, stigmatization and discrimination, yes?


10 Oct 12 - 01:12 PM (#3417590)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

We are making a few mistakes in discussing continuing the ban on same-sex marriages.

In the first place, homosexuality is not a choice in the same way that "cream and sugar" in your coffee is.

In the second place, it does not matter. It is the way someone lives, period.

In the third place, the health of a homosexual marriage partner is his/her business unless we are making health care policy for all individuals, which is not what we are discussing.

Fourth, Whether or not a homosexual marriage is any kind of threat to any straight marriage, is also not the responsibility of the gay partners. It is the responsibility of the heteros to protect their own marriage.

Ake can dig up whatever stats he wants to twist, and he *does* twist them. His stats are no justification for social policy. The bottom line is that he just wants to persecute homosexuals. And that is no more tolerable than persecuting celibate people, people in sexless hetero marriages, people who do not have children whether by choice or biology, people who have darker or lighter skin, people who pray in their own way (differently from us??), people who wear plaid, people who have skin art, or people who play the Bodhran. E-N-N-Y persecution is intolerable. And this is *definitely* persecution.

Saul


10 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM (#3417642)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I'd say Saul pretty well wrapped it up!

Don Firth


10 Oct 12 - 03:38 PM (#3417661)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Saulgoldie....I quote directly from CDC and HPA....Please illustrate where I "twist" the figures they present.

The most inportant statistic is the one which states that "Men who have sex with men" account for over 60% of all new HIV cases.

This is higher than all other demographics put together!

At least my old adversary Don, has the balls to admit that this equates to a massive over representation.


10 Oct 12 - 03:45 PM (#3417663)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

BTW....I responded above to Ebbie's question regarding what action I would recommend to alleviate the horrific hiv figures among MSM.

What action would you all recommend?....if any.


10 Oct 12 - 04:00 PM (#3417670)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

But Ake, you are opposed to one of the most powerful incentives to bring the figures down.

This is why I think you don't really give a damn, you just hate gays.

Don Firth


10 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM (#3417682)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?

I do not hate homosexuals, my recommendations which were echoed in a recent CDC paper, would cut infections and save lives.

What would you recommend?   None of your business?, Look the other way? Let them suffer?.......Who hates homosexuals you or me?


10 Oct 12 - 04:16 PM (#3417683)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"echoed" should read...."hinted at"


10 Oct 12 - 06:34 PM (#3417756)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"...when only a tiny minority want it?"

You have statistics for THIS survey? YOU have no idea who would choose what IF they had reasonable choices.

In any case, ANY marriages would help ......


I'm curious as to why you think all these people arguing with you are doing so, and why you imagine we all can't see the... ummm... logic in your statistics.


11 Oct 12 - 12:37 AM (#3417930)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

And your recommendations were. . . ?

And the basis for your contention that only a small minority of gays want stable relationships? Everything I've read and heard says just the opposite.

Don Firth


11 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM (#3417951)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Bill...of course I know why some people dont believe the evidence of their own eyes...."liberal blindness"....it is related to "snow blindness", but is caused by reading and believing too much of their own propaganda.


11 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM (#3417952)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Just seen something I disagree with.

I have no issue with bodhran players being persecuted. They've had their wicked way with us for too long. One bugger started a tempo so ruddy fast the other month that most guitarists would struggle to keep up. Luckily I didn't have many toys as a child.

Sorry, as the Akenaton theory of hate has run its course and can be seen for the shallow spectacle is it, I was looking for another angle to the debate and saw one...

Someone told me its international coming out day today. Not holding my breath but curious as to the old "ah, that would answer a few things ..."


11 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM (#3418244)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST

I don't really have anything to add to this thread other than to state that being caught by your spouse typing "UK marriage annulment law" into Google is apparently legal grounds for a rollicking good shouting session.

Be warned.


11 Oct 12 - 04:33 PM (#3418255)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual (you need to show that it is if you want anyone to believe it, but let's just suppose...)

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are so worried about...even just a little bit?

Without a direct and cogent answer to this simple question, your entire "logic" will fall apart.


11 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM (#3418262)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"... caused by reading and believing too much of their own propaganda."


LOLOL! And conservatives have a direct line to the fount of truth? Maybe special dark glasses to filter out "flashes of insight"?

"snow blindness"
Do you have the phrase 'snow job' over there? IT is related to a blizzard of statistics designed to obfuscate & dissemble. The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs.


12 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM (#3418671)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

...and the crickets are chirping...


13 Oct 12 - 02:57 AM (#3418987)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Just read this in the letters page in today's Indescribeablyboring;

Ian Burford (Letters, 11 October) needs to remember that the Oxford English Dictionary ("on historical principles") is not normative but descriptive: it records how words have been used. After Elton John, along with many others, marries his partner, and refers to him as his husband, I'm sure the OED in its next revision of the word will record that fact too.



Interesting, and for me slams another door in the face of bigotry.


13 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM (#3419263)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

Ake, that was a low blow, talking about my balls. And if I had any, I'd likely slap you silly. Or is it "slap you, silly?" No matter.

OK, so let's talk about those stats. No, I'm not going to plow through them. I am sure they are cherry-picked and definitely leave many more questions than they pretend to "answer." Like:

IF homosexuals ARE the most numerous carriers and spreaders of AIDS, exactly how does banning same-sex marriage "help" limit the transmission of AIDS?

If you are going to speculate on the mindset of gay men, please show some credible information to substantiate your claim.
For instance, how many gay men do you know who are married and contracted or transmitted AIDS through being married?
If you don't know any, or even if you know 10 or 34, 0r 134 how do you know how many total fit these criteria?
If the problem is gay men, how does prohibiting lesbians from getting married help?

How many women have AIDS?
How did they get it?
Were they married at the time?
How did their heterosexual marriage "protect" them from getting it?
Did they get it from their husbands?
Where did their husbands get it?

How many more women have AIDS now than 5 years ago?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?
Would persecuting them improve the AIDS situation?
How would it?

How many heterosexual men have AIDS?
How did they get it?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?

How many men contracted AIDS through the use of street drugs?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?

How many people transmit polio?
How did we deal with that as a public health issue? Clue: We vaccinated e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!! Not just Amish, not just Native Americans, not just celibate people, not just Mormons, not just Wiccans, not just Mensans, not just chess champions, Not just members of mate-swapping clubs, and certainly not gay-married men (because we had much less idea who they were), but e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!! We vaccinated e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!!

And so on. No, Ake, once again and still, the only conclusion I can draw from your ranting is that for whatever reason(s), you just plain have an irrational hatred of gay men. And I honestly cannot see why. But you do. By the way, "coming out" as a homophobe here at Mudcat is probably one of the safer places to do it. And you would like receive much support as you try to improve yourself out of this sad condition. Eh, whatever.

Saul


13 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM (#3419394)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

He was talking about your balls? Good heavens! Call up Vito and "the boys" and have him dealt with severely! I intend to do that with Spaw when he gets well, because he has said absolutely terrible things about my balls...and numerous times too!

I've had a pleasant thought here, though. If I should ever decide to become a gay man...or if the mysterious workings of Nature or Destiny should decide that for me...I have an enormous resource here at Mudcat Cafe with which I can research all possible permutations and challenges of the new role I would be taking on...meaning, of course, this thread and the numerous other threads on the same theme.

All my questions will be answered, from the Alpha to the Omega! This is a great comfort.

On the other hand, there's not much material here on the forum telling me what to do if abducted by space aliens or taken prisoner by New Guinea headhunters...

Oh, well...you can't ask for everything!


14 Oct 12 - 05:29 AM (#3419524)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Saul...you have shown no indication of having "balls", either in the physical or the metaphorical sense.

I was referring to Don Firth, who had the honesty to admit that MSM are massivly over represented in the HIV figures.
For the thousandth time 2% of the population account for 70% of new infections......these figures are stark and incontrovertible.

Btw I am a stonemason/steeplejack to trade, and for some strange reason have never been "slapped" in adulthood.

Only a fool issues physical threats on a discussion forum.


14 Oct 12 - 12:15 PM (#3419680)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

So true! And only a fool issues a physical threat to a Chimp, but for a completely different reason.

Seein' as how the gay humans are now gettin' their own special "pride" days to celebrate their lifestyle, I am makin' it part of the APP program to demand that "Primate Pride Day" be declared as a new national holiday...August 1st every year. Towns and cities that do not comply will be labelled as "specist communities" and will not be allowed to stock bananas on store shelves.

If there's anything I can't tolerate, it's a damned specist...a primateaphobe! They are the lowest of the low. They live on a diet of hatred. They should all hang their worthless heads in shame. I got no respect for them at all. If it was up to me, they'd have to wear a tattoo on their foreheads saying "specist scum", so everyone would know just what they really are when they go walkin' by.

- Chongo


14 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM (#3419774)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Akenaton!

When in the hell did I say THAT!??

In any case, the figure, which is highly arguable, has NOTHING TO DO with the issue of gay marriage!

Don Firth


14 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM (#3419820)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM

"Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?"

Yes, Ake, I would agree with the statement."


14 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM (#3419822)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry Don....The question was not meant as a stick to beat my opponents with, but simply to see who was treating the debate in a realistic manner.

Of all who are involved in this thread, you are the only one prepared to admit what is an obvious truth.
The others are not willing to debate in a reasonable fashion.


14 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM (#3419830)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

ake... "The others are not willing to debate in a reasonable fashion."

Apparently, neither are you. What a stunned as me arse thing to say. An inane statement that cannot be proven? Sounds to me like something a troll would say.

See yas when I sees yas.


14 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM (#3419845)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

I repeat myself!

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs."

*IF* it were the case that absolutely every HIV case was a gay male, it would not mean that their rights should be different! In fact, gay males who did NOT have HIV would be a statistically safer bet to be allowed to marry.

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs." or statistics...


14 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM (#3419882)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

The latest figures I have seen (CDC) say the figure is 43%.

It is still more of an argument for passing same-sex marriage laws, which will encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

Anyone who can't see that has to be just bloody pig-headed, or flat-out prejudiced, or have their own hidden agenda.

Don Firth


14 Oct 12 - 07:55 PM (#3419916)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

I suppose reasonable debate means ducking a simple question:

"How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual (you need to show that it is if you want anyone to believe it, but let's just suppose...)

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are so worried about...even just a little bit?


14 Oct 12 - 11:01 PM (#3419980)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

No, no, TIA; you don't understand! if gay people are allowed to marry, they will think that everyone approves of their conduct. Then they will practice more homosexual activity than ever, and that will lead to even more HIV infections.!


15 Oct 12 - 02:14 AM (#3420015)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Careful Frogprince...

Irony tends to fall on deaf ears around here. There are those, and one inparticular who would accept that at face value rather than see how if takes the piss out of their pathetic bigotry.

Mind you, I once put it to Akenaton that he had his head in the clouds. Turns out I was more perceptive than I thought now that he has seen fit to share his CV with us...


15 Oct 12 - 03:22 AM (#3420035)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs." (Bill)

Why then are all sexual minorities not treated equally?
Incest is arguably safer than male homosexuality, if procreation was removed from the equation, but there are other questions regarding the future of "society" to be considered."Rights" are proscribed!

These considerations also apply to legislation on homosexual "marriage" with the added problem of very high rates of sexual infection associated.

"Rights" are not, and should not be universal, but conditional on the behaviour of the minority concerned.


15 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM (#3420104)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Lovely word "behaviour."

It usually gets into documents with other words, such as "moral" and "judgement."

As a monogamous marriage would not be spreading any infection, you have just been blown out of the water. By talking of their behaviour, you are commenting on their lifestyle as something that should not have the same rights as a "straight" marriage.

Kindly apologise for your earlier "I have nothing against homosexuals" bullshit in this and myriad other threads.


15 Oct 12 - 09:57 AM (#3420180)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Ducked again.


15 Oct 12 - 10:34 AM (#3420194)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Anyhow, we have the monogamous marriage situation already, & have had since 2004, only it's called Civil Partnership. All this thread concerns really is the question of whether to recognise its equivalence by actually calling it 'marriage', to which some disproportionately influential organisations like the church have certain to me unaccountable objections. All these other health/lifestyle-encouragement &c things we are going on about here are simply a rehash of all the arguments everyone went over 8 years ago when the Civ Ps were established in law.

~M~


15 Oct 12 - 11:22 AM (#3420228)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

At times MtheGM, the thread has been on thread as it were. I suppose the rehashed arguments are because the term civil partnership was not acceptable to bigots and equally not acceptable to decent people. The third way strikes again, I'm afraid. Bloody Bliar!

At other times, the thread has been a showboat for peoples' views on diversity in a civilised society, and for my money, society still cannot hold its head high. Too much influence by those used to not being questioned, whether that be religions or those who feel their views reflect their society. Well yes, if your society is still in a 1950s Rupert the Bear cartoon strip where Dad smokes a pipe and worries about Johnny Foreigner whilst Mum does the household chores and children dream of repeating their lifestyle. After all, anything else is "common" and "disgusting, what?."

Snag is, we all live here. The trick is not to judge others or try to stifle them, and that works both ways. I have a fairly distant relative who, if Gays are mentioned, says "dirty buggers!" His daughter has yet to tell him her "flatmate" of the last two years is a bit more than a bill and pizza sharer.

The society Akenaton would wish to inflict on us would make sad situations like that all the more common, and I think that's wrong, I just do.


15 Oct 12 - 11:28 AM (#3420233)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Incest is arguably safer than male homosexuality, if procreation was removed from the equation, ..

Incest is not a 'sexual minority' as relating to sexual practices, but rather a social practice. It is proscribed (mostly) because of direct and long standing knowledge of genetic issues. Since procreation CANNOT easily be removed from the equation, we legislate against marriage between close relatives. Add to that the sad fact that much incest begins with predatory behavior and incest becomes a special category.

The issue IS: given sane, not closely related adult humans, why not allow them to marry on an equal basis, no matter which sex they are... or choose to be.


15 Oct 12 - 11:49 AM (#3420249)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Let me add.... there are many many cases of brothers or sisters not marrying, but simply sharing a home.. (often the family home)... all their lives. They are often considered a bit eccentric, but people mostly shrug.

   Do you not suppose that 'some' of those situations are also a more intimate relationship? The law only deals with attempts of closely related M-F pairs trying to marry, or improper adult-child situations.


15 Oct 12 - 12:07 PM (#3420260)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Incestuous relationships do not qualify for the "rights" granted to homosexual unions or "marriage"....no matter how often you shrug Bill, and procreation can be removed from the equation....as you know very well.

Anyway, what you think is not important in this context...what the law says is important and sexual relations between close relatives even if both agree to be sterilized, is a criminal offence.....and certainly does not qualify for any "rights"

Of course these people do not have the backing of the "liberal"/ media bandwagon, to ignore any damage to societal structure or health issues.
Laws are made by politicians and they always sniff the direction of the media guff.


15 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM (#3420277)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Would two brothers who indulged in sexual relations be committing a criminal offence?


15 Oct 12 - 12:39 PM (#3420279)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

The social plot thickens.....


15 Oct 12 - 03:37 PM (#3420358)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"Incestuous relationships do not qualify for the "rights..."

Yes..I realize that, and I am not suggesting they should- I am merely questioning your catagorization scheme.

Two brothers? Yes, I suppose they would be breaking the law in most places, but I imagine they'd seldom be noticed.... two sisters even less.


YOU brought up incest as a presumed "sexual minority"... I don't consider it part of this debate, since incestuous marriage is already against the law for reasons other than HIV/AIDS.


15 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM (#3420412)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

I can't see how two brothers would be breaking the law but even bringing it up, or bringing up incest, is not germain to the thread. Merely an attempt to illicit response perhaps? Thread drift is a deflection?


15 Oct 12 - 05:46 PM (#3420414)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

I tried, but I could only take so much, and then I scrolled to the bottom.

Ake - Shut up, would you? I have friends here who's views differ widely from mine yet, on a personal level I value them greatly. I've not hung around the 'cat a lot in recent years, but, in internet terms, I think we we had a relationship once, right? For the rest of you going "hurhur", that means he called me names cos he's Scottish & I'm a dirty Sassenach, and I called him names because I'm English & he's just an ignorant Sweaty Sock... ;-)

Ake is not an ignorant hate-filled bigot. But Ake, you are sounding like a right bleeding idiot here. Yes, I've got the idea that you don't like the idea of gay marriage. I think we've all got that idea by now. If you're repeating it for the 14th time (and you are), you're wasting everyone's time. Especially your own.

What two (or more) people get up to in private is no-one's business but their own. So long as it's consensual. Quibbling about pointless distinctions in wording is, well, pointless. What does it matter whether it's called civil union or marriage? I don't doubt that it is possible to arrange a "marriage" ('twixt whoever) in a solictor's office & to be sueing for divorce before the ink is dry on the certificate! So what price marriage? Really?

My neighbour is in jail on a gun charge. Not because he's gay, but because his evil cow of a wife stitched him up. I've a couple of very good friends, male, who have been together for more than a decade. I don't know if they want to get married, but if they do, why shouldn't they? How would their marriage be less valid than the godawful fuck-up that Graham has patiently suffered (yes, Ake, there is a daughter involved. Gods help the poor little lass)? I cannot conceive (pun)!

Then there's Muppet. Whilst I largely agree with his views in this thread, he has yet again shown himself to be an intolerant, arrogant troll. You can agree with Muppet. Or you can be wrong. He may be a doctor (of course, we've only Ian Mather's word for that), but he's just as capable of being a narrow-minded ignoramus as anyone else!

As for Guest from Sanity, I will take it on trust that every single one of the rest of us is incurably insane. Because if he is sane, I think that's not a place any of us want to be!


16 Oct 12 - 04:59 AM (#3420573)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Raedwulf.....you know I think you are the "bee's knees", even tho' we are about to be divorced.

I see what you mean....I do get fed up answering the same question continuously, but sometimes there are issues other than equality to consider.
Out of respect for you, who I have previously offered to adopt, so that you qualify to wear the kilt and develop a little national pride, I will shut the fuck up......till the next time.

My very best wishes......we could do with seeing you more often on these pages.....A


16 Oct 12 - 08:43 AM (#3420667)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"I do get fed up answering the same question continuously..."




Except the one you've been studiously ducking of course.


16 Oct 12 - 06:23 PM (#3420982)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

Ake, I'm a disreputable quarter Scottish (the other 3/4 probably isn't any more reputable ;-) ), so I 'm probably entitled to wear an anonymous tartan anyway. As proof of my partial Scottishness, I will pick up the cudgels & fight a losing battle... :p

Go on, then, what issues other than equality are involved in marriage? It can't be children. That argument has already been demolished. People have children in wedlock. They have children out of wedlock. They have harmonious or disastrous relationships, married or not, that children have nothing whatsoever to do with. So what's this other issue? You might have already mentioned it but, I'm sorry, I lost the will to li... read about 2/3 of the way up the thread! ;-)

P.S. Trust you to exagerrate. I only told you to shut up. I didn't tell you to shut the fuck up. That's pure Scot's that is. Just cos you're wrong & you know it... :p ;-)


16 Oct 12 - 06:37 PM (#3420990)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

Olive Whatnoll would have probably said, "Shut yer fecking gob!!!" She says that to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with her about pretty much anything at all. She regards such people as worthless chaff. That means, of course...almost everybody, with the possible exception of the Queen. Olive would certainly not talk that way to the Queen! She might even be prepared to yield her own opinion briefly in the Royal presence...


17 Oct 12 - 05:48 AM (#3421155)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Raedwulf.. Get a tablet and lie down, there's a good chap.

Disagreeing with you does not make one a bigot. Agreeing with someone does not make one confused.

I don't know who Muppet is, but I suspect you are trying out a new toy. Wit is not a toy for children to play with, as it has sharp edges. Don't worry, I have friends who are doctors (in the medical sense as opposed to blokes like me in the philosophical sense) who could put you together again.

I am very intolerant, very arrogant and very whatever else I am called. I need a thesaurus and send it you for Xmas. There is a difference between disagreeing (I like beer, my mate hates the taste of it) and having views that are unacceptable to society's general conscience, (intolerance, advocating the death penalty in the 21st century, breaking the law, using the possessive apostrophe when indicating plural...)

I am not disagreeing with Akenaton. I am questioning whether his views are hurtful to a lot of people. Free speech comes with responsibility. (Image of Frank Skinner pointing to his head and saying "Keep it up here.")


17 Oct 12 - 05:35 PM (#3421585)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

Well, I'd ask you what tablet, Muppet, but you've just admitted to not being a doctor after all. I'll repeat this one last time for the terminally stupid & the wilfully blind (both of whom are you) - you can disagree with me as much as you want. It is the way you express it that is the problem. Oh look, you did it again.

Happily, I don't acknowledge you to be an arbiter of society's general conscience (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean). We do not agree. I regard your opinion as valid, I just don't agree with it. You, however, sneer, smear, belittle, and try very hard to be clever (I do hope you've a good supply of elastoplasts). So which one of us is the intolerant one, then? Go on, show me a bit of logic that demonstrates that it's me, just because I hold an opinion you don't like. Muppet.


17 Oct 12 - 05:47 PM (#3421589)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri

We have a member called Muppet, who is not Musket.


17 Oct 12 - 06:07 PM (#3421601)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Yea......but "he's" not an authentic "muppet".


18 Oct 12 - 12:21 AM (#3421784)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

The worrying thing is that Musket is a PhD; one who has researched a topic exhaustively and produced the results in a thesis in which clarity of expression and argument would have been a prime consideration, whatever the content -- would have been de rigueur with any self-respecting board of examiners in any respectable university. He couldn't possibly have got it approved for the higher degree if he had approached his study with the illogicality & confusion apparent throughout his contributions to this thread ~~ could he? One hesitates to contemplate any academic institution where such exiguous standards could have been applied!

~M~


18 Oct 12 - 03:33 AM (#3421808)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I admit I am not a homophobe, I admit I dont like celery. I admit I dont run marathons. Mind you, I never said I was / did. Just like I never said I was a medic. If raedwhatever wishes to debate rather than lob crude bricks as an alternative to argument, fair enough but the bloke behind this Musket or Muppet silliness is in danger of forgetting what this debate is all about .

Questioning one's academic credentials in a website forum where such things are irrelevant (I was once asked a question regarding my field and mentioned the findings of my thesis and some thick twats love to point like the school bully when they are exposed as confused idiots in a debate ever since.)

If you support stigmatising gay people and wish them to not be alkowed to be married then at least say so rather than wanking at your keyboard waiting for an opposite view. If you fsil to understand, dont expect me to dumb it down for you. And no, I cant be arsed to coreect the small keyboard and big thumbs on my new phone.


18 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM (#3421809)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

My last post would have been better placed,perhaps, on the Too Obese To Execute thread, to which I refer all who would like to see Musket's confusions, irrationalities and non-sequiturs more amply demonstrated.

~M~


18 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM (#3422009)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

But you didn't.

Seems like your confusion to me, rather than my own.

My confusion is how anybody can be in favour of murder and defend it as a rational viewpoint. Just as people think they can be in favour of discriminating against Gay people and still expect to be seen as respectable.

If you want to defend any of that, go ahead. But as you talk bollocks on most subjects, I doubt I would be swayed by your ramblings on that one either.

If anybody would like to see MtheGM ramblings, I suggest you go on just about any ruddy thread..... I doubt there is any hope for a MtheGM modified.

I only use secateurs for pruning thank you very much. And judging by the quality of debate on these subjects, a trimming of the herd might be a good thing. Most rational contributors got bored a long time ago leaving idiots and yours truly, who has a huge fault. I can't help trying to confuse them with facts. Both funny and sad at the same time. Ah well, at least this is only bullshit land. At least I don't have to avoid getting into weird conversations with them in the pub.

Which academic institute would deem to disown giving you half a mind? And did they or you ever find the other half?

By the way. A PhD can be a higher degree, or it can a degree. It is only a higher degree if you have a bachelors or masters to begin with, and neither are a prerequisite.


18 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM (#3422023)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Thar she blows. I mean, There he goes.   On & on about "murder" and doesn't even know what the word means: or anyhow can't distinguish between figurative and literal use.

No point saying any more about this last bit of maundering mumbo-jumbo. I leave it to Catters to decide which of us can express himself with some clarity and which is continually getting entangled in, and tripping up over, his verbal shoelaces.


18 Oct 12 - 11:14 AM (#3422030)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

MtheGM

Are Catters likely to be inclined to invest their time and energy to decide whether you or Blather has won a debate on this subject?


18 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM (#3422080)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Don't expect so for a second, Jack;

... or did you somewhat undermine your own point by troubling to post the question?!

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺


18 Oct 12 - 12:38 PM (#3422082)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

I'm just saying that the name calling is between you and Musket.


18 Oct 12 - 12:41 PM (#3422086)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Well, whatever your point, I am sure you mean well.

So thank you.


18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM (#3422095)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

I don't read most of what he says or what is addressed to him. Though I agree with him more than not. He is simply too abusive. It is just is not amusing to see two people call each other stupid and too much work to sort it out.

I would not be talking about it now except that I am loading a computer and I am waiting for large files to download. ;-)


18 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM (#3422235)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Gda Music

To return to the thread.

A heterosexual legally married couple are involved in a serious motor accident resulting in them both being found dead in the car. If in the event there is no medical witness to establish the time of their deaths, I`ve heard that in English law the male would be deemed to have died first thereby allowing his estate to be added to that of his dead wife.

In the event of those same circumstance occurring but to a different permutation of "married" couple, I just wonder if the present law has that eventuality covered, or maybe it has yet to be tested?.

GJ


18 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM (#3422238)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"A heterosexual legally married couple are involved in a serious motor accident resulting in them both being found dead in the car. If in the event there is no medical witness to establish the time of their deaths, I`ve heard that in English law the male would be deemed to have died first thereby allowing his estate to be added to that of his dead wife. "

That is a very strange and almost nonsensical law.


18 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM (#3422348)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

The point of the law is to remove confusion over the inheritance of property. The Law of Property Act 1925 provides that in the circumstances described the deaths are presumed to have occurred in the order of age, so the younger is presumed to have survived the elder. According to HMRC where the deaths are of husband and wife or civil partners and the elder died intestate, the intestacy rules apply as if the younger spouse or civil partner had not survived the elder.

So yes, the law (nonsensical or otherwise) has caught up.


18 Oct 12 - 06:43 PM (#3422352)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

So if it goes to the younger, regardless of gender then GDA's point is moot?


19 Oct 12 - 04:30 AM (#3422478)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

That depends on whether you're using 'moot' in it's UK or American sense. It does mean that same-sex couples are treated no differently by the law in this respect.

This discussion has rather lost track of the fact that (in the UK anyway) a civil partnership grants substantially the same legal rights as marriage. The question is, or should be, a purely semantic one - should same-sex couples be entitled to call their union by the same name as the rest of us? For some, this is a question of equality. For others, the word "marriage" has a special significance, although it's hard to discern exactly what that is. My involvement in this discussion has been a genuine attempt to try to get them to explain, in terms which are not either irrelevant or circular arguments. So far I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser.


19 Oct 12 - 06:47 AM (#3422509)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Precisely, Howard. Scroll up & you will find that my point, and my experience, have been identical to yours.

So now, how about someone addressing the topic ~~ what difference would the word marriage make? ~~ rather than any MORE rehashing of all the moral arguments that got flogged to death leading up to Civil Partnerships being established eight [count them - 8!] years ago.

~M~


19 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM (#3422581)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how knowing that there is a gay married couple somewhere in the world harms me. I also want to know how it would threaten my marriage. Sheeit! Myself and my wife can do that plenty well by ourselves. And I am hardly going to lose sleep thinking about somewhere there being a gay married couple.

I have plenty of other things on my worry-about-it list that are far more important. Starting with military and environmental threats to humanity, increasing poverty among regular people as opposed to the wealthy, the appalling lack of medical care for many people, and the possible death of folk music. (However, if said death takes with it banjos and bodhrans, it may be a wash. Oh, and bagpipes. Them thangs ain't no damn good!) Gay marriage doesn't even make it onto my radar.

Saul


19 Oct 12 - 10:20 AM (#3422615)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Good news! I just read in this morning's paper that another federal court has struck down the Defense (sic) of Marriage Act. I think this is the second time, and it was struck down for a different Constitutional reason. This means that when it gets to the Supreme Court, the anti-civil rights crowd will have to make their case on two fronts. If I'm remembering correctly, the first case said that the government has no compelling reason to deny the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law and the second one said that, according to the Constitution, all states and the federal government have to recognize legal marriages from any other state.

Unfortunately, I don't have any reason to assume that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution.


19 Oct 12 - 10:32 AM (#3422624)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Gay marriage doesn't even make it onto my radar.

The only reason it makes it onto my radar as something to worry about is because people who want to legislate morality need to be stopped. People who think we live in a land where the majority rules need to be educated. People who claim to love the Constitution but then want to deny equal protection under the law need to be ridiculed. And the theocrats need to lose their tax-exempt status. If you want me to keep my nose out of your religion, you need to keep your hands off my laws.

I am amused in a horrified way that the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of American are so vociferously anti-gay from a "morality" standpoint, given that both these organizations have engaged in massive child-rape conspiracies. And they want me to let them legislate morality??


19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM (#3422641)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie

Perhaps I was not clear. What I meant was "As something to worry about, gay marriage is not on my radar." Of *course* I think it should be legal. In that regard, it *is* on my radar, along with the Republican "war on women."

Saul


19 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM (#3422729)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

No, Saul, you were clear. My comment was an augmentation, not a disagreement.

John


19 Oct 12 - 02:46 PM (#3422748)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Richard Bridge

I have not read all of this thread because tehre is such a load of bollocks on it.

The English law of non-consummation is simply set out here

http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php

Argument about possible change is here

http://protectthepope.com/?p=5293

US (presumably state) law on the topic may differ. Krinkle as usual was (at least as far as I read) simply spouting ignorance and prejudice.

Some simple comments on US state laws and links to further material here

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml




Please fellas - stick to the facts!


19 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM (#3422854)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Richard Bridge

In, perhaps, a parallel development, a UK court has awarded damages of £3,600 on the grounds of unlawful discrimination to a gay couple who were refused a double bedroom in a B&B by the owners on allegedly Christian grounds.

Nick Griffin of the BNP called this state heterophobia - but he didn't stop there.

Read more here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219993/Nick-Griffin-Twitter-rant-gay-B-B-couple-investigated-police-tweets-home-address

Oh, poor Dick (short for "dickhead") - if he goes to jail he'll probably find a lot of his members (if there are still any left) in there to greet him.


20 Oct 12 - 07:46 AM (#3423002)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

"We have a member called Muppet, who is not Musket."

Thank you for reminding me, Jeri? (How are you, sir?) I don't think, though, that anyone will confuse my responses with any opinoin of the gentleman in question.

"I'm just saying that the name calling is between you and Musket."

Sorry, Jack, that's incorrect. There are at least three people who find Muppet's presentation execrable. I'm happy to put myself forward as speaking for us all without consultation, not least because I'm fairly sure I've disagreed with both MGM & gnu in the past, and they'll tell you if they don't agree with what follows. Engaging in a shouting match might be a bit juvenile. I'm sure you'll tell us we should walk away. But, assuming you choose not to, if you hurl words, and the other party throws bricks what do you do? In the metaphorical sense, which the internet is, you pick up the bricks and you throw them back, surely? That's all that MGM, gnu and myself have done.

His opinion doesn't matter. He's as entitled to that, as we are to ours. That's just words. But his sneering ad hominem? That's a brick. Or does his alleged PhD make him special make him special somehow?

(I also acknowledge your next post, which makes your position reasonably clear. I just, not surprisingly, think you're challenging the wrong person. I agree with Muppet sometimes. But not with the way that viewpoint is all too often expressed.)


20 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM (#3423005)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

I must admit, Richard I'm a little bit ambivalent about that judgement. I can see both sides of the argument, even though, maybe in part because, I am neither homosexual nor christian. The argument "You are running a business, therefore..." is obviously valid. The position "This is also our home..." I can also recognise. Putting myself in other people's shoes, I think I would act as follows...

IF "my partner & I would like to book a room..." Oh, I'm sorry, we wouldn't wish to cause offense... OR "You'd like to book a room? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is also our home, and whilst I wouldn't wish to cause offense..."

Amongst reasonable people, it doesn't strike me that this should cause a problem. Every coin has two sides. I am entirely of the belief that a person's sexuality is of no concern to anyone but themselves. But I am also of the belief that no-one should be allowed to force their beliefs on someone else. Not surprisingly then, I am resistant to any mainstream religion trying to claim the moral high ground. It does, though, also cut the other way. Ooo-er! ;-)

If "Mr & Mrs" turned out to be "Mr & Mr", I think the B&B would have real grounds for complaint. If the B&B had accepted the booking but turned the couple away on the doorstep, I can understand the couple having real grounds for complaint (which is what I understand in the case that Richard has linked). If the B&B is not a B&B, but a hotel then they can be in no position to make such discrimination.

But there must be respect on both sides. If it's just "You must accept what I am and I don't fucking care what you think", how have we advanced?. What's the difference between that point of view and the Crusades, the various Heresies, the Inquisition?


20 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM (#3423052)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones

The trouble is if you are going to be part of the hospitality industry, even on a small scale, you have to be hospitable. By choosing to run a B&B you lose a lot of discretion over who you invite into your home, including people who may not share your beliefs. If you aren't comfortable with that then perhaps you are in the wrong business.

If a Christian couple were refused a booking by a B&B there would be similar outrage, and quite rightly.


20 Oct 12 - 11:10 AM (#3423061)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

Well, according to Rand Paul, the B&B owners have the right to choose whom to accept and whom to turn away, just as the clients have the right to choose another place to stay. Such is his sense of "Libertarianism." And according to poppa Paul, the sick have the right to choose whether to have health care or to die.

Saul


20 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM (#3423120)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

Most of the Hotels I book into have a sign saying "We have the right to refuse service to any customer."


20 Oct 12 - 01:45 PM (#3423136)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

A discussion of the "right to refuse service" issue


20 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM (#3423165)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

Howard, that's where we diverge then, I think. For such a small scale business, I do think they should retain the right to ask for whatever. There are, after all, so many other choices for the consumer. SaulG, I think, is being sarcastically flippant, but his first sentence does hold a lot of common sense.

If you are a small enough business to be (potentially) on first name terms with your customers, and if you find your customers' beliefs conflict with your own, should you not be allowed to decline their business? If you are a large enough business that your individual customers start to become "the customers", that you no longer have a personal connectin with them, then, I think, you no longer have the right to discriminate between them.

I realise that my proposition is imperfectly worded; I'm no lawmaker, I've no desire to make it more watertight. My point is that people should be allowed to apply common sense on the small scale, and should not be castigated if that common sense is not to others' tastes. Common sense is often, if not always, a subjective quantity. On the small scale, though, everyone has many choices. To be refused service, from whatever business, for whatever reason, should not be a reason to go to court. Unless it has been agreed & then refused as per my remarks above, of course!


20 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM (#3423171)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

I don't know the particulars, but the gay couple made a reservation, accepted by the B&B for two and showed up and did not get what they reserved. I think that is wrong.


20 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM (#3423177)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

As noted, Jack, on that basis, I entirely agree!


11 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM (#3450666)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

?? What 'identity' do you want? Are you for or against the new vote?


11 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM (#3450686)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

The gay marriage bill passed in Washington State in the recent election.

For those who keep insisting that "gays don't want to get married, they want to be promiscuous and spread HIV/AIDs," this past Sunday was the first day that same-sex couples could be married legally here.

There were HUNDREDS of marriage ceremonies all over the city of Seattle. How many in the state as a whole, I haven't heard.

I heard some interviews of just married people on the radio. Frankly, it was pretty damned touching! Lots of really happy couples out there!

####

Be it noted that in the recent election, Washington State also legalized marijuana, to be licensed and taxed by the state.

Some wag pointed out that the gay marriage law and the marijuana law were two coordinated issues, insisted upon by Christian Fundamentalists. It says in the Book of Leviticus that if two men lie together as man and woman, they shall be stoned.

So—legalizing both gay marriage and possession of marijuana makes it possible to fulfill the Biblical injunction. . . .


11 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM (#3450699)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: DMcG

Don: in the UK the position sounds different to your Washington State case, if I understand you correctly. We have permitted civil partnerships between gays for a good few years now, which are pretty much marriage except in name. However, there are also a few other constraints like they cannot be celebrated in churches. This new law will tackle the issue of whether it can be called marriage and open the path to allow churches which want to to conduct the service.

In my view the whole thing is a complete mess and we should have gone for, or had the arguments about, gay marriage in the first place. Introducing this odd stepping stone of partnership causes no end of uneccessary complications. What, for example, of the gay couple who wanted to marry but instead took what was on offer and had a civil partership? Do they 'upgrade' to marriage now? What is the role of civil partnerships when a marriage is available: are they two legally distinct things, and if so, what are the ramifications? If there is some continuing difference why should hetrosexual couples be denied civil partnerships? The more I think about the messier the whole thing gets, even without the problems for the churches and the way the established churches are more restricted than all the rest


11 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM (#3450717)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I don't know all the ins and outs of the matter, but I believe civil partnerships have been possible in this state for some time. Many of the couples who were married this past Sunday were already in civil partnerships, but as I understand it, there were two issues involved. There are certain things about marriage that touch on matters of inheritance and joint ownership of property. Some, but not all of this is covered in civil partnership.

Among other things, should one of the couple be hospitalized, a spouse has rights, such as visitation, availability of information, and such, that a civil partner does not have.

Also, many same-sex couples, some already in civil partnerships, want the ceremony and the recognition that goes with marriage, the announcement to and the acknowledgement of their friends and family that a state of marriage, not just a legal document, now exists between the two.

As to the matter of churches:   with the multiplicity of denominations in the U. S. rather than a "State Church," and with radically different beliefs regarding the issue, there are some churches (a fair number, in fact) that don't have a problem with it, and are ready and willing to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I know about a half-dozen same sex couples who have been married in the church that my wife and I attend. The minister informed them, of course, that the religious ceremony had no legal status in Washington State, but they wanted the church ceremony anyway. The recognition of family and friends and the world at large.

But now all that has changed. These folks are now legally married.

As to the churches, if a given church or denomination is opposed to same-sex marriage, they are not required to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

As of this coming Monday (Dec. 17th), my wife Barbara and I will have been married for thirty-five years. As to the matter of "defense of marriage," someone is going to have to explain to me in detail how the marriages of Jamie and Eric, and Paul and Philip, have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage.

Don Firth


12 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM (#3450845)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Its all about the word.   "Liberal activists" and a few homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage so that they can be the same.

Unfortunately, the health statistics associated with their lifestyle and human biology determine that they are not the same,


12 Dec 12 - 06:54 AM (#3450885)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

And you object to the improvement in those health statistics which would inevitably follow the establishment of stable monogamous relationships because...............?

I know "monogamous" isn't quite the right word, but it gets the point across.

Don T.


12 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM (#3450887)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn

I'm really confused by yesterday's news. I know that no religious body was to be forced to hold same sex marriages but I was really surprised that it is to be made illegal for gay marriages to take place in the Church of England or Church in Wales - and that it is almost being put forward as a progressive move. In other words any denomination can opt in excepting for English and Welsh Anglicans!Probably an unlikely scenario but what if the Scottish Episcopal Church decides it would let individual parishes go forward with same sex marriages if desired? There are some pro clergy amongst the said church which is Anglican and in communion with the CofE. You could then have the absurdity of English and Welsh Anglicans travelling up to Scotland to get legally married in the Anglican Church here!! Help out local hotels I suppose!! A pink lining in every cloud.


12 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM (#3450890)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bubblyrat

I think that gay couples who encounter perceived "discrimination" when declined the use of a double room in any "B&B" or small hotel ,on religous / moral grounds ,according to the religion / beliefs of the proprietors , should have the common decency to accept the situation and shew some respect for other people, instead of getting agressive and making a big fuss about it .How selfish !!
There are still many,many people "out there" who feel that marriage is an institution for dedicated ,committed ,heterosexual couples who wish to formalise and legalise their relationship ,particularly with due regard for the future status of their issue. For those of a different sexual orientation,who wish to "secure" a same-sex union ,there are already tried-and-tested Civil Partnerships ; allowing these good people to actually Marry will ,I fear ,ultimately solve nothing and cause much distress to a great majority.Is it REALLY worth all the fuss and bother ??


12 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM (#3450959)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Who'd be a politician? The bigots in Parliament need to be able to vote for something so we have a compromise between decent society and promoting hate. They are even going to revise The Equality Act.

Revising The Equality Act also requires renaming it as it will no longer signify equality. It will mean that pathetic bigotry is legal so long as it is in the name of state sponsored superstition. If the object of the exercise is to make religion even more irrelevant, the government are carrying out their policy spot on.

What's next? Old men in pointy hats replace elected politicians? Some idiot looks in a gilded old book and says, Yep, Akenaton is right, his outrageous health conclusions are based on fact not hate, and if the figures don't add up it's because God says we don't understand... Strange bedfellows, atheist bigots and old fools in dog collars.

Bubblyrat might even start showing some respect for others and not type such crap as that one above. The Gay couple should accept the situation?????   If I shit on your lawn, don't ring the police or council, accept my right to do so and don't be so selfish. I read that one twice because it was so close to parody and irony... Then I found it was genuine. Oh dear.


12 Dec 12 - 11:36 AM (#3450977)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge

I`ad that Trevor, the dancing teacher, in my cab the other day. I did admire `is stripey pink blazer.
`e said, "Oh, `allo luvvie. Could you get me down, (if you know what I mean), to my cottage in Chelsea please, Jim. I`m running late and I`ve got to get dolled up for my wedding."
I said, "Blimey Trev. We don`t want to upset the `er indoors to be, do we?
`e said, It`s not an `er it`s an`im. We decided to do the decent thing and turn our back on the cruel world."
I said, "Sounds okay but you be careful to `oo you turn your back on!!"

Whaddam I Like??


12 Dec 12 - 01:11 PM (#3451003)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle

Scroll down, and I doubt there will be a dry eye in the room when you finish looking at these photos.

SRS


12 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM (#3451011)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Musket, if you do not believe the homosexual heath figures produced by CDC and HPA......attack them, not me.

By the way, as you claim to use HPA, you will have noticed that the number of new infections amongst male homosexuals for 2011, is an all time high, well over 3000.
Almost 70% of new cases of hiv are amongst male homosexuals, who make up only 2/3% of the population.

The amount of misinformation being presented to the public by the NHS and other bodies is disgraceful. The latest infomation note from the NHS on hiv, makes almost no mention of the link between homosexuality and hiv, simply stating that there are more heteros suffering from hiv/aids worldwide than homosexuals...

To mention factual health figures now appears to be viewed as bigotry or discrimination.......bad news for homosexuals I'm afraid.


12 Dec 12 - 01:46 PM (#3451014)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Unabashed happiness is contagious... and inspiring.


12 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM (#3451019)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

Am I going to waste more keystrokes pointing out that Ake is just looking for ways to torment homosexuals, which is the very definition of "homophobic?" No, I am not. To hell with it.

Saul


12 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM (#3451021)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

I must say I find the latest pronouncement by Parliament to be most strange. At first, they were suggesting that all Churches should perform gay marriages. Now we have the proposal that Churches should not be forced to do so. Then the odd statement that under no circumstance may the Church of England or the Church of Wales be permitted to do any such thing. Why this sudden turnabout? As the Queen is the Head of the Church of England (and Wales) might she perhaps have put her Majestic foot down and refused to sanction it? (Secretly, so as not to bring down on her Royal Head the wrath of the hopeful gays of the Nation?)


12 Dec 12 - 04:46 PM (#3451073)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage

From the PBS News Hour:

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, there's a big disparity in this country, Ray. There's -- 12 percent of the American population is African-American. And of the new infections, close to 50 percent of them are among African-Americans.

Sadly, among African-Americans who are gay or bisexual men, they're still the leading proportion, if you look at the slice of the pie of people that are getting infected. There has been less among injection drug uses, but an increase among heterosexual transmissibility, which accounts for the increasing percentage among women in the United States.

But, still, men who have sex with men is still the largest fraction of the individuals who are -- get newly infected. And there's a great disparity racially in that, with African-Americans bearing the brunt of the burden.


This said, what does it have to do with gay marriage? This conversation seems to have gone off the rails.

SRS


12 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM (#3451085)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake continues to roar out his bag of statistics, but NEVER HAS responded to the question of why he opposes promoting stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, which WILL put a big dent in those statistics.

His only response has been to assert that gays don't WANT to get married. This past Sunday's spate of weddings in Seattle shows just how bloody wrong he is.

No, HIS problem lies somewhere else. . . .

Don Firth


12 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM (#3451106)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Don.... Homosexual Civil Unions have been available in many countries for quite a few years.....Civil Union encourages monogamy?

Why then has there been no large dent in the current hiv/aids figures for male homosexuals?

In my view young sexually active homosexuals have no time for "marriage" or monogamy. Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour.
This would make sense as males of any species are genetically programmed to be promiscuous and the moral balance being the female child bearer and family structure.


12 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM (#3451112)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "Ake continues to roar out his bag of statistics, but NEVER HAS responded to the question of why he opposes promoting stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, which WILL put a big dent in those statistics."

...unless they don't know their ass from a hole in her 'round'!

GfS


12 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM (#3451119)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

So if, as you say, that's just the nature of things, then why are you so opposed to same-sex marriage, which encourages stable relationships and would cut the statistics over time?

There is a considerable difference between civil union and marriage. There is nothing that says heterosexual couples have to get married. They, too, can apply for civil unions, so why is it that so many hererosexual couples choose to get married?

If you keep same-sex relationships in a sort of second-class catagory, such as allowing civil unions only, it tends to keep them "in the closet," at least socially. Whereas, the events of this past Sunday here in Seattle, and the public joy, NOT "in the closet," more than amply demonstrates what I'm saying.

One of the big things about marriage is that it is not just a legal contract (which is all that a civil union is), it is a ceremonial announcement to society in general that this relationship—a state of marriage—now exists between these two people.

No, Ake. The world is moving forward apace. If you choose to remain in the Dark Ages—well, that's your decision, I guess.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, GfS, marriage, be it between same-sex or heterosexual couples, is NOT JUST about sex.


12 Dec 12 - 07:00 PM (#3451139)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"The world is moving forward apace"....:0) I'm amazed that anyone still believes that to be the case.

Around, i see all that workers, brothers and sisters fought for during my lifetime, being systematically demolished.

The bread is being stolen from our children and we are offered the cake of homosexual "marriage rights"


12 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM (#3451149)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

"Around, i see all that workers, brothers and sisters fought for during my lifetime, being systematically demolished."

Not true - one of the things that was fought for is equal rights for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and while that is yet to be fully realized significant progress has been made and one of the markers of that is the growing acceptance of same sex marriage.


12 Dec 12 - 07:40 PM (#3451152)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

461 posts? This is the year 2012. 2012!

How can anyone be so fucking ignorant? It's apalling. It's unblievable. It's soooo sad*.



*Trolls excluded. Void where stupidty and ignorance are accepted or required by law or by social pressures foisted upon the weak of mind and moral character.

PS... 461 posts??? Ya gotta be shittin me! Un fuckinreal!


12 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM (#3451159)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Equality???......We have huge sink estates where the youth are unemployable, not because of sexual orientation, not because of ethnicity, but simply because of where they live and the underclass to which they belong.

Equality is a fucking myth.....grow up!


12 Dec 12 - 08:29 PM (#3451175)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake, how does this relate to the question at hand?

When I said the world is moving forward apace, I didn't say that things are perfect. I just said that this is a step in the right direction (whether you think so or not).

Bit by bit.

One of the problems with wild-eyed fanatics is that they want everything RIGHT NOW! Well, unfortunately, the world, it seems, doesn't work that way.

Again, why are you so adamantly opposed to ONE of those steps in the right direction?

Don Firth


13 Dec 12 - 03:07 AM (#3451248)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "P. S. By the way, GfS, marriage, be it between same-sex or heterosexual couples, is NOT JUST about sex."

I know...it's about using the reproductive system for reproducing....ooops maybe the term 'reproductive system' and 'reproductive organs' should be deemed politically incorrect' terms, because it's not in line with the party's propaganda.

Not 'just about sex' at all.....any child could see THAT!

GfS


13 Dec 12 - 03:29 AM (#3451253)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"Again, why are you so adamantly opposed to ONE of those steps in the right direction?"

Because in my view it is a step in the wrong direction.   Bad legislation.

It is a token gesture towards an equality which does not, and will never exist under this money orientated system.
Our system only works if it continues to produce extreme inequality, something it does very efficiently.

There are many valid arguments "against" bringing homosexuality into the social mainstream.......but only one "for", the mythical equality agenda.


13 Dec 12 - 03:34 AM (#3451254)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Hey, Ake..you're still around...hello, and regards to you and family.

Guest from Sanity


13 Dec 12 - 09:19 AM (#3451348)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Oh hell. Goofus & bigot britches saying hello to each other.

One thinks he has hit the target whilst the other misses the mark. Their shots land in the same field all the same.


13 Dec 12 - 03:29 PM (#3451476)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Hey Musket....Neither one of us are 'bigots'...that's what fucked up politics does to your thinking..you can't even take in another point of view, without attaching it to someone 'hating' someone else.
That sucks..I thought being 'liberal' was above that....apparently not!!

GfS


13 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM (#3451498)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Hey! Maybe these two guys ought to get married!!

Don Firth


13 Dec 12 - 07:08 PM (#3451549)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

On BBC Question Time tonight, Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry".

Will Self deflated like a punctured balloon as Hitchins illustrated the hypocrisy of the "liberal" agenda.   On homosexual "marriage", immigration or religious belief, Mr Hitchens explained to the audience the "liberal" game plan of lies, distortion and false accusations of racism, bigotry and homophobia......for simply advancing an alternative to the "liberal" viewpoint.


13 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM (#3451571)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

Ake said: "Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour."

Nonsense! It is only that the promiscuous ones are in the spotlight ... those type often flaunt their lifestyle and like to be seen in silly parades and at bars...etc.

As Don F. & I and others have pointed out, the ability to consider a simpler, stable lifestyle reduces the former group. And... no matter what you believe... there is NO reason to deny those who ARE in a stable, monogamous relationship a legal form for it, just as heterosexuals have.


13 Dec 12 - 08:25 PM (#3451575)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

On BBC Question Time tonight, Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry".

Will Self deflated like a punctured balloon as Hitchins [sic] illustrated the hypocrisy of the "liberal" agenda.   On homosexual "marriage", immigration or religious belief, Mr Hitchens explained to the audience the "liberal" game plan of lies, distortion and false accusations of racism, bigotry and homophobia......for simply advancing an alternative to the "liberal" viewpoint.


Well you weren't watching the same programme as me, then, achy Tony. Hitchens demonstrated, not only in that debate but in every debate on the programme, what a complete and utter bigoted twat he truly is. He seems to think that a self-regarding polemical outburst automatically indicates truth, and, on more than one occasion, his furtive looking-round for approval, caught well by the cameras unfortunately for him, showed it abundantly.


13 Dec 12 - 11:19 PM (#3451628)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Whenever someone starts attacking me on the basis of my "liberal agenda," I know I'm dealing with a person who's operating on an agenda of his own, which generally involves restricting someone else's freedom.

Don Firth


13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM (#3451636)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

I didn't watch the program, and don't know what it was about.

As so far as 'attacking you on the basis of liberal agenda'..look, you may not know it, but when some Bozo starts unthinkingly spouts off the mantra of horseshit, on which the 'liberals' use for their rationalizations, it's easy to spot, (or smell) a mile away!..only thing is, to you it's 'normal reasoning'....you're just used to it!..like bad breath, B.O, or the smell of your own farts!

GfS


13 Dec 12 - 11:57 PM (#3451644)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

I didn't watch the programme either; but it is obvious what is happening here: both of you found convincing the arguments of the one who embraced the side of the argument you support yourself, and absurd the one which opposed it ~~ a most common phenomenon in all argument and debate, as Socrates, according to Plato, demonstrated just a few years back.

The other thing that clearly happened is that each side convinced by means of what literary critic John Gross described as the practice of a noted predecessor in that genre, F R Leavis, as his "air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been vigorously asserted".

So one of you perceived Peter Hitchens as the triumphant demonstrator because you agreed with his stance from the off, and vice versa for the other of you with regard to Will Self.

Absolute par for the course. Hardly advances the main argument, though, does it?!

~M~


14 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM (#3451662)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage

Geez, Louise, the contortions some of you will go through to try to deny equal access to marriage and the rights it confers. Are you too busy trying to imagine what the sex life of a gay couple looks like to lose track of the 98% of their lives that are dedicated to loving and caring for a partner in everyday life?

Seems this thread has run its course. And then some.

SRS


14 Dec 12 - 01:22 AM (#3451667)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle

at way point did liberal (supporter of freedom) become a term of abuse?

I think to be liberal is quite a good thing. freedom is what our fathers fought for - so that we wouldn't have eejits making arbitrary decisions and judgements about how we should live.

The churches must be crazy. they're all empty as it is - the mainstream ones. They stand some meed to be excluding and disaffecting people, whole sections of the community.

I think you need to ask yourself, does this reflect the reality of the lives of my gay friends - all these statistics. Ake?

Because you do know gay people, they are very numerous - and people who maybe you don't know very well - some of them will be gay. If they've heard you saying this stuff, I would imagine they must be pretty guarded when they talk to you.


14 Dec 12 - 01:44 AM (#3451672)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn

"Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry"."

Though to be truthful the fact that Peter Hitchens agrees with you is hardly going to impress anyone who is liberal minded. I saw the programme and it was a bit more boisterous than usual but I wouldn't say it was any more thoughtful. Much of it consisted of Hitchems and Self squabbling. Hitchens in particular was his normal arrogant bullying self and Dimbleby on several occassions had to say to him "look this programme consists of more than just you speaking"


14 Dec 12 - 02:11 AM (#3451677)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn

"The churches must be crazy" Though to be fair they have their own agenda and as far as marriage in church goes their beliefs need to be taken into account. Not so much on the question of marriage itself though! In Scotland for instance a majority of weddings are already non-religious!


14 Dec 12 - 02:34 AM (#3451679)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

In regards to my last post:

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM

I didn't watch the program, and don't know what it was about.

As so far as 'attacking you on the basis of liberal agenda'..look, you may not know it, but when some Bozo starts unthinkingly spouts off the mantra of horseshit, on which the 'liberals' use for their rationalizations, it's easy to spot, (or smell) a mile away!..only thing is, to you it's 'normal reasoning'....you're just used to it!..like bad breath, B.O, or the smell of your own farts!

GfS


..the same thing is true about a lot of the so-called 'Conservatives', as well..it just smells a little different, but equally as unpleasant.
My comment wasn't particularly aimed at the homosexual issues...but the way the 'left' have championed bad science, is the 'odors' of which I speak!

GfS


14 Dec 12 - 02:52 AM (#3451684)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history.

Except, of course, by those who favor totalitarian regimes.

Why then, do people of a relatively free country use it as an insult?

One must conclude that they do not consider individual freedom to be important.

Of course, liberalism is in good company. Many people who use "liberal" or "liberal agenda" as an insult tend to discount scientists when they warn about human-caused global warming. We are told that scientists (about 97% of them) who say such things have a "liberal agenda."

Don Firth


14 Dec 12 - 03:32 AM (#3451690)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Don ~~ I think people are reacting against the self-righteous, sometimes rather over-emphatic & bullying, tone taken by certain self-proclaimed 'liberals', 'progressives', &c, rather than to the actual social philosophy that the term 'liberalism' originally defined.

~M~


14 Dec 12 - 04:23 AM (#3451700)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Bill...My remark,"Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour." did not apply to "gay parades" or any such like nonesense, but to the homosexual heath figures which have been at th heart of all of my post on this issue.

The health figures show a massive over reprsenration of male homosexuals in hiv/aids, and most other STDs. To explain this phenomenon, would meant that there is either something intrinsically unhealthy in sexual intercourse between men, or that male homosexuals are massively more promiscuous than heteros?

If either of these views are correct, legislation to bring a sexual minority with such an abysmal health record into mainstream society, rather than investigate or take steps to improve the present situation,is bad legislation.

There are many other points concerning familiy structure ect which call this legislation into question, but still all we get from the so called liberals is the myth of "equality".


14 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM (#3451705)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You have that about right MGM.....but the culture is slightly more insidious and dangerous. The "liberal agenda" is really an attack on free speech and rationally, it is driven by the profound philosophers who make up the broadcasting boards, newspaper editors, and the leaders of most of the mass media.

"Orwellian" describes it perfectly.


14 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM (#3451708)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Liberalism, as espoused by Will Self, seems very intolerant.
He said last night that anyone with any doubts about gay marriage was a homophobe, and anyone with any concerns about the level of immigration, (ie every political party and most of the population) must be racist.
He actually said both those things.
Anyone who disagrees with their current philosophy must be a bad person.


14 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM (#3451712)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe. There can be absolutely no other reason for opposing it, no matter how you dress up your excuses in tradition, the sanctity of procreation, etc.

And Michael. Before you patronise us who troubled to watch Question Time, might I suggest you watch it yourself on iPlayer?


14 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM (#3451716)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Having now watched Question Time on i-player, I am somewhat at a loss. After reading the above comments, I was obviously going to be watching out for certain things. I did not, however, observe Dimbleby at any point inform Hitchens that the programme was 'not just about him talking', or any words to that effect, as quoted above. I didn't see anything approaching the exclusive conflict between Hitchens & Self described above, particularly in the opening 'gay marriage' question & discussion. I did not notice Hitchens 'glancing furtively around for approval' as fancifully described by a poster a few back. One question indeed, alone of the whole panel, he afforded simply the one-word answer 'no', in reply to whether he agreed with something or other ~~ the deserving or otherwise of the obloquy the Oz DJs are getting, I think it was. I got the clear impression that the two young lady MPs, a junior misister & a shadow ditto IIRC, both hogged & interrupted far more than any of the other participants.

It was all another example to me, taken in conjunction with comments above, of hearing and seeing what one's predispositions condition one to hope & expect to see & hear.

~M~


14 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM (#3451718)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Steve ~~ Believe it or not, I had already done so before I read your last post ~~ with results rubricated immediately above.

~M~


14 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM (#3451727)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe

So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption.


14 Dec 12 - 08:23 AM (#3451750)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Me: I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe

Keef: So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption.


My statement makes no declaration that "they all must be", neither does it make any assumption. I did try, with my bit of reasoning [q.v.]to put the onus on opponents of gay marriage to demonstrate that their stance is not homophobic, which is exactly where I think the onus should be.


14 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM (#3451751)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Steve,"There can be absolutely no other reason for opposing it, no matter how you dress up your excuses in tradition, the sanctity of procreation, etc."
So they must all be ......


14 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM (#3451753)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe
So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption."




No it would not. Because what Steve Shaw stated is a tautology. Try this test...substitute any other group of people and the word for those who shun an fear them. For example:

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to whites marrying blacks who is not a racist"

Is that a bigoted assumption?


14 Dec 12 - 09:10 AM (#3451766)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

OK, here is a question for everyone, including the trolls. *Especially* the trolls:

In society's treatment of homosexuals, we should
a) "allow" them to have all the rights enjoyed by heteros, and live as "normal" people.
b) deny them some, but not all rights (specify which ones).
c) deny them all the rights of heteros.
d) shun them and make them live outside of society, like in the woods or under bridge overpasses, eating out of dumpsters.
e) beat them up.
f) imprison them.
g) kill them.

OK, then. Let's here it.

Saul


14 Dec 12 - 09:31 AM (#3451773)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

In Britain we have never had laws against inter-race marriage.
It has been happening for centuries.
The idea that marriage is for male to female only is truly ancient.
That does not mean it can never be changed, but please do not pretend it is not a deeply ingrained cultural issue for some people other than homophobes.


14 Dec 12 - 09:32 AM (#3451774)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Given that they are in fact perfectly normal people (unless of course somebody can explain exactly how and why they differ from the other humans on this planet), the only reasonable answer is a).

Unless of course you are of the persuasion which discriminates against people who are black, or ginger, or live in trailer parks, all of which, like sexual orientation, are involuntary products of circumstances of birth and/or heritage.

Don T.


14 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM (#3451777)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

No it would not. Because what Steve Shaw stated is a tautology. Try this test...substitute any other group of people and the word for those who shun an fear them. For example:

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to whites marrying blacks who is not a racist"

Is that a bigoted assumption?


"Tautology"? It was a statement of fact (unless you disbelieve me, which you are quite entitled to do). I have yet to meet an opponent of gay marriage is who not homophobic. When I said that, I went to on to reject the usual reasons given for opposition, that marriage, traditionally, has always been between a man and a woman, that marriage should have the potential for offspring. I reject those claims, first because they usually emanate from a religious context (which is always suspicious to say the least) and second because they make a comfortable curtain for homophobes to hide behind, Pilate-like, saying with a shrug, well, that's how it is and we'll have to live with it, I suppose. When I type "I have yet to meet..." you would be entirely wrong to read that as my possessing any certainty in this matter. I'm open to persuasion from good, honest people who can supply good, honest, persuasive, agenda-free reasons why two men or two women should not get married and call themselves married.

By the way, I can guarantee that, by any definition of racist you care to choose, anyone who opposes the marriage of a black person and a white person, in principle, because of their skin colour (I do try to avoid traps) is racist.


14 Dec 12 - 09:45 AM (#3451784)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve doesn't do reason keith.


14 Dec 12 - 10:01 AM (#3451787)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Really? What do you think that last post was, achy, Scotch bloody mist?


14 Dec 12 - 10:04 AM (#3451789)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

In society's treatment of homosexuals, we should
a) "allow" them to have all the rights enjoyed by heteros, and live as "normal" people.


We have already achieved this.
They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the right to enter in to a civil partnership with someone of the same sex.

Like everyone else they do not have the right to marry an underage person, a close relative or anyone of the same sex.

All those three limitations should be subject to scrutiny and change, but there will be people who will have valid objections to any change.


14 Dec 12 - 10:07 AM (#3451791)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

There ya go, achy, an object lesson in "reason" from Keith. An object lesson in intolerance, too, while you're at it.


14 Dec 12 - 10:12 AM (#3451793)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

"Points have no dimensions"
"Wait a minute...aren't you making assumptions about all points? You Sir are a bigoted anti-pointist!"

Or something like that.


14 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM (#3451796)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

an object lesson in "reason" from Keith.
Thank you Steve.
An object lesson in intolerance, too

No. It is liberal and tolerant to respect the deeply held convictions of others.
It may be necessary to overrule them, but not to assert that they must be bad people and their views dismissed.
That is illiberal, intolerant and bigoted.


14 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM (#3451801)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Keith, your post was accurate...right on the button, but as i have found it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people.

They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.
You and I are on different sides of the political divide, but we do not see important social issues as party political.


14 Dec 12 - 10:41 AM (#3451803)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

You and I are on different sides of the political divide

*splutter...*


14 Dec 12 - 10:43 AM (#3451804)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

OK. But let's call it a gambit instead. ;-)


14 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM (#3451805)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Okay, let's have the grownup discussion...

You (akenaton) asked "How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual.

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are worried about...even just a little bit?


14 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM (#3451814)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing

Tis my belief that Cameron is in such a untenable situation with this coalition that he is pulling every stroke he can to divest himself of the post of PM by espousing contentious policies such as homosexual/lesbian marriage, nuclear energy shilly-shallying, HS2, taking on Brussels, forced green policies et al. Come the next election he will be happy as Larry to see someone else wrestle with the above. Blair seems to have personally flourished since being out of office.


14 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM (#3451823)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

And can it be said at all that married heteros do not "stray?"

Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance, which is really the heart of this. Perhaps because it demands an honest self-assessment, which some here adamantly refuse to do?? I think that refusal speaks volumes.


Saul


14 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM (#3451921)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.""

Then, O wise Scot, tell us do how a homosexual marriage diminishes heterosexuals' marriages?

Then tell us how allowing homosexuals to establish monogamous relationships is likely to increase their health risks, when every facet of reasonable examination strongly suggests the opposite?

You have consistently ducked this question with the comment that gays don't want to marry, obviously untrue given the number who queue up to marry wherever it becomes legal.

Come on 'fess up canny lad. The idea that all gays are by nature promiscuous is largely the invention of nay sayers like yourself, in a weak attempt to label what you call "These people" (you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that we are all known to you, at least as fellow Mudcatters) as politically motivated destroyers of the status quo.

You are too intolerant to allow that we believe in what we say because we believe it is right, not politically, but in honest humanity.

Don T.


14 Dec 12 - 03:30 PM (#3451926)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance""

I rather think I did Saul, while cutting off at the pass all the objections I foresaw as inevitable.

Acceptance is the only possible answer to men of conscience (which, I believe, is all but a vociferous few here).

Don T.


14 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM (#3451935)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

". . . it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people."

Apparently, Ake's idea of "a grown up discussion" is one in which he pontificates, and everyone else nods and chants, "Yessir, yessir, three bags full!"

Marriage, which used to be mainly a matter of increasing the tribe (which was the primary reason for the prohibitions against same-sex relationships in Biblical times), was later redefined to make it mainly a matter of property (a man's wife was considered "chattel," as were her possessions, including, often, a dowry) and inheritance. Within the past century, the place of women in society has, by itself, redefined marriage. And none of these redifinitions has brought about the destruction of society.

So that argument is spurious.

And as to the argument that same-sex relationships, male relationships in particular, are responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDs, is a reason to oppose same-sex marriage is self-contradictory. ONE (but not ALL) of the means of spreading HIV/AIDs is through promiscuous sex, regardless of the gender of the participants. Marriage encourages stable, monogamous relationships, so it cuts down on the spread of venereal diseases.

I have known a same-sex couple who have been in a stable, monogamous relationship for twenty-eight years! And other couples who have been together for long periods of time and to all intents and purposes, ARE married. Except legally, which would give them the same rights as other couples.

This past Sunday here in Washington State, they were able to have an official, legal, marriage ceremony, which made their relationship official and announced its existence to the rest of the world.

A very happy and much longed-for event for both them and their friends!

There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny same-sex marriage.

Don Firth


14 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM (#3451945)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

Well said, Don. It seems that those opposed to gay marriage, in or out of a church, are opposed to homosexuality itself. But it exists, there are gay people out there, they fall in love, they want to formalise their relationships just like anyone else, and gay marriage (as any marriage) does indeed stabilise society. Why all this hate and unkindness? It's as mad as trying to prevent black people or disabled people from marrying in church. Imagine the hoo-ha if someone suggested banning them! Everyone has the right (and should be encouraged) to marry the person they truly love. So let them.


14 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM (#3451966)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

So many well said posts. I laud them all.

"There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny same-sex marriage."

Well, yeah. But there are gonna be more posts from those peeps who simply troll and have nothing to say in response that has any true value and they will simply be repeting themselves with inane arguements so why not just stop posting? Let the ignorant trolls post themselves up the ying yang. Who cares about trolls and ignorants and bigots?


14 Dec 12 - 05:31 PM (#3451969)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

I think you're right, gnu. It's hopeless trying to help them understand. They never will turn into kind and accepting folk. They take pleasure in winding the rest of us up. But at the end of the day, they'll end up bitter, unhappy and lonely. No-one wants a vicious troll for a friend!


14 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM (#3451970)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley

Not only are there gay people "out there", there are gay people in here - hello!!!!!

And it is all too apparent that a (reassuringly) small number of Mudcat regulars have implacable and deeply condemnatory views about homosexuality. In various threads, at various times, I have attempted to put an alternative view, based on the actual lived experience of a gay man.

But it never works. So while I am genuinely pleased to see you well-intentioned hets trying to sway These Particular People, you really are wasting your time. You might as well try and get a rhino to walk a tightrope.


14 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM (#3452000)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Tia....you obviously have not been paying attention, I have explained my position regarding the homosexual "marriage" legislation many times on these threads and why I am unable to support such legislation. It has nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, or the colour of anyone's skin. Male homosexuals are now, in the eyes of most experts, suffering the effects of an epidemic. In some major US cities 1 in 5 homosexuals carry the hiv virus. In such an epidemic, it is impossible to "solve the health crisis...just a little bit"; real and urgent action is required immediately.....pretending that the crisis does not exist is not an option...and that is what the legislation does, it promotes the homosexual lifestyle with its very high rates of promiscuity, as safe and healthy....healthy enough to be brought into mainstream society and given very young children to bring up...a disgraceful social experiment.

The health agencies are only too aware of the crisis but are hindered by Rights legislation from tackling the problem at source. They are now hinting that compulsory hiv testing and contact tracing should be conducted in "problem areas"...this would mean all the inhabitants of inner city areas, whether or not they are "at risk" Expensive and time consuming. 2/3% of the population(homosexuals) account for almost 70% of new hiv infections, making them by a huge percentage the largest "at risk" group....it is this group that should be targetted if we are serious about understanding and eradicating the link between male homosexuality and hiv/aids.

To stick heads in the sand and pretend there is no heath crisis in the homosexual community, is rank stupidity and unbelievable cruelty, for although early death rates are falling, aids remains a life sentence for many young men....and to teach our children that while these rates of disease continue,homosexuality is a safe and healty lifestyle is to live in a land of PC madness.


14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM (#3452044)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

". . . promotes the homosexual lifestyle. . . ."

This makes the assumption that someone who's heterosexual is going to think, "Gee, homosexuality sounds like jolly good fun!! I think I'll go down to some gay bar and get laid!!"

Yeah, sure!!

When asked if being gay was a matter of choice or if people were just born that way, a gay acquaintance of mine said, "Considering the fact that being gay can subject you to all manner of slurs and insults, and can get you repeatedly hauled into a back alley and beaten up—or even killed!—who in his right mind would CHOOSE to be gay?"

You say you can't support such legislation despite the fact that same-sex marriage promotes stable, monogamous relationships, which, in turn, would reduce promiscuity. In addition to many other things, some aforementioned, this strikes me as both counterproductive and mean-spirited!

For those who are pathologically opposed to gay marriage—as some folks here make it quite plain that they are—the worst thing they could imagine is if medical science were to come up with a vaccination against HIV—or a cure for AIDs—or both!

That COULD happen any day now.

Don Firth


14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM (#3452045)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Well, achy, your veneer of "respectable" and faux-measured comment is ultra-thin and cannot disguise your homophobia. In Africa, where HIV/aids is far more prevalent than anywhere else, it is not a condition primarily of homosexual men. Far from it. To read your post, one might come to the conclusion that, if only we could wipe out homosexuality, we would rid the world of HIV/aids. You claim to be a siren voice who is bravely ditching PC. Well you're bravely ditching common sense and reason as well, not to speak of a large body of obstinate facts, unfortunately. Try the following for size. Why do you think we have massive rates of teenage unwanted pregnancy here? Why do we have a shamefully-high abortion rate in this country? Why is there so much death among teenage boy drivers? Why do we have HIV/aids in this country (at relatively low levels, actually)?

Well let me give you the wrong answers:

*Because teenagers are irresponsible shaggers-around.

*Because girls don't know when to say no, and, anyway, abortion is easy to get, so no problem. A lifestyle choice.

*Because teenage boys are all testosterone-fuelled, hubris-filled, immature little bastards.

*Because gay men are obsessed with unprotected bumming around with whoever they can get their hands on.

Now let me give you the wrong solutions:

*Stop teenagers going out at night and force them to do the respectable thing and get married if they do get pregnant.

*Don't let boys drive cars until they're 25 and even then restrict them to Cinquecentos.

*Ban abortion and make the guilty little whores have their babies and get them adopted.

*Make homosexuality illegal, as it's filthy and disgusting anyway, and castrate repeat offenders.

Now the right solution: education, old chap, that's what. We are so bloody bad at it in this country when it comes to sex and personal relationships it isn't true. It's a willy in a fanny (in diagrammatic form, of course) but only for making babies (I know: I was involved in it in secondary schools for 25 fruitless years in which spinster senior teachers, school nurses and vicars with moral agendas couldn't keep their noses out). The same applies to boy racers. There was a thing on telly last night about showing volunteer teenage drivers how inexperienced they were, and the guinea-pigs showed impressive and humble responses to their eye-opening lessons. But we don't bother. Birds and bees are for mums and dads to deal with, and they were educated even less well. Then, just like you, we moan and groan about the moral laxities of any of those groups we choose to focus on. Well, achy, the thing is, it's all your fault and mine why kids grow up all wrong sometimes. And I'm certainly not including growing up gay in that, unlike you. In terms of education, gayness is the great unmentionable (with a very few honourable exceptions). Thing is, old chap, it's the self-same people who do all the bloody moralising and moaning and condemning who also try to put every possible obstacle in the way of good, open, moralising-free and well-integrated education programmes. Next time you pass a Catholic school, nip in, pretend you're a prospective parent and ask how much they teach their kids about contraception and safe sex. Don't even bother asking what they teach about homosexuality.


14 Dec 12 - 11:51 PM (#3452134)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

However you see it...I'm a bit skeptical on policies formed on the shoulders of bad science....and if you belief bad science, and policies built upon them, then it could be said that your rationale is in decay from the beginning premise.....and really, do you want to be dogmatic on a false premise, and then be surprised if you meet opposition??????
those who knowingly promote policies built upon bad science and false premises, have breached their own credibility..and can be easily dismissed.....no matter how 'popular' it is to tolerate their act!

GfS


15 Dec 12 - 03:02 AM (#3452154)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

When you notice that Akenaton writes gay marriage as gay "marriage" you don't really have the heart to read any further.

If you did you would find distortion and convenient solutions to match his preconceived views.

Goofus on the other hand tries to tease out hypocrisy in other people's posts whilst giving Akenaton respect.

So, now they can both be dismissed out of hand, back to gay marriage.

Old men in pointy hats tell us marriage belongs to their imaginary friend. Very easy to dismiss my comment there as a rant against religion but if you find such institutions irrelevant, their claim is somewhat insulting. Yet be insulting back and as Corporal Jones reminded us, the fuzzy wuzzies don't like it up 'em.

I got married three years ago in a hotel. No church nonsense or hypocritical incantations but a bloody good time. By their reckoning I am not married then either? Fuck 'em.

Jesus had two dads and he turned out ok. In fact according to Christians he turned out better than any person ever could. Which says it all really...


15 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM (#3452176)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Not a rant against religion Musket.
The pointy hat reference makes it specific to Christian churches, who of all churches have no problem with sexuality.
All congregations have openly gay couples, and we have gay priests and bishops.
The Methodist church I often attend has its second gay minister in a row.
You will not find such acceptance in,say, Islam.
The problem arises I think for some people with the concept of marriage.
It is an ancient cultural tradition that predates religions.
That is not to say it must never change, but making such a huge change to such a fundamental, deeply rooted cultural tradition will not be accepted by all people overnight.


15 Dec 12 - 05:09 AM (#3452177)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Musket...I usually write homosexual "marriage".
Even though I have had only a pretty basic formal education, I like to be as accurate as possible.

I have never been fond of using words like "gay" as a euphamism for homosexuality, just because it is more user friendly.
As far as marriage is concerned i'll just stick to the traditional definition thank you.
The Scottish govt has just held a "cosultation" over this issue, where the Scottish people were ask to give their views.
By a large majority, they rejected the proposed legislation to legalise same sex marriage.
For your information, I too was married in an hotel...over 45years ago; this has absolutely no bearing on my stance on this issue.

People of faith still have the right to their beliefs, despite people like you.


15 Dec 12 - 05:32 AM (#3452185)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve... i cant make much sense of your garbled post,but I take it you are trying to say that all the crisis requires is a bit more information?

Have you been living in a cave for the last twenty years? Homosexuals have been bombarded by information....there is a huge industry involved in giving information and help to aids sufferers.
Most of the aids budget goes to MSMs.

Yet new infection rates keep climbing steadily.

The health agencies know that they are losing the battle and that compulsory testing and contact tracing is required, but because of current "rights" legislation, we all must pretend that there is nothing wrong.

BTW I mostly agree with your views on the state of other aspects of social life, but what has it to do with this particular issue.

My post was an attempt to explain my position to Tia, not an invitation to be verbally abused.


15 Dec 12 - 05:48 AM (#3452190)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Keith. I know that. I remain bemused by decent people within the fold not making a stance and asking themselves which view represents the church? If Christianity is about turning the other cheek then respectable people are well practiced at it whilst outrageous disgusting bigots speak in their name. Appeasement in order to not rock the boat ignores the fact that the hull is well and truly breached anyway.

Sorry but whilst the Church wishes to be part of the state then it will continue to be rightfully questioned and compared to other society values. Other religions do not try tointerfere with our government so it is disingenuous to bring them into the debate. In any case, a gay colleague at work lives with his husband and they both attend Friday prayers at their mosque. Their Imam blessed their partnership at a ceremony for that matter.   If CofE people don't want to be calked Jehovas Witnesses it would be a good start to not stereotype people of other faiths. Most Muslims are as appalled by those speaking in their name as any decent member of our village congregation are when hearing an American Christian preacher say Thank God for AIDS.

Akenaton. Of course you can be old fashioned and stick to traditional views. Just keep them away from polite society that's all. My old fashioned views would include concluding that for anybody to be as twisted and bitter in their comments as you are, ,taking them seriously isn't going to help with your problem. And you do seem to have one..

Will it help if being Scottish you accept that you are portrayed as an alcoholic wife beating good for nothing ne're do well? Or is the Rab C Nesbitt comparison different to your portrayal of Gay people?


15 Dec 12 - 06:33 AM (#3452204)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

If you think that's verbal abuse then I feel sorry for you. Homosexuals have not been "bombarded with information". They have to go and get the information for themselves. If schools treated gay people the same as everyone else in good programmes of education for personal relationships, gay people, like everyone else, would come into the bigger world well-equipped to find the information they want. All too often they don't (which was the point of my longer post, actually, that you referred to as "garbled"). The evidence is all too obvious, in the shape of high rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and of the frighteningly-high incidence of unprotected sex. Your attitude is to put the information out there too late, when the problems have become all too apparent, and say take it or leave it. Conscience cleansed!

As for the use of the word gay, the fact that you're uncomfortable with it, in spite of its having just the one meaning these days unless you want to set everyone off giggling, speaks volumes about your resentment and intolerance of homosexuality. And you call it a euphemism for homosexuality. You know what a euphemism is? A less bad way of characterising something bad, that's what. A way of playing down the badness. So you think homosexuality is bad and you don't think it deserves a kinder word for itself. That's what you're saying, apparently. It's what we call homophobia and your remarks demonstrate plenty of symptoms of it.

As for the statistics, it is not true that infection "rates" in the UK are climbing "steadily". In fact, in the mid-noughties there was a decline in new diagnoses of HIV in spite of much improved diagnostic techniques and public knowledge. And we have now had HIV/Aids with us for well over 30 years that we know of, yet the number of HIV-positive people in the UK is under 100,000, fewer than one in 600 of the population (and by no means all will develop Aids). Yet the pundits tell us that anything between one in 20 and more than one in ten of us may be not solely sexually interested in the opposite sex. Hmm. Not much of a gay plague then, is it? Of course, scaremongering is simply another aspect of homophobia.


15 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM (#3452207)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The denial:

The pointy hat reference makes it specific to Christian churches, who of all churches have no problem with sexuality.

The barb:

You will not find such acceptance in,say, Islam.

How predictable was that!


15 Dec 12 - 06:48 AM (#3452209)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle

Gay marriage doesn't really effect anyone else. Its not something that will impinge of you personally, so what other reason than homophobia could there be for banning it? A hysterical and unreasonable reaction to something outside your ken.

Having said that. in some sleeve notes I referred to J Edgar Hoover as a cross dressing homosexual. This gay friend said to me, you've used the word homosexual - I don't like that. Not a nice word....

I said, well actually he wasn't all that nice a person....


15 Dec 12 - 10:54 AM (#3452291)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Actually, Rab is a bit of an anti-hero, Pattison created a multi faceted character in RC Nesbitt....one of my favourite shows, I am not thin skinned regarding stereotypes and Rab is portrayed as a mixture of good and bad like most of us.....I know quite a few guys in Glasgow,not a lot different from Rab.... rough as a badgers arse, but brim full of humanity.


15 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM (#3452300)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steven........"You know what a euphemism is? A less bad way of characterising something bad"
I did not change the word homosexual.
Homosexuals did, because it did what words are supposed to do, they thought that "homosexual" made people think of male to male sex and knowing that over 90% of the population frown on this practice, they decided to change it for something light and airy with a feelgood factor.   I for one do not like being manipulated in this manner so i shall stick to the original definition.

I have yet to meet a gay homosexual....most seem neurotic.

Where do you get your statistics from? I would be interested to see the source/
So you think there is no need for panic in the latest MSM figures?
70% of new infections in 2/3% of the population......well that says quite a lot about how you view homosexuals.


15 Dec 12 - 12:34 PM (#3452335)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

I did not change the word homosexual.
Homosexuals did, because it did what words are supposed to do, they thought that "homosexual" made people think of male to male sex and knowing that over 90% of the population frown on this practice, they decided to change it for something light and airy with a feelgood factor.   I for one do not like being manipulated in this manner so i shall stick to the original definition.


Down to you, but perhaps you need a King Canute to show you how futile is your stance. And homosexual people did not change the word to gay. The word is still there, for the likes of you, me and gay people to use if they wish (and they often do, as do we). "Gay" has been almost universally adopted by gay and straight people alike, whether you like it or not. No one has manipulated anyone or anything. Language does what language does, and I'll celebrate that.

I have yet to meet a gay homosexual....most seem neurotic.

Well I know a few gay people and they are no different, cheeriness-wise, to anyone else as far as I can see. Of course, a gay person confronted with a person whose body language or real language indicates hostility may give the appearance of being neurotic, and who could blame them.   

Where do you get your statistics from? I would be interested to see the source No secret. Wiki as ever.

70% of new infections in 2/3% of the population......well that says quite a lot about how you view homosexuals.

But you are ignoring the prevailing very low level of infection in any case (which I didn't: less than one in 600 of us, remember?) Lies, damned lies and... Education must get better! It may not be the answer to everything but it's a damn sight better than demonising gay people.


15 Dec 12 - 01:02 PM (#3452346)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Aye, I enjoy watching Rab myself. In fact having recently read "A Stranger Here Myself"I can vouch that the character is portrayed as a damn site more accepting of others than you appear to be.

All Gays are neurotic eh? Just think, if normal people shared your views they just might be. Your stereotyping and bullshit observations are hilarious.

Then in a post above you say you did not wish to be verbally abused.   If you know what it means perhaps you might wish to desist yourself?

People are gay or straight. Enjoy outdoor pursuits or want to relax. Watch football or go bell ringing.

The common bit? they are all traits of members of society and have the right to be themselves without your poison and hurtful observations.   

As you are so good at twisting figures, you would make a good politician. Or at least confirm the term to be an oxymoron.   Emphasis on the latter syllables.


15 Dec 12 - 02:41 PM (#3452372)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"I have yet to meet a gay homosexual....most seem neurotic."

Don't get out much, eh, Ake?

As I have mentioned above, I am acquainted with a number of homosexual men, the majority of which are attorneys and fairly well-to-do, one of which is a State Legislator. I could go into a fair amount of detail as to the lives of a couple of them (now married as of last Sunday) who have been together for several years and are better adjusted than many heterosexual couples I know.

In fact, any leaning toward neurosis often ends when the person "comes out of the closet" to themselves, says "Okay, that's the way I am. So be it!" makes peace with what IS, and then lives their life accordingly.

Being concerned with someone else's sex life--now, THAT'S NEUROTIC!

Don Firth


15 Dec 12 - 03:10 PM (#3452379)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Eliza... 535 posts... why does anyone need to say any more? Seems to me silence would say more. Yes, it's laudable that some will not "give up the fight" against ignorance and intolerance but I just to day read on antother thread something said by a mod... she don't like trolls or trollfuckers.

Crass? Maybe. But VERY wise. I have been well guilty of being a trollfucker in the past and just can't help myself at times these days but I will try. She's right... and wise.


15 Dec 12 - 03:18 PM (#3452380)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Akenaton's entire logic depends on his belief that gay people should be discriminated against because they engage in risky behavior. He's not worth arguing with until he can explain why we shouldn't also discriminate against smokers, bungee jumpers, and firemen. Once he comes up with a reasonable answer for that, he'll then have to prove that ALL gay people engage in risky behavior. Debating with him on any other questions only validates his lack of logic on these first questions.


15 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM (#3452387)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

It's less a matter of "trollfucking" than it is of counteracting rampant misinformation,

There are a couple of people on this (and, invariably, other threads touching on this subject) who are not so much trolls as they are table-pounding homophobes. They are not going to change their minds, nor do I expect they ever will. But they insist on spreading misinformation, and my aim is to shoot down the misinformation and tell what I know about the subject.

And since I am not homosexual myself, I don't have a horse in this race--other that a wish to be fair, and keep people I know out of the ghetto that some people here would put them in.

Don Firth


15 Dec 12 - 05:57 PM (#3452441)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn

"The Scottish govt has just held a "cosultation" over this issue, where the Scottish people were ask to give their views.
By a large majority, they rejected the proposed legislation to legalise same sex marriage."

It is seemingly not quite as straightforward as that. Of the responses that went in directly to Holyrood from individuals (ie not from the names collected by churches) the figure's are claimed to have been 50% against gay marriage and 49% in favour. However 19% of these responses actually came from people outside of Scotland and according to reports in the Guardian the vast bulk of these were anti with the suggestion being that they came from people linked to campaigns run by the Christian Institute and Christian Concern. So not quite the same as "the Scottish people" giving their opinion. Seemingly if individual responses from people within Scotland are counted it came down to about 65% in favour of gay marriage which ties in with the Mori polls on the subject.

What knocked the anti vote up further was the submission of petitions run by religious groups and in particular the postcards sent in by the Catholic Church. Seemingly 36% of total responses to the government consultation were these postcards. The Catholic Church gave out 200,000 preprinted cards declaring opposition to gay marriage with a space for the signature at the bottom. Only 28,000 were completed and handed back to the church. The vast bulk of Catholic parishioners ignored the cards. It was not a consultative exercise run by the church and there was no request for people to voice support for gay marriage. They simply ran a campaign to collect names.

Just saying in case people from outwith Scotland think that the country is full of anti-gays! There are statisitcs and statistics and damned lies. Yes we can say that of the names collected the majority were anti - but it is not the same as the people of Scotland actually giving their opinion in any kind of fair way. Presumably the govt pressed on with their plans despite the consultation exercise because they knew that many of the antis were either from religious campaigns outside of Scotland - or were from a rigged exercise carried out by a minority religious group within Scotland!


15 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM (#3452450)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn

To add to my last post I am not trying to suggest Scotland is devoid of prejudice. Unfortunately it is not. It would be unwise for a govt to base its policies on the base prejudices of sections of the population though! To give an example in the Scottish Govt's own Social Attitude's Survey some 18% of people said that gay men or lesbians were unsuitable to be primary school teachers. They in fact came out rather well compared with others though. 46% of people believed a Gypsy would be unsuitable for a teacher; whilst 41% believed people who suffered from depression at times were unsuitable; and 39% beleived that people aged 70 or over were unsuitable to teach primary school children!


15 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM (#3452463)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Well, yeah. But there are gonna be more posts from those peeps who simply troll and have nothing to say in response that has any true value and they will simply be repeting themselves with inane arguements so why not just stop posting?""

What would be the result Gnu?

We stop rebuttal of the homophobes' hate posts and people looking at Mudcat see only those posts and come to the conclusion that Mudcat is a homophobic website.

NO WAY JOSE!

Don T.


15 Dec 12 - 08:43 PM (#3452515)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Being concerned with someone else's sex life--now, THAT'S NEUROTIC!

Damn. Wish I'd thought of that. Nice one, Don!

We stop rebuttal of the homophobes' hate posts and people looking at Mudcat see only those posts and come to the conclusion that Mudcat is a homophobic website.

Damn. Wish I'd thought of that. Nice one, other Don!


15 Dec 12 - 09:18 PM (#3452521)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Don... after 500+ posts, I think your arguement is toast. If anyone can't get the fact that 99% of Mudcatters are intelligent, tollerant and upset by the ignorant and the trolls after that many posts... well, don't you think the ignorant and the trolls are just playing head games with this? I think that is a far worse view of the Mudcat community to display to "people looking at Mudcat".

BTW... I have shat upon *** and MANY trolls and ignorants MANY times on MANY threads about MANY topics but... they ain't goin away. They will still be here tomorrow. After 500+ posts... shittin on any of them any more is akin to... I can't say it... maybe I am growing up? Mum said I'd become a man some day. Maybe I draw nigh.

If you feed a crow that is starvin out of the goodness of your heart, it will peck on your window at dawn to be fed. If you don't feed it, it will fly away. If you lay your heart out, that crow will will eat it. Your call.

Of course, if it doesn't fly away, you could shoot the fucker. But, if you ain't a good shot it's just gonna keep flappin in yer face. Any way you cut it, yer kinda shootin yerself in the foot after 500+ posts. I'm just sayin.

Have fun with it.


16 Dec 12 - 04:52 AM (#3452648)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Allan...The Scottish govt said before the "consultation", that they "were of a mind to introduce the legislation".....could that not be seen as an attempt to affect the result?

This legislation is simply to keep the power brokers of the media placated....It is bad, law introduced for people who do not want it and ignoring the problems it will cause for society at large.

I was a strong supporter of the SNP govt but their backtracking on coming out of NATO, The removal of Nukes from Scottish soil, and their attempt to play politics with important social and health issues, makes me think that they are just more of the same old politicians.


16 Dec 12 - 05:14 AM (#3452658)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

As for the rest of you, have you nothing better to do with your time?
You are like children in the playground, if you cannot post anything which is relevant and objective, why bother to post at all.

The nonesense above, the personal stuff, attemps to paint any who disagree with you as "bad", hateful etc.....is extremely foolish,
You dont know me, all you know is that I am against this legislation, for what I and millions of other people see as prefectly valid reasons. Actually I am quite a "good" person, I find it difficult to "hate" anyone and do my best to help all who need help regardless of race, sexual orientation,or political conviction.
I am anti-capitalist, but I dont see many of you rushing to protect the bankers from my "hateful discrimination"?

Now if you want to discuss things in an adult manner.....as some here do, then fine, but I am not about to respond to "kiddie talk"


16 Dec 12 - 06:21 AM (#3452685)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The whole point of a discussion thread like this one is to pinpoint differences of opinion. I've spent some time thinking about your apparent stance, which is not an uncommon one in my experience, and challenging you on it. You talk about what you see as your perfectly valid opposition to gay marriage but, unfortunately, you are also opposed to the legislation that would allow it. This is a homophobic stance for the following reason. You have an underlying opinion about gay people and gay marriage, which is fine. Different to mine, but fine. But you would go further and attempt to restrict the right of gay people to enjoy the same status as straight people, even though it would have no effect on you or any other married heterosexuals whatsoever. Wouldn't affect your life one bit. You even resent the fact that, in your opinion (which, actually, is not fine in this case because it is misguided), gay people call themselves gay (which most of us emulate these days) instead of homosexual. Equally, this does not affect you except that you're irritated by having to find another word, of which there are plenty, where you might have used "gay". Wow, how devastating is that! So you wish to impose restrictions on gay people that would not apply to straight people and which would scarcely impinge on your life at all, or the lives of most people in general, except to make you feel a bit cross. In opposing the legislation you are not allowing for any shades of opinion other than your own. You think you are so right that you deserve to be supported by contrary legislation, presumably the status quo. Well, as far as I'm concerned, in matters like this the principle of live and let live should prevail. It's called tolerance and it is something that, so far, appears to be lacking in your attitude to gay people. That's what's up. I don't think anyone is judging you as a person. As you post under a pseudonym and I don't know where you live, for all know you might be that great bloke down the pub I've been joking and getting pissed with for donkeys' years. If you're not sure it's me, I'm the one with the pink socks and a copy of Gay News under my arm.


16 Dec 12 - 06:32 AM (#3452693)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Actually, thinking about the word "gay", which some people regard as having been unjustly usurped by gay people, I think it's great that such a direct, simple word which has an upbeat feel challenges all those horrid words we used in the 60s when I was at school (and I was as bad as everyone else) such as queer, puffter, bum-bandit, shirtlifter, freddie, homo and all the rest. Not replaced 'em, maybe, but we've now got a word we can agree on and which has been embraced by gay people. That'll do me.


16 Dec 12 - 06:35 AM (#3452694)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

If Akenaton wishes to put a view forward, he has to appreciate that as part of the debate, his stance will be scrutinised, just the same as mine or anyone elses, and judged by peers. That then informs the debate.

To date, I have seen homophobic rants based on the flimsy "danger to society" angle that is the last resort of the ridiculous and a deep heartfelt view that a Gay lifestyle is a detriment to society.

I don't think I do drink in the pub with Akenaton. I have worked in Scotland in various locations over the years, and just like anywhere else, bigotry betrays itself. To be honest, I am judging him as a person, in the same way he judges others.

And I don't like what I read.

If you find it difficult to hate, may I suggest reading some of your own posts on this subject? Through the usual brainwashing cycle, the hate will eventually come to you...

Back to topic. I read a tweet by Stephen Fry the other day that sums up the whole idea of having a view on the extent of gay rights. He says it is wrong to consider giving Alan Turing a pardon. Because he hadn't done anything wrong in the first place.

Quite.


16 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM (#3452697)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

I am still at a loss to discover why people have this fierce and vicious hatred of gays. What is it that gets them so angry and nasty? As Musket says, they have their hobbies, interests, friends, everyday lives and in that respect are no different to straight people. Their private sexual preferences are nobody's business (neither are those of straight people) They have relationships and love eachother. So what? So do I. It's as bizarre as if one has conceived an enormous detestation of,say, stamp collectors, to the extent that they must stay at home, never divulge it and be banned from associating with non-stamp afficionados. I cannot see what the objections are. They don't go about attacking people, they don't do any harm, they could be living next door and you don't know it. What oh what is the problem??


16 Dec 12 - 07:27 AM (#3452711)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don... after 500+ posts, I think your arguement is toast. If anyone can't get the fact that 99% of Mudcatters are intelligent, tollerant and upset by the ignorant and the trolls after that many posts...""

Gnu, consider this. Most people don't open a full thread, but simply scan the latest page.

If we bow out that page is a conversation between the trolls. Just 50 posts and their message is the one the casual visitor gets.

Don T.


16 Dec 12 - 07:32 AM (#3452713)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

Akenton,
I posed a question for you to clearly espouse exactly how you think homosexuals should be treated. I gave all the options I could think of. You can choose your response and own it. Or you can make up your own clear and precise way to manage homosexuality. You have not done either. Therefore, I conclude...

You are not clear about your view.
You are clear, but to declare it would be embarrassing for you.
You just want attention.

If one, then feel free to ask for help clarifying. If you are sincerely confused and searching, most of us here will help you with an Earnest inquiry.
If two, then reach deep inside and figure out that conflict so that you can own it and defend it.
If three, well then, wouldn't getting *positive* attention be better than putting yourself out (out!) there to be constantly marginalization.

Saul


16 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM (#3452714)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Now if you want to discuss things in an adult manner.....as some here do, then fine, but I am not about to respond to "kiddie talk"""

Nor, it seems, to respond to simply, sensible questions such as:-

How, exactly are you or your marriage negatively affected by the situation vis-a-vis a group to which you do not belong and which has, per se, no impact upon your life, your family, or your social circle?

Why, if your main opposition is based upon health risk, do you oppose a procedure which, by its very nature, will reduce that risk?

That is the ""kiddie talk"" to which you assiduously avoid responding.

Don T.


16 Dec 12 - 07:47 AM (#3452717)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Actually I am quite a "good" person, I find it difficult to "hate" anyone""

Except Gays, Travellers and those of us who disagree with you.

Don T.


16 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM (#3452719)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Don....do you ever read any posts?
I have just spent an amount of time responding to Tia's civil question on this subject.

If you scroll up a few posts, you can read why I do not think this legislation will improve the alarming male homosexual infection rates.


16 Dec 12 - 08:02 AM (#3452723)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Saul, I am sorry but I don't wish to be involved with you on this forum.......You are an extremely disingenuous person.


16 Dec 12 - 08:14 AM (#3452728)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Your question is simply,"when did you stop beating your wife".

I may have had a basic education, but I am far from stupid.


16 Dec 12 - 08:16 AM (#3452730)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

Why thank you for that, ake. Please elaborate. Actual quotes of my disingenuity would help me reflect and to become a better person like you.

Saul


16 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM (#3452741)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Eliza....Your posts would sit better on the pages of some teenagers pop magazines, than on the pages of Mudcat.
The membership here is perfectly capable of wrestling with the intricacies of divisive social issues......if they have the will!!

Please show me where I have ever displayed any "fierce vicious hatred" against homosexuals, I am against this bad legislation, not homosexuals.    Homosexuals are part of society along with several other sexual minorites and to be "against them" would be ridiculous.

Someone up above asked why smokers were not discriminated against, which of course they are in the UK at least.....so it should be clear that "equality" is not always the only word that matters.

On use of the word "gay", would it be nice if we thought up cosy words to describe other less well supported sexual, racial,or political minorities?.....


16 Dec 12 - 09:24 AM (#3452746)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don....do you ever read any posts?
I have just spent an amount of time responding to Tia's civil question on this subject.
""

Yes Ake, I do read posts, even yours, and nowhere in the post to which you refer is there any sensible response to either of my questions.

You certainly make a lot of basically suspect assertions, based in bad arithmetic, which do not stand up to scrutiny, predicated, as they are, upon your purely personal opinion that:-

1). Homosexuals are by nature more promiscuous than heterosexuals. STD statistics clearly indicate they are NOT!
2). Homosexuals do not want to enter the state of marriage (where did you acquire your mindreading expertise, BTW?). The queues of them booking weddings wherever it is permitted give the lie to that assumption.
3). That homosexuals' relationships revolve around sex only, rather than any real loving commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
4). That telling children in school about the existence of homosexuality is promoting it as a safe "lifestyle" and will persuade some of them to "convert". Simple claptrap! They are either straight or gay and either way, knowledge will not hurt them.

Your very insistence upon calling homosexuality a "lifestyle" (which it is not) is a blatant attempt to cast gender orientation in the worst possible light.

You are, whether you know it or not, posting homophobic lies.

Don T.


16 Dec 12 - 10:17 AM (#3452767)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

I'm rather flattered, akenaton, that you feel my 'posts would sit better on the pages of some teenagers pop magazines'. Although I don't read those sorts of publications, it would be a jolly good idea to encourage the young to see the world in a kinder, more accepting light than you appear to do. As it happens, I didn't actually name you (or anyone else on this thread) as displaying fierce, vicious hatred. My observation was general. But of course, if the cap fits...


16 Dec 12 - 11:00 AM (#3452792)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Cop out Liz.......   :0)

Don if you insist that male homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heteros.....why is there such a huge difference in infection rates?

You cant have it every way, either the cause is promiscuity, or there is a problem with male to male sex?


16 Dec 12 - 11:05 AM (#3452795)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Just to move things on a bit, rather than give undue prominency to one sad soul who is scared and confused that some people are not the same as others in some regard, but all still people...

The Archbishop of York, who despite his eccentricity (and therefore very engaging personality) disappointed many people when he said that government have no right to legislate on marriage as it isn't in their gift.

Putting aside the fact that it is, so hopefully he will read up on his obligations before he next takes his place in The House of Lords; If government can't legislate on marriage, then who can? Ah! They say, The Church can!.

But if you don't believe in all that superstitious nonsense, and the government can't legislate according to the church.. You can define marriage by your own belief principles?

So.. All this is for nothing after all. Local government through their registrars conduct marriages. Local governments have to have published decrees setting out how they guarantee equality. Can't see how gay marriage can be seen as anything other than legal myself.. Churches have charitable trusts, so The Charities Commission are guilty of dereliction of duty if they don't remove the charitable status of churches who don't promote equality. After all, it is an obligation of a charitable trust...

Come to think about it, The House of Lords, which some Bishops have the right to sit in, have an equality statement saying that membership is irrespective of race or gender.

Christians don't want religious equality at all. They seem to enjoy religious privilege... Nice landing pad for rabid bigots. No wonder membership has dropped in the census.


16 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM (#3452886)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You miss the point musket, this is not about "equality", that can be gained through civil union. Its about perception.....about being viewed as "the same".

Being "the same" does not mean being "equal"


16 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM (#3452920)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn

"Allan...The Scottish govt said before the "consultation", that they "were of a mind to introduce the legislation".....could that not be seen as an attempt to affect the result?"

They've been quite open about the fact that they'd like to introduce the legislation. Doesn't stop them having a consultation exercise! But it wasn't in itself an actual official vote on the subject. Just a test of opinion and views and it wasn't even restricted to people in Scotland. The polls taken randomly by people like Mori are surely a better clue as to what actual opinion is in the country - and they show a reasonable majority in favour of the legislation. As to the SNP being just like other politicians then well of course they are!


16 Dec 12 - 10:47 PM (#3453101)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Steve Shaw: "Being concerned with someone else's sex life--now, THAT'S NEUROTIC! Damn. Wish I'd thought of that. Nice one, Don!"

he almost believes it...when he's not reading 'The National Enquirer' at the check out stands!!!

BTW, Steve..You have NO credibility..you busted yourself bigger than shit!

GfS


16 Dec 12 - 11:22 PM (#3453112)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

GoofuS, I haven't looked at a copy of the National Enquirer in twenty-five years, and that was in a supermarket. And I couldn't help looking at it because it was right by the cashier.

If I want to read Science Fiction, I read classics by Clarke and Asimov.

I leave things like the National Enquirer to folks like you. But I suggest your time, and Ake's time, would be better spent reading things like "Scientific American" or "Psychology Today" that things than bear headlines like "Jane Fonda has Alien UFO Pilot's Baby!"

Don Firth


17 Dec 12 - 01:16 AM (#3453133)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don..sometimes I do browse an occasional Psych Today.....but then I read a whole lot of that.....even wrote my thesis...I have my degree in Psych....

BTW, did you read any bios on Baldwin?..He was another homosexual...who changed his 'mind'....check it out!

But alas...are you still promoting bad science in the name of 'civil rights'?

GfS


17 Dec 12 - 07:43 AM (#3453250)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""why is there such a huge difference in infection rates?""

Go on then. You tell me why there is a huge difference in all the other STDs.

You take a group which is a small minority, quite separate from the mainstream distributors of Gonorrhea, Chlamidia et al, and a specific infection gets into that group, quite by chance, and is spread through the group because it is small and isolated.

In Africa the reverse is true. AIDS got into the hetero population first and in some places 40% of the hetero population is infected.

If 40% of gays were infected and 40% of straights, the actual number of infected gays would still be a tiny proportion of the whole.

That still doesn't explain why you would deny them the safety of monogamous marriage.

None of your comments ever tackle that one, so we draw the obvious conclusion.

Don T.


17 Dec 12 - 09:44 AM (#3453305)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don, STIs are established in both communities, and there is crossover via bisexuals.
In the West the infection rate is much greater in MSMs than any other group.
They are a very high risk group, and in the West the very highest.


17 Dec 12 - 11:00 AM (#3453331)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf

Ake, didn't I tell you to shut up? Once again, you are not making a great deal of sense. Once again, it's just too much to ask to wade through every damn post. However, I thought the title of this looked familiar and, having found my last response, I read through a fair few more before giving up somewhere around 12/12/12...

Hetreosexuals are. Homosexuals are. Promiscuity has nothing to do with either state and, frankly, sod all to do with gender either. If you think females are not as promiscuous as males, you are almost certainly kidding yourself. Or do you think that 90% of the men are fucking only the 'floozy' 10% of women? Come off it.

The thread isn't about sex; it's about marriage. It's about two people making a lifetime commitment to each other. Even if you have any statisitcs to prove homosexual marriage is flakier than heterosexual marriage, I don't care. Why SHOULDN'T two people who love each other be allowed to make a firm commitment in law? That's what marriage is, from the legal point of view. It doesn't have anything to do with race, gender, age, or anything else. It's a consenting contract between two people.

Why the hell do you have so much trouble with it? I don't tell you how to live your life (well, apart from telling you to shut up occasionally! ;-) ). Why the hell should you have any right to tell other people how they should live theirs?


17 Dec 12 - 12:09 PM (#3453360)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Oh!....alright then. :0(


17 Dec 12 - 01:04 PM (#3453387)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Being as 'promiscuity' seems to be the culprit, in both hetero and homosexuality, are we now going to take another look at promiscuity??...or just slough it off and think it's alright for homosexuality OR heterosexuality??
Haven't enough people been hurt, or made ill by its 'side effects'????
Hasn't enough families been destroyed by it yet, before a light goes on??..Oh sure, we can pontificate about how one or the other has a 'right' to do whatever they want..as long as we close our eyes to the aftermath....but then there is a saying,.."A hard dick has no conscience"....so does that mean we always have to defer to a lesser intelligence?..or tolerate those who do?
Look at the campaign against cigarettes, and their ill-effects on our, and everyone else's health....but it's OK, to be promiscuous because it 'feels' better, and we are not thinking of anything that it causes..except, of course, how 'good' we feel while engaged in thoughtless acts of selfishness!..Besides, because we don't want to look at the FACT, that it is a destroying factor to both families, identities, and the psychological damage it causes on both the participants, (whether you think so or not),..because you don't immediately SEE the damage, I guess a lot of people don't 'FEEL' it is a stupid practice....so now we argue who is at the greater fault.
if you 'feel' the need to fuck someone...fuck yourself!...and promote the practice of being both faithful and committed. Loyalty has its own rewards!...that more than the participants benefit!!!!

GfS


17 Dec 12 - 02:30 PM (#3453402)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Being as 'promiscuity' seems to be the culprit, in both hetero and homosexuality, are we now going to take another look at promiscuity??...or just slough it off and think it's alright for homosexuality OR heterosexuality??
Haven't enough people been hurt, or made ill by its 'side effects'????
""

Blimey, I'm agreeing with Goofus, whatever next?

Well, actually that comment simply demands the question. Why, if you are saying we must reduce promiscuity, are you only willing to permit heteros to use the most effective reducing agent yet discovered, namely marriage?

Don T.


17 Dec 12 - 02:39 PM (#3453406)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Next question for akentaton;
There are no confimred cases of female to female transmission of HIV in the CDC database (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm).
So, do you oppose same-sex marriage for women?


17 Dec 12 - 03:14 PM (#3453427)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Goofus, if you are referring to James A. Baldwin, the author, he was homosexual. But I find nothing about him "changing his mind." In fact, he says, "Everybody's journey is individual. If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality."

I agree with him.

As far as "bad science" is concerned, so-called "conversion therapy" has been an abject failure. The American Psychiatric Association has condemned it as "pseudo-science" based on false assumptions. A study conducted prior to 2002 showed an 80% recidivism rate, and of the remaining 20%, most of them embrace celebacy. Several people had to be treated for extreme depression following their so-called "conversion," and there were some six suicides.
   
And you claim that I am promoting "bad science!!"

And you claim to have a degree in Psychology. How long ago was that? Were they teaching trepanning? Drilling holes in the skull in order to let the Evil Spirits out?

Don Firth


17 Dec 12 - 05:37 PM (#3453484)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

There you go again, Don..prattling on about something you alter in my posts. Don't you ever stop doing that??

If you would have read further, about Baldwin, he DID promote his lifestyle, especially when he had moved to Paris...however, when he returned to the U.S., he left that behind, and became a Christian(his Dad was a minister when James was younger).

Either you didn't read far enough, OR you intentionally left that out!...either way, your post is misleading!

Then you go on to claim I said you were promoting bad science...being as that has been true in the past, it wasn't about you...it was about those who promote bad science to prove a bogus point on which they are basing a political agenda on.....Is that you?....OH, then maybe you ARE in there, but it's not all about you!

Conversion therapy an abject failure???..Are you talking about transgender therapy, which of course, you are not..or therapy for homosexuals who no longer embrace or want to live that lifestyle?
We've been around this bush before..my position is this: IF a homosexual desires to no longer be a homosexual, then therapy should be available to him/her. Got a problem with that??...if so, maybe you need therapy!
..and don't pretend to know that you didn't know I was a counselor, (more while I was younger), and didn't still practice...HOWEVER, it is mostly for those I feel I can help...and BTW, for the last few years I've been doing it pro bono...and as a side note, my recovery rate is far beyond the national average...it's sorta like 'giving back' to humanity.
Any more off the wall questions??...this time let's stop being so deceiving to your perceived 'audience'.....you only halfway got away with it the first time.

Other than that, hope you are doing well....

GfS


17 Dec 12 - 05:42 PM (#3453488)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Slight drift, as Don has raised this subject. Big drift, in fact; but there you go! ~~

No, probably not trepanning; but could well have been Electro-Compulsive Therapy, which had its disgraceful vogue in psychiatric treatment. (I take it it is not still going on?, but am not even sure of that.) A close relative of mine, my uncle, younger brother of my father, was subjected to it. Reading his diaries after his death I recall as one of the most traumatic experiences of my life: and that was just reading about it at second hand.

I am convinced that future generations will look back at our generation's use of ECT to treat schizophrenia with the same horror as we look back at bleeding as a sure-fire cure for the Plague.

~M~


17 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM (#3453492)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

MtheGM,...AGREED!

GfS


17 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM (#3453502)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

ECT stands for electroconvulsive therapy. The amazing thing is that Guffers, claiming to be some kind of psycho-fixer (physician, heal thyself, eh!), failed to pick Michael up on this elementary mistake. That's bad enough, but what's really revolting is Guffers' reference to his "recovery rate".

Recovery from what?


17 Dec 12 - 09:54 PM (#3453566)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

And there YOU go again, GoofuS, claiming that you didn't say something that you DID! Kinda dumb when it's right up there where anybody can read it for themselves!

Re: Baldwin. I don't know what you are referring to, but a bio of him that I read didn't mention anything like that. Care to name your sources?

And as far as the failure of conversion therapy (convert a homosexual into a heterosexual through counseling and various other means, such as aversion theraphy) to produce any desirable results is concerned, don't get on MY case, take it up with the American Psychiatric Association. THEY are the ones who condemned it as worse than useless!

And if YOU are any kind of a psychological counselor, then the skies are filled with flying pigs!!

Don Firth


18 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM (#3453616)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

First of all..I do NOT recommend, nor have I ever, nor do I approve of ANY 'electro' treatments at all...NOR do I recommend NOR prescribe drugs. Those are for psychiatrists, of whom I have my differences with. (Its a psychologist/psychiatrist 'thing'). Because I don't relate to those therapies, nor agree with them, is the reason i didn't/don't even comment on them. If you disagree, I don't care, nor am interested in 'debating' it. They are treating symptoms, not causes.

Baldwin:..Read a better bio...preferably not in your National Enquirer..so put that down and ...(I might cobble one up for ya', but then if you don't like it, you'll, as in the past, start attacking the source)...when most people have never heard of him, or give a shit(unless you knew him...and that more toward the end, because he refuted quite a few of his earlier positions..and yes, even including his role in the Panthers...and homosexuality).

Not interested in much what the APA, nor the AMA endorse or not endorse....that's like believing a politician, about freedom and power, or a religion about freedom and power....take your pick!


Don Firth: "And if YOU are any kind of a psychological counselor, then the skies are filled with flying pigs!!"


Better invest in an umbrella, because a lotta' shit is going to be falling on ya'! ....Here's lookin' at ya'!

GfS


18 Dec 12 - 01:23 AM (#3453621)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Steve ~~ That was what I posted, except that I put a hyphen in: can't see that as such a grievous error.


18 Dec 12 - 01:48 AM (#3453623)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I'm not surprised that you don't agree with the American Psychiatric Association or the American Medical Association. One of their main concerns is maintaining high standards.

Don Firth


18 Dec 12 - 02:18 AM (#3453631)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well, until they cut their unholy alliance with the pharmaceutical corporations, then many of their 'promoted cures' are nothing more than the drug dealers on the street...except with the legal paperwork!
Not all....but enough where I'm leery..how 'bout you?

Nor do I accept all their 'findings' from funded(by whom?), because of advantages certain 'findings' are also very profitable, as well.

Do you agree?..or disagree?.....(not that it matters, as far as changing FACTS, that a lot of people are also aware of!)!!

If the AMA or the APA recommends it, hmm..we should 'buy' one of those 'recommendations!'............Not all...but enough to be leery.

GfS


18 Dec 12 - 02:40 AM (#3453634)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

In some places ECT is still used to treat severe depression.


18 Dec 12 - 04:12 AM (#3453659)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

You know, I don't have differences with psychiatric professionals Goofus. After all, I have no recognised nor non recognised competency in the field. (I am involved in regulating mental health but that's another issue.)

However, as a member of the public, I may find treatments, clinical pathways and environments hard to understand and difficult for such professionals to convince me of their stance.

Your ability to have your differences with them displays an understanding of their field I had no idea you had. I'm impressed..


18 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM (#3453688)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

How depressing, Keith!

~M~

No unworthy pun intended.


18 Dec 12 - 06:54 AM (#3453710)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Michael, you said "electro-compulsive therapy", not electroconvulsive therapy. It wasn't so much that forgivable error, more that Guffers, our resident guru psychologist, failed to pick up on it when he "agreed" with you (poor you).


18 Dec 12 - 06:59 AM (#3453713)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

In spite of my doctor sister advocating ECT for depression, and claiming that good results can be achieved with it, I've always thought it resembles kicking the TV to restore the picture.
To suggest that homosexuality is a disease would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting. One might as well suggest that one could be cured of a predilection for film-going or gardening or breeding Siamese cats by drug therapy or hynpotism. Why would one wish to? Unless one is a homicidal maniac, people should live and let live.


18 Dec 12 - 07:07 AM (#3453717)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Oops ~~ so I did, Steve. A terrible dropped bollock indeed. Multi-apologies for not having proofread properly before posting! I shall go forthwith down the garden and eat worms...

~M~ with ☹ hung in shame!


18 Dec 12 - 08:26 AM (#3453738)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

So Goofus doesn't think much of the regulatory bodies of, not just the Psychology/Psychiatry specialties, but also the whole medical profession.

What does that tell you about his likely qualification to counsel patients with psychological problems, among which there may be some closet gays with difficulties relating to their sexual orientation.

I shudder to think of the damage they might (probably will) suffer at the hands of a gender biased snake oil salesman, telling them they can simply deny who and what they are.

Don T.


18 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM (#3453881)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don, you seem to have difficulties in distinguishing between the 'regulatory bodies' and what they are SUPPOSED to do, versus what they have become, in the wake of corruptible practices employed be the pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyists, the FDA, and popular political notions. Just look at that 'small' list...and ask yourself, "With all those 'regulatory bodies' protecting us, why was it necessary for Obamacare to get medical help to those who need it?

Have you watched the 'news' lately and noticed how many commercial sponsors are law firms gathering clients for large class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for harmful drugs, that somehow slipped by those wonderful 'regulatory bodies', into regular medical use?...or how many recalls for 'medicines' that were deemed 'safe', by 'who'???...and turned out not to be so safe after all...and look at how many of them there are???
Has it occurred to you that SOMEBODY, in those 'bodies', isn't doing their job right...OR maybe they are...depending on who they are REALLY working for!

Also, for those who don't know, or are aware of...one major difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist, is that a psychiatrist can prescribe drugs, whereas a psychologist doesn't. For years there has been a running battle in regards to that.
Psychologists see that treating patients with drugs is largely a scam that treats symptomatically, and does not address the cause, where psychiatrists, will say that the medications are necessary, easier and more convenient..........ask any child who has blown their brains out, committing suicide from the side effects of taking Ritalin!...But after all, it IS 'necessary, easier and more convenient'!
For a couple of years, I taught Math, to some students who were deemed to have ADD....some were even on regular routine of prescription drugs...Now to me, 'ADD' is another word for someone who is 'daydreaming' because they are BORED!...and do not give their attention to what they are 'supposed' to be thinking about...so they wander off into "I don't give a fuck land...I'm entertaining myself'!...and after all, thinking about what I WANT to think about isn't as hard as learning this other stuff that doesn't interest me, and that I'll probably never use, anyway!!"..............and to me, if you can't capture a child's imagination, and use it as a vehicle to learn, then you are probably a union protected teacher, more concerned with tenure and benefits, than being on the student's side, and getting him/her into the adventure of learning something that they WILL use!

For instance: You give a child a problem of, find the remainder of a sum, minus 20% etc etc..blah blah blah...
Now to incorporate imagination to the problem:...Now Susie, your Mom is giving you $40.00 to go to the store to buy some shoes and socks. When you get to the store, you see '20% off' of everything in that department...how many shoes and socks can you buy, if the shoes are $19.95 per pair, before the discount, and socks are $2.98 a pair? By the way, you can stop at the ice cream counter and buy a cone for 50 cents, if you have enough change...and give Mom the rest back.
how many pairs of shoes and socks, how much were they, can you get the cone and how much change would be left, for Mom?
It is amazing, IF you verbally give the problem, involve the kids in the conversation, and let their imagination spur them on to get the answer....AND MAKE THE CLASS AND LEARNING FUN!
.............beats shoving some Ritalin at them!..because you are inconvenienced by taking the time!..........But after all, it IS 'necessary, easier and more convenient'!
So, yes, there is a difference between the two schools of thought...and in my humble, or 'not so humble' opinion, drugs should only be used in extreme, emergency situations.....and not in place of caring and loving your child, and being involved with them..where THEY live!
As far as psychologists, those are people you go to, when you don't have a knowledgeable, caring friend..so you go to a 'professional'!
In the post industrial revolution era, priorities for humans have been re-shuffled, to accommodate the 'needs' and 'stresses' of a synthetic world of 'needs' and 'stresses'....leaves VERY little time for the nurturing of the offspring....after all, we have to 'MAKE IT' in the 'real world'....don't have time for the kid??..he's acting weird..quick get the Ritalin or other meds, so I, selfish pig that I am, don't have to be bothered! It takes too much of my time and energies!

Does that give you a perspective of the differences?

GfS

BTW, in a related topic....a child's sexual identity CAN be distorted, as early as in the womb, by mothers whose stresses are setting up the nervous systems and receptors, of the newly forming fetus'...others can be screwed up by a emotionally detached father, as the child is growing up....sometimes offending the child who cannot 'let it go'...and.......wait a minute, I could go on huge about this one for just a 'P.S.'......perhaps another post....let me know.


18 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM (#3453918)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Also, for those who don't know, or are aware of...one major difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist, is that a psychiatrist can prescribe drugs, whereas a psychologist doesn't. For years there has been a running battle in regards to that.
Psychologists see that treating patients with drugs is largely a scam that treats symptomatically, and does not address the cause, where psychiatrists, will say that the medications are necessary, easier and more convenient..........ask any child who has blown their brains out, committing suicide from the side effects of taking Ritalin!...But after all, it IS 'necessary, easier and more convenient'!
For a couple of years, I taught Math, to some students who were deemed to have ADD....some were even on regular routine of prescription drugs...Now to me, 'ADD' is another word for someone who is 'daydreaming' because they are BORED!...and do not give their attention to what they are 'supposed' to be thinking about...so they wander off into "I don't give a fuck land...I'm entertaining myself'!...and after all, thinking about what I WANT to think about isn't as hard as learning this other stuff that doesn't interest me, and that I'll probably never use, anyway!!"..............and to me, if you can't capture a child's imagination, and use it as a vehicle to learn, then you are probably a union protected teacher, more concerned with tenure and benefits, than being on the student's side, and getting him/her into the adventure of learning something that they WILL use!


You are barking. If you haven't already been struck off you fully deserve to be.

BTW, in a related topic....a child's sexual identity CAN be distorted, as early as in the womb, by mothers whose stresses are setting up the nervous systems and receptors, of the newly forming fetus'...others can be screwed up by a emotionally detached father, as the child is growing up....sometimes offending the child who cannot 'let it go'...and.......wait a minute, I could go on huge about this one for just a 'P.S.'......perhaps another post....let me know.

This is just bollocks. You have no evidence for this malevolent nonsense. I hope to Christ you're lying to us about your having been some sort of practitioner, because, if you're not, you must have done a lot of damage to a lot of people.


18 Dec 12 - 04:28 PM (#3453941)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

GoofuS, I'm very much aware of the peccadilloes of organizations such as the ADA and the AMA and their relationship with the pharmaceutical companies. But here, we are not necessarily talking about drugs, we are talking about psychology and psychiatry, and trying to talk someone into believing that he is different from what he is, or feels himself to be.

If YOU have had success with conversion therapy, perhaps you should write up your results for the scientific journels, so your work can be subjected to PEER REVIEW.

Don Firth


18 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM (#3453942)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

". . . journals. . . ."


18 Dec 12 - 05:15 PM (#3453958)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

As a qualified teacher with decades of experience GfS, I can state that your rambling remarks about children with Attention Deficit Disorder and other similar problems are far wide of the mark. They do not 'daydream because they are bored'. They can be seriously disturbed, hyperactive and sometimes violent. There is a vast difference between a naughty, bored pupil and a child with a disorder. I agree that Ritalin and other strong medication is not always the answer, but the problem is far more complex and serious than you seem to understand. Also, forgive me, but the style and ferocity of your posts make me doubt very much whether you are the type of person who should be counselling or offering therapy to others.


18 Dec 12 - 05:54 PM (#3453972)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Exactly so!

GoofuS, it's the tenor of your discourse that makes me serious question whether you actually ARE a family counselor or are attempting to bull the rest of us into believing you have any qualifications whatsoever in this field.

I am convinced that it's the latter!

Don Firth


18 Dec 12 - 11:31 PM (#3454110)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Eliza, I came in to only teach Math...I approached the teaching of it, by getting the students involved, in a way that WAS interesting to them..and it DID hold their attention. The is a LOT of misdiagnosis of kids, and some adults slough it off as ADD...when it was no such thing..and BTW, a child who hears that from his/her parents, and is treated as such, can cause more damage, than the actual condition.

Not ALL ADD is accurately identified..and when I hear someone say this or that person has it, I tend to be a bit skeptical..and ALWAYS consider the source!...and observe for myself.
The example I posted, was because the class was an alleged class of ADD kids....I related to them as one on one, with no anticipated ADD interactions...and it was amazing how well we related...AND they DID learn!

Don Firth: "GoofuS, it's the tenor of your discourse that makes me serious question whether you actually ARE a family counselor or are attempting to bull the rest of us into believing you have any qualifications whatsoever in this field."

When I first posted a few years ago, I think it was a topic about relationships of one form or another...and I warned that I did NOT want to get involved with the topic...because I did know what I was talking about, and through educated eyes....that's before I knew that a lot of the Mudcatters were politically wasted beyond the point of common sense.
It was to that same audience that you came on and played your games.
let's not repeat the same bullshit.
If you have a related topic, post it....not this 'rally the troops around my political cause', because you fancy yourself as some sort of political activist...OK?

Let's stick to facts and not try to play to the crowd, and persuade with mere sophistry..

GfS


19 Dec 12 - 01:00 AM (#3454119)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

GoofuS, I have NOT played any games with you, or with anyone else. Frankly, you are not that important to me.

Nor is there a prevailing political position here on Mudcat. Anyone who pays attention knows that. All one has to do is read through a few threads on controversial issues to easily see the diversity of opinion, so if you're under the impression that everyone here believes alike, you either haven't been paying attention or you're not bright enough to see beyond your own prejudices.

My interest is in the TRUTH, and in the RIGHTS of minority groups. I fully realize that in the minds of some, my dedication to the truth means that I've been "brainwashed," and my interest in the rights of minorities makes me a "liberal."

Liberal? Yes, in the classical, philosophical meaning of the term. Not in the silly, non-comprehending epithet that is tossed around "liberally" by people such as yourself.

I AM sticking to the FACTS. I am NOT promulgating my own prejudices as facts and claiming that I'm some kind of ill-defined "professional" in the the area, hence have special knowledge that others don't possess.

If you can't stand the heat, don't sit on the barbecue.

Don Firth


19 Dec 12 - 02:14 AM (#3454134)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Of course you'd say that.....what else could you say??


Come on, who do you think you're kidding?....(But you knowledge of classical music is an exception!)

GfS


19 Dec 12 - 10:50 AM (#3454287)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

"'Gay marriage' question"

I ain't gonna do it, but if any of y'all want to it's OK with me. Just so's ya know.


19 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM (#3454366)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

GoofuS, I would tell you to get a clue, but you couldn't get a clue if it were the middle of clue mating season and you rubbed your body in clue musk, then ran out into a field of horny clues and did the clue mating dance!!

Don Firth


19 Dec 12 - 02:37 PM (#3454379)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

gfS, I respect your feelings about being a maths teacher, the efforts you made to interest your students, and your obvious enthusiasm for the task. But if you did indeed engage their interest and concentration, then not one of them was suffering from an Attention Deficit Disorder, by very definition. I have taught literally thousands of pupils over a long period, and in that time have come across only half a dozen at most who had serious disorders. They could not and would not have been able to sustain calm behaviour in lessons. I had a good reputation for quiet and effective classroom discipline, but there are some unfortunate children who are mentally unwell and need intervention by medical professionals. I cannot comment on whether this should include drugs, Ritalin or otherwise, as that is beyond my competence. By the way, (a propos of nothing) why do you feel the need to type so often in such vehement capital letters? Do you have Posting Emphasis Disorder?


19 Dec 12 - 03:15 PM (#3454400)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Eliza: "Do you have Posting Emphasis Disorder?"

Eliza, I've been told that using capitals is like yelling...but also being a writer, (even a screenplay or two) I use them as emphasizing a word. Actually, when I post this stuff, I'm usually in a rather pleasant mood...and not as the knot-heads have portrayed me...as I've hit a lot of sensitive nails on the head. I noticed you wrote, "But if you did indeed engage their interest and concentration, then not one of them was suffering from an Attention Deficit Disorder, by very definition. I have taught literally thousands of pupils over a long period, and in that time have come across only half a dozen at most who had serious disorders."........I AGREE <--(see capitals?) 'Thousands of pupils..and "and in that time have come across only half a dozen at most who had serious disorders."
That is what I was saying!...and a lot of people, (lazy, selfish 'parents'), write off the results of their bad parenting, as the child having ADD!!!...The child gets treated like it, and told that he has it, which, of course, is great for their self esteem,(sarcastically speaking), and the child gets free reign to daydreaming, boredom, and NOT motivated to actually LEARN something, if he/she doesn't 'want' to....THAT is changeable...and teachers who actually give a damn, can do it!..once they can dance around the 'politically correct' dance music!....Some methods of caring have NOT surrendered to eloquent excuse making....and that begins with our own personal lives!!!....not what 'religion' you get your 'fire insurance' at, not what political faction you like to identify with, not what bullshit we embrace..but actually placing in one's consciousness, to take it upon ourselves, to be personally responsible, for our actions or lack of them, and to use how we are affected, by caring for ourselves, to care for others....and know, as a teacher, that the care and effort(or lack of it), will effect someone for the rest of their lives...why not for the better?...or better yet, the best!
I think you, Eliza, from your posts, previous as well, that you DO care, and ARE a thinking caring person...so if all I am doing is re-enforcing that in you, well, so be it...and BTW, REGARDS!!!!

Don, (satirically)..Once again, your post includes some sort of facts on which you base your opinions. Can you get constructive?...instead of your petty attempts at insult, when you run out of the facts that you aren't posting...............because there aren't any!
Careful!..he's so sensitive.
A psychotic sophist!

GfS


19 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM (#3454412)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

So, let's see now, Guffo. You are a psychologist in practice. You are a mathematician. You are now a writer who writes screenplays. You are a liar. One of those is true. Another thing that is true is that you are a charlatan. Another thing that is true is that your brain is addled for about 23 hours out of every 24, for reasons best known to yourself, and I feel I may be being generous there. Readers, check out his pygmy whale yarn on the Science thread for a touch of the true Guffers! Anything else you'd like to tell us? Were you Buzz Aldrin's mentor in his Apollo days? Did you star in Titanic? Do you tune the Rolling Stones' guitars before each gig? Have you shagged Princess Anne? Hey, c'mon, man. Tell all in one big post! My mouth opens in awe at every one of your posts so often that I think I'm turning into a trout!


19 Dec 12 - 04:25 PM (#3454416)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST

Don't forget being a "pioneer" of some kind of music or other (I forget the genre), and a composer of film scores...


19 Dec 12 - 04:38 PM (#3454420)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

And on the seventh day, He rested.

Goofoid's post just above (19 Dec 12 - 03:15 PM) is a graphic example of the reason I don't take anything he says seriously. I've met the type before.

If you expressed an interest in music, he'd won an Emmy. In acting, he'd won an Oscar. In writing, he had nine best-sellers (under nine different pen-names, of course). He wrote movie scores (move ovar, John Williams!), he was an ordained psychotherapist (Freud was a dabbler), he was a brilliant mathematician (He taught Einstein how to balance his checkbook), you name it, he not only did it, but he taught it at Harvard.

He would mention that he was far too modest to mention his Nobel and his Pulitzer. . . ?

Don Firth


19 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM (#3454429)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well, it is true, that I've written a screenplay, was a counselor, and have composed music..which Don, you have heard, as others on here have as well....and was well-received.
I never wanted particularly to be a counselor, and took psych for other reasons, however, along the way, I got pretty fucking good at it!..and the 'pioneer' in the type of music I have worked on is called 'idea-logic'...which is the ability to create visual images with the music and frequencies, and tell a story, cause the listener to experience it...and not use one word!...and be accurate...that, BTW, is part due to being sensitive to certain things common within human nature, and having the psych background to define it clearer.
Just a few posts ago, it might have been DonT, or someone, pointed out that my posts seem to bring out the hypocrisies, of many other posters...this also is a bi-product of psych education..because in sessions, that's what an adept counselor does....he can see beyond the complaints and perspectives of those being counseled....and as a side note, "Sometimes a well placed question can change a life!"
The fact that you couldn't see that, puts your ability to connect dots at serious question.....and that, my dear friend, is the bi-product of a middleman for 'bad science'..and 'bad information'...
Like they say, "Try not to believe your own press!"

Until then....

GfS


19 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM (#3454451)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Your halo doesn't prevent you from being dead wrong about the issue at hand. And as I've mentioned before, the APA says conversion therapy is worse than useless. I'd believe them a helluva lot quicker than I'd believe a pathelogical bullshitter.

Over and out. Arguing with you is an egregious waste of bandwidth.

Don Firth


19 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM (#3454452)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

OK, I gather from recent exchanges that no weddings between people on this thread are gonna happen soon, right?


19 Dec 12 - 05:40 PM (#3454468)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Just a few posts ago, it might have been DonT, or someone,""

Well it wasn't! If I'd been talking about hypocrisy, it would have been yours I was talking about mate.

With a memory like that, you might want to check with a doctor whether it's early onset Alzheimers.

Don T.


19 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM (#3454472)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

I never knew that Walter Mitty was a real person, but here he is, alive and well and posting his pseudo life story on the Cat under his alter ego name Guest from Sanity.

Actually, that wouldn't be early onset, because, if you've done half of what you claim, you're at least 120 years old.

Don T.


19 Dec 12 - 06:19 PM (#3454497)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The great thing, Guffster, is that your entertaining stupidity has managed to unite a bunch of people who have until now been prowling warily around reach other. At last, we have a common purpose in that we all enjoy, with equal relish, your status as a complete bloody laughing stock.

Howya, Don?! :-)


19 Dec 12 - 09:53 PM (#3454578)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well, I didn't catch who it was...do I have to?..to shut you up?..and if I pull it up, will you shut up??
Steve, I wouldn't be too quick to call anyone a 'liar' with your track record!...and..the fact is...everything I said was the truth...which tells me all three of your discernment sucks...which is why you believe and promote the horseshit that you do....

GfS


20 Dec 12 - 03:58 AM (#3454642)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

I doubt the Gay marriage question gets resolved elsewhere either, including in those places charged with looking at it. After all, if Mudcat can be derailed into this (interesting nonetheless) Goofus versus sanity debate, politicians should have no problem filibustering the actual debate...

Sad really.

Exposing Goofus's absurd ramblings is too easy, and not even sport. Methinks the real issue is those who hide behind a cloak (vestment) of pious respectability in order to spew their bigoted ranting and use their "I work for God" status to inflict their twisted take on life on others?


20 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM (#3454681)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

...and..the fact is...everything I said was the truth...

You write terrible English. Your pronouncements are utterly imprecise and inaccurate most of the time. Your attitude to the knowledge base underlying your alleged medical discipline is cavalier in the extreme, often reeking of received wisdom and half-knowledge. I don't know that there is no God but I haven't seen any evidence for one, and I can muster plenty of evidence that suggests he probably doesn't exist. I don't know whether you've written screenplays, are a good mathematician or have practised psychology, but I've seen no evidence for your ability to manage any of them. Just your say-so. And you yourself provide abundant evidence that you could well be making it all up as you go along. Entertaining, but sad in a way.


20 Dec 12 - 08:38 AM (#3454725)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bubblyrat

The problem is , Eliza , that Gay people are are trampling on peoples' Human Rights to the extent that they seem to be on some sort of Crusade . If I ran a guesthouse , B&B, or small hotel,and I felt uncomfortable with the idea of two gay men (or women) sleeping together ,then I would make plain my feelings on the subject . As the law now stands ,sadly ,I would be prosecuted for that reaction ,even if it was on religious grounds . However, if I were a MUSLIM , then the British Government would bend over backwards ( no comedians please ) to UPHOLD the sanctity and validity of my religious objections . Not fair really , is it ?? And can gay MUSLIMS get married ?? I don't think so ! So why are you all not protesting about THAT , then ??


20 Dec 12 - 11:25 AM (#3454771)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos

Consummation is a non-issue here, I believe. It is an issue, of course, to the individuals if they enter marriage without having sex, expecting to have it, and find they cannot. But the reasonable thing is to dissolve the marriage by common consent. It becomes an issue when marriage is devised as some other kind of mechanism, such as social control of reproduction, but this is really a legacy of the medieval Church and should be washed out of our social policies.

Marriage is no thing other than a postulated relationship, generated by two individuals sharing an agreement. If they are wise, the agreement continues to be generated despite the vicissitudes of life and living, and the marriage survives. This is a Good Thing especially if we are talking about child-rearing marriages, because growing up is confusing enough in our madcap world. But if the agreement dries up and cannot be regenerated mutually, it doesn't make a lot of sense to encumber the dissolution with arbitrary categories and weird definitions.


20 Dec 12 - 01:42 PM (#3454823)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I stopped posting on this thread a couple of days ago, but just loooked back to see if anything interesting or informative had been added on the subject.
Of course nothing had, but what a disgusting spectacle to see half a dozen members resort to name calling and bullying in the short time I have been away......and you have the affrontery to call yourselves liberal? You are nothing short of a playground gang.....grow up.

While visiting a relative in hospital, i picked up an "information" leaflet produced bt the UK National Health Service, a masterpiece of the misinformation which I referred to further up the thread.

It takes the form of a quiz, supposedly to boost awareness and give the facts.You have to answer the following questions, the answers being supplied at the bottom.
1 you can get hiv from sharing a cup.(true or false)
2there is no cure for hiv.(true or false)
3hiv only effects gay men.(true or false)
4there is no specific symptom for hiv (true or false)
5if you are under the age of consent you must have your parents permission to use a condom.(true or false)
6 50% of people affected by hiv are women.(true or false)
7 over 40 million people worldwide are living with hiv.(true or false)
8 hiv is the virus that causes aids. (true or false)
9 hiv is mostly transmitted by heterosexual sex. (true or false)
10 SE Asia has the second most cases of hiv. (true or false)

Answers 1-f 2-t 3-f 4-t 5-f 6-t 7-t 8-t 9-t 10-t


Leaflets like these and the simplistic message they contain, are the reason that so many people in the UK and the US are in such complete ignorance of the true dangers of aids and the demographics which carry the highest rates of infection.
To baldly state that 50% of people with hiv worldwide are women, is meaningless, when over 60% of new infections in UK/US are among male homosexuals.

Male homosexual practice and the promiscuity associated with it is more dangerous and unhealthy than incest or many other types of sexual behaviour and as such should not be promoted by legislation like same sex "marriage"


20 Dec 12 - 03:33 PM (#3454904)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"Male homosexual practice and the promiscuity associated with it... should not be promoted by legislation like same sex "marriage""

Tell me that you don't realize that this implies that significantly more men will engage in homosexual promiscuity if same sex marriage is legalized.

"Hey, dude, they just legalized same sex marriage; that gives me an idea; let's get married, and then mess around with other guys a lot; I bet it will be more fun than this heterosexual stuff!"


20 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM (#3454912)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Mmmm NHS figures based on public health data from HPA and WHO or Akenaton's irrational fears boiled down into stringing random words together?

Tricky one that.

Bubblyrat. You can pre judge all you like. Nobody stops you in your own home. However a licenced business is open to all regardless of Creed, gender, race or choice of partner.

If you think Muslims get preferential treatment I suggest reading The Daily M*il? They pander to your illogical claptrap so you might make lots of new friends there.

Fact 1. The percentage of Muslim offenders in prison is far higher than the increase in numbers in the general population. So special treatment seems to be more custodial sentences..

Many gay Muslims are oppressed for their faith but as many find, here in The UK there are Imams who will bless them at their civil partnership events.


20 Dec 12 - 05:33 PM (#3454961)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza

bubblyrat, minority groups fighting for equality and parity often do become strident and, understandably form a Crusade. It happened with women's struggle for Suffrage, black people's plea to end racism in USA, the fight against apartheid in S Africa and Women's Liberation. Without putting themselves in front of the media their causes wouldn't be heard. I have a struggle in my house with my Muslim husband's attitude to gay people. He cannot accept their rights to live their lives as they wish. He's basically homophobic and very condemnatory. I'm very glad to hear that some Imams are becoming more enlightened. It will all take time, but I hope attitudes will eventually turn around and tolerance and acceptance win in the end.


20 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM (#3454970)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Same shit, different day. 600+ posts? Intolerance and ignorance cannot be stomped out with logic and a plea for compassion for fellow humans. I base this on empirical analysis, which is... 600+ posts here and countless others over the years can't do it so why bother?


20 Dec 12 - 06:20 PM (#3454991)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

To baldly state that 50% of people with hiv worldwide are women, is meaningless, when over 60% of new infections in UK/US are among male homosexuals.

You yourself are a positive mine of misinformation. You neglect to tell us that HIV/Aids is massively more prevalent in certain third world countries, especially in Africa, than here, where fewer than one in 600 are HIV-positive. It is not possible to view correctly the figures you choose to selectively provide unless they are set in that context.

Male homosexual practice and the promiscuity associated with it is more dangerous and unhealthy than incest or many other types of sexual behaviour and as such should not be promoted by legislation like same sex "marriage"

God, where does one begin. First, and most disgracefully, you reveal your homophobic instincts by tendentiously juxtaposing homosexual activity unfavourably with incest. I suggest that you cannot provide statistical support for your claim and that you typed what you did to cast homosexuality in as bad a light as possible short of actually saying that homosexuals eat people's babies. Second, promoting gay marriage will not make homosexuals have sex more often. That's clearly what you intend to convey when you say that homosexual practice should not be promoted by legislation. Third, well let's have some suggested solutions from you. You didn't like that leaflet, eh, even though it was giving out essential information. Well doesn't that just remind me of the Catholic church being opposed to contraception and abortion and at the same time being opposed to proper sex education. You would like to ban certain kinds of behaviour you disapprove of whilst limiting information about its potential consequences. It all smacks of closet moralising, and that is a damn sight more unhealthy than any of those practices you're so fond of condemning. You want evidence? Ban contraception in Africa and keep people ignorant in Africa, a la Catholic church, and you get a massive Aids epidemic and a massive abortion rate and massive infant/mother mortality, just to add spice to the endemic poverty. Don't you think that good education for relationships and sexual health would solve the problem you think we have? Some good, no-nonsense, non-moralising practical advice? I do, but I keep coming up against attitudes like yours which mix faux-morality with the quest for ignorance. Well, I suppose it does work, and you can always say that you told us so.


20 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM (#3455001)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Musket....Here are the correct hiv figures for the UK.
Of course, as they are supplied by your organisation of choice and you profess to work in the field, feel free to misrepresent them as you have done in the past.

News Archives   


Volume 6 No 16; 20 April 2012

HPR Home | Archives | 2011 news

New HIV and AIDS diagnoses and deaths in the United Kingdom in 2011


Expanded HIV testing in high prevalence areas: HPA resource published


Public consultation on the role of the health workforce in tackling health inequalities




New HIV and AIDS diagnoses and deaths in the United Kingdom in 2011

New data – based on surveillance reports received as at end-December 2011 – indicate that a total of 5,600 people (4,050 men and 1,550 women) were diagnosed with HIV in the United Kingdom in 2011 [1]. This provisional figure is likely to rise to 6,150 after adjustment for reporting delays (see table). The 2011 total is a slight decrease on 2010 and continues the year-on-year decline from the peak of 7,820 diagnoses reported in 2005.

For the first time since 1998, the number of new HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men (MSM) has surpassed new diagnoses in heterosexuals. Half of those diagnosed in 2011 (48%, 3,000) probably acquired their infection through sex between men and 47% (2,890) through heterosexual contact (data adjusted for undetermined risk) (see figure). The overall decline in new diagnoses is largely due to fewer reported cases among heterosexuals who probably acquired their infection abroad.

The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence.

The number of new diagnoses among those infected heterosexually within the UK has remained steady at around 1,100 per year since 2008. In contrast, the number of new diagnoses among heterosexuals infected abroad has halved since 2006, from 3,530 in 2008 to 1,850 in 2011. This is largely due to a decrease in new diagnoses among persons from sub-Saharan Africa.

Continued low numbers of HIV diagnoses were made in people who inject drugs (PWID) (140) and persons infected through other exposures (120), such as mother to child transmission and recipients of blood/tissue products. All infections acquired through receipt of blood/tissue products diagnosed since 2002 were acquired outside of the UK, including the 21 diagnosed in 2011.

A total of 375 deaths and 350 AIDS diagnoses among HIV-infected persons in 2011 were reported, and this number is likely to increase as further reports are received.


New HIV diagnoses by exposure group and year of diagnosis: United Kingdom, 2002 – 2011    2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011**
Probable exposure group * Sex between men Adjusted 1980 2170 2460 2640 2650 2880 2770 2800 2880 3000
Observed 1955 2137 2421 2609 2598 2811 2640 2612 2681 2475
Hetero-sexual - likely country of infection All Adjusted 4050 4800 4900 4830 4430 4110 4120 3470 3180 2890
Observed 4004 4723 4829 4763 4347 4004 3919 3240 2952 2350
In the UK Adjusted 530 640 760 830 900 1010 1080 1070 1040 1040
Observed 402 490 595 660 701 733 774 766 744 572
Abroad Adjusted 3530 4160 4140 4000 3530 3100 3040 2400 2140 1850
Observed 3526 4150 4072 3906 3396 2887 2644 2157 1814 1244
Injecting drug use Adjusted 140 170 160 190 200 180 190 160 150 140
Observed 133 167 153 185 195 178 183 147 140 102
Other exposure groups Adjusted 170 200 200 160 180 160 140 170 150 120
Observed 168 197 192 162 178 157 131 154 135 86
Not reported 77 110 110 105 134 182 347 431 448 581
Total 6337 7334 7705 7824 7452 7332 7220 6584 6356 6150
* Adjusted by distributing proportionally those reports for which exposure group is not reported.
** Adjusted for reporting delay.
Note: The table shows actual numbers for the observed values. Numbers presented in the text are rounded.


Over 3000 new cases amongst MSM represents an epidemic, an epidemic caused by either homosexual practice or extreme promiscuity.
According to HPA, there are approx 422000 MSM between 15 and 45 in the UK male population.....There are regional variations to the rate,
7.2 in London, 3.6 ENG and Wales, 1.9 Scotland.....this converts to an overall rate of just over 4%
There are over 40000 MSM living with hiv/aids in the UK.


20 Dec 12 - 06:45 PM (#3455011)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I did not like the leaflet because it attempted to conceal the facts.
Facts, as you rightly say, it had in its posession.
It makes no sense to say that the largest number of hiv cases worldwide are among heteros, when over 60% of cases in the NHS area are amongst a small sexual minority.


20 Dec 12 - 06:56 PM (#3455020)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve....Could you please show me where you got the figure of less than one MSM in six hundred carry the virus?

The HPA figures which I quoted say 40000 in just over half a million are living with hiv/aids.
Over 3200 is being added to this figure annually as new infections are logged.


20 Dec 12 - 07:02 PM (#3455025)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

Ake, if a cure for AIDS was found would you then be OK with "gay marriage"?


20 Dec 12 - 07:12 PM (#3455033)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Bobad.....I have answered that question several times on this and other threads.


20 Dec 12 - 07:26 PM (#3455040)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Still no answer to this one:
akenaton - the lowest HIV rates in the world are amongst lesbians. Do you oppose same sex marriage for lesbians?


20 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM (#3455051)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

"I have answered that question several times on this and other threads."

We seem to carelessly forget... a one word reminder will do.


20 Dec 12 - 08:19 PM (#3455080)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

There are 96000 people in the UK who are HIV-positive. The population of the UK is over 60 million. 60 million divided by 96000 yields less than one in 600. 599 Brits in every 600 are HIV-negative. Rough numbers, of course, but that doesn't alter the obstinate fact that HIV is quite rare here, unlike in many African nations, in which it is massively more common, and in which infections among heterosexual vs infections in homosexual people wouldn't raise much of an eyebrow.

You like to piddle around with numbers, so here's another bit. 375 died from Aids in a year. So you have less chance of dying from Aids in any given year than you have of becoming a lottery millionaire. I suppose that, given good education in safe sex, your chances would be even more remote. Would you like to tell us how many gay men never get HIV?

I'm not trying to play down what is a clear issue, but you are definitely trying to play it up. Going from your history on the topic of homosexuality, it isn't difficult to work out why.


20 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM (#3455083)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

And, for clarity, I haven't concerned my self with statistics for "MSM" which I hadn't even heard of 'til last week. What I said the first time I mentioned figures was simply: And we have now had HIV/Aids with us for well over 30 years that we know of, yet the number of HIV-positive people in the UK is under 100,000, fewer than one in 600 of the population (and by no means all will develop Aids).


20 Dec 12 - 08:27 PM (#3455085)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

myself even


20 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM (#3455088)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

"I have answered that question several times on this and other threads."

So... you took the time to type all of that when you could have typed "Yes" or "No"?

I think you are queer.


20 Dec 12 - 09:46 PM (#3455119)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I've wondered. . . .

Don Firth


20 Dec 12 - 11:40 PM (#3455147)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

I have waited years (literally) for simple answers to simple questions.
Do not hold your breath.


21 Dec 12 - 01:12 AM (#3455158)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Steve Shaw: "And, for clarity, I haven't concerned my self with statistics for "MSM" which I hadn't even heard of 'til last week."

Responsibility at work!

Thank you, Akenaton, for attempting to enlighten, those who don't care anyway.

GfS


21 Dec 12 - 01:56 AM (#3455164)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST

Aw, cripe, get off Steve's case!

Not EVERYONE has heard that the acronym "MSM," as it is being used here, stands for "Men having Sex with Men." Considering that "MSM" also stands for
Marine Safety Manual
Manhattan School of Music
Missouri School of Mines
MaAfee System Management
Minnesota Science Museum
and some 80 other designations, there are lots of people in the REAL world who are not INSTANTANEOUSLY aware that "MSM" also, in THESE discussions, designates a type of sexual relationship.

SHEESH!!

Don Firth


21 Dec 12 - 03:34 AM (#3455174)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Steve, HIV is rare in Britain taken as a single population.
The prevalence among MSMs is comparable to that of The Great Plague of 1666.


21 Dec 12 - 03:51 AM (#3455176)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

err, 1665.


21 Dec 12 - 03:56 AM (#3455178)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Tia...There seems to be no heath problem amongst lesbians, but there are other grounds for opposing the legislation which I have detailed above.


21 Dec 12 - 04:00 AM (#3455180)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

You all seem to be missing the point.

The only way to get Akenaton to justify his conclusions is to wrap them in a request for data from his huge database he edits before publishing..

Hey Queer basher! Yes you! It's Name the Year Time. From the documents you are quoting from, have a look and tell us the last time somebody in The UK who was diagnosed HIV + and under NHS care developed AIDS.

If you really want, you might wish to draw a conclusion.


21 Dec 12 - 04:05 AM (#3455182)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve....Of course i am trying to illustrate the issue, the facts are being deliberately concealed from the UK public.
How many people do you think know that HIV/aids has reached epidemic levels in the UK?
The leaflet I mentioned earlier is a typical example of concealment.

The whole sorry mess is a symptom of the idiocy of many parts of the Human Rights Act. We have been deprived of our voice and our motivation.......Think I'll start voting for UKIP!!   :0)


21 Dec 12 - 05:37 AM (#3455201)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Megan L

From looking at last years STD figures single sex couplings are far from the problem aparently hetrosexual young men should get a condom welded on at pubertyand be taught that there are certain things one should not share with the entire world.


21 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM (#3455210)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Male homosexual practice and the promiscuity associated with it is more dangerous and unhealthy than incest or many other types of sexual behaviour and as such should not be promoted by legislation like same sex "marriage"""

Homophobic nonsense.

Why does HIV infect more men in one place and more women in another?

PURE CHANCE! The demographic in which the virus first made itself known depends entirely upon the gender of the index cases. And since homo and hetero sexuals rarely intermix, it remains disproportionately in that gender in which it was first identified, since, once it is identified people start to take precautions against it, so the opposite gender doesn't, as a rule, catch up.

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM (#3455213)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Same shit, different day. 600+ posts? Intolerance and ignorance cannot be stomped out with logic and a plea for compassion for fellow humans. I base this on empirical analysis, which is... 600+ posts here and countless others over the years can't do it so why bother?""

What do you suggest we do, Gnu, bow out and let the internet world get the impression that this all embracing international folk music forum is actually a racist, misogynist, homophobic and religious fundamentalist cesspit?

Not if it takes 6,000 posts or 60,000, or...........

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 06:04 AM (#3455215)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Well, the annual rate of newly-diagnosed STIs in the UK is not far short of half a million. Almost 150,000 new cases of chlamydia per annum, for example. Kind of puts the relatively tiny number of new HIV diagnoses in the shade, eh, ake? Never mind banning gay sex. Let's just ban sex! This context makes your unhealthy focus on homosexual activity all the more worrying.

Don't you think that a good, effective programme of education for relationships and safe sex, free from moralising, free from clergymen, and not just at school either, would do a damn sight more good than all this thinly-disguised homophobia? That what we do not currently have? I do have to keep asking, you know.

How many people do you think know that HIV/aids has reached epidemic levels in the UK?

Hmm, dark and scary talk. I await your evidence. Please include a definition of "epidemic".


21 Dec 12 - 06:09 AM (#3455216)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The prevalence among MSMs is comparable to that of The Great Plague of 1666.

Nice one, Keith. So we are now aligning that great evil gay sex with the great evil bubonic plague as well as with the great evil incest. Any more offers? Anyone like to align gay sex with cannibalism?


21 Dec 12 - 06:17 AM (#3455220)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

No Steve.
You put that interpretation on it.
You made the point that HIV is rare.
I made the point that it is in epidemic proportions in high risk groups, specifically MSMs.


21 Dec 12 - 06:20 AM (#3455222)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""How many people do you think know that HIV/aids has reached epidemic levels in the UK?""

That has to be the biggest stretch yet!

If every male homosexual in the country were HIV positive (which would statistically mean possibly half developing full blown AIDS) it wouldn't qualify as an epidemic. There simply aren't enough cases in a 65 million population to warrant that definition, unless of course there is massive infection in the heterosexual majority.

The worst you can say with any credibility is that HIV is endemic, but that wouldn't suit Ake's agenda because it would also be true of almost every country in the world, and overall, as one might expect, a fifty fifty split Homo to Hetero.

That is definitely NOT what Ake wants to hear.

I'm afraid he was born 7 decades too late and in the wrong country.

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 06:22 AM (#3455224)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

It can and does qualify as an epidemic within that community Don.


21 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM (#3455225)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Think I'll start voting for UKIP!!""

That says it all. So far to the right that Hubble can't see them.

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM (#3455228)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Has UKIP become a far right party Don?


21 Dec 12 - 06:27 AM (#3455229)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Why is it that our Keith always espouses the most ignorant, nasty, inhuman causes?

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM (#3455231)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

The UK Independence Party has many in its ranks who are gay men or women who have, without fuss or ostentation, taken advantage of the new arrangements. As a libertarian party, we are entirely at ease with their choice and wish all of them well.


21 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM (#3455246)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Ah.. As such shall ye judge them. Thanks Keith, the fog is lifting.

Epidemic. mmm. Instead of using the term in the strict sense I see it used, (after all NHS public health definitions do not always translate to other countries and their definitions, and WHO have a definition of their own...)

I like the one found at www.dictionary.com which says (of a disease) affecting many persons at the same time, and spreading from person to person in a locality where the disease is not permanently prevalent.

It would be silly if I took that as meaning that those who bandy the word epidemic around accept that the disease is not permanently prevalent. Wouldn't it? Sadly, HIV+ is a state and whilst controllable, is not curable. AIDS can only be treated palliatively.

So.. before both sides use words like epidemic, bear in mind that words have meanings. Anything permanently within a locality cannot be an epidemic. By accepting epidemic, you accept that we are not all going to hell in a hand cart.

Oh, Akenaton. You don't have to join UKIP you know. Most people here seem to recognise you as a clown without you having to wear a red nose to prove it.


21 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM (#3455249)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Yes.
Normally an epidemic runs its course as the proportion of resistant people increases.
There is no resistance to HIV and it has become endemic within high risk groups, but not in the general population.


21 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM (#3455256)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

You made the point that HIV is rare.
I made the point that it is in epidemic proportions in high risk groups, specifically MSMs.


Fewer than one person in 600 is HIV-positive. Fewer than half of those will go on to develop Aids. That makes HIV infection pretty rare. Not that it isn't serious and should be downplayed. Now every year in the UK around 450,000 people are infected with other STIs. In round figures that's four people in every 600, and that's every year, not the overall one-in-600 represented by HIV-positive people. About a third of those are chlamydia infections, a serious disease that has the potential to cause long-term chronic pain and sterility in women, much more frequently occurring, by a factor of five or six, than HIV infection. Then there's gonorrhoea, increasing at an alarming rate, and HPV, passed to women by men, which kills almost three times as many women each year by developing into cervical cancer (which is nearly always caused by HPV infection) as the number of people who die from Aids.

Anyone can hype up particular statistics by narrowing severely the groups you apply them to. You could make gonorrhoea look like a terrible epidemic if you apply it just to 18-25s. You can make chickenpox look like a terrible epidemic if you apply it just to kids between five and ten. The thing is, you have a rather awkward question to answer. Why, among all the STIs you could be discussing, and instead of talking about education for safe sex, do you choose to focus obsessively on the one infection which, in spite of its relatively low incidence, is the one you perceive to be mostly associated with homosexuals? Frankly, that says more about you and your illiberal prejudices than it says about any "concern" you might want us to think you have about the sufferers.


21 Dec 12 - 07:23 AM (#3455270)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

According to HPA
In 2007,    The prevalence of HIV (both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections) among MSM aged 15-44 was estimated to be 8.5% (range 7.0-10.5%)

By 2007, 32% of all MSM seen for HIV care were aged over 45, and 17% were over 50.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1203928687610

So well over 10% of MSMs are infected.
Probably 12% to 15% or even 20%
For comparison, the great flu pandemic of 1918 killed 3% of population, and the Great Plague of 1665 killed 15%


21 Dec 12 - 07:28 AM (#3455271)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Right, "high risk groups." This is a rather crafty way, and quite an artificial one (as a very large number of people are rather flexible in their sex lives), of producing a category of people who you can then declare open season on. What you should be talking about instead is high-risk activities. Because of lousy sex education in this country, millions of people don't know the difference between relatively safe sexual activity and high-risk sexual activity. Everyone who gets involved in sexual relationships of any kind should know about the possibility of infections and how they are passed on and how you can minimise risk. That should be one of the main aims of good sex education. Avoiding unwanted pregnancy is another. An important part of it, not the whole thing. Sex is a joyful thing and there's a fine line between giving sensible, practical information and being seen to be moralising, and there's no point in scaring people to death either. If that is done effectively, rates of infection (and unwanted pregnancies) would plummet. It would be far more effective in reducing infection (which is what we all want...isn't it?) than the kind of thinly-veiled gay-bashing that we see in this discussion from certain persons who seem to be frightened of something or other, I'm not sure what. Something as bad as bubonic plague or incest, perhaps. Or even cannibalism, though I haven't had any takers for that one as yet.


21 Dec 12 - 11:02 AM (#3455339)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

The HPA has some rather more up to date information which Keith and Ake have quietly passed over. Instead of Keith's out of date 2007 figures, consider the comment which follows. It relates specifically to the situation in the UK.

The emphasis on the most important sentences was added by me to ensure that certain parties would find it difficult to ignore.

""HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY

In the initial years of the epidemic, diagnoses were predominately among persons who acquired their infection through blood or tissue products, injecting drug use (IDU) and by sex between men.

In more recent years, men who have sex with men (MSM) remain the major risk group, while heterosexually acquired infections, particularly among African-born individuals, have also become of increasing public health importance.

The number of infections among people who inject drugs has remained low as a result of early and effectual harm-reduction programmes.

Thirty years on, where antiretroviral therapy is widely available, it has transformed HIV infection from a fatal illness to a chronic manageable condition. Today, people treated for HIV infection can expect a near-normal lifespan with far fewer side effects compared to the earlier drug regimes.

However, the benefits of treatment rely on the early diagnosis of infection [3]. The surveillance of HIV in the UK has adapted to major changes in the clinical management and epidemiological features of the infection.

The data have been the driving force behind policies to prevent and control HIV infections and ensure those living with the virus are tested promptly and receive high quality health care.


Number of people living with HIV

Diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection

By the end of 2010, an estimated 91,500 (95% credible interval [C.I.] 85,400-99,000) people were living with HIV in the UK; approximately one quarter (22,200, 24% [19%-30%]) of whom were unaware of their infection (i.e. undiagnosed).

This compares to the 86,500 people estimated to have been living with HIV in 2009. By the end of 2012, it is expected that more than 100,000 people will be living with HIV in the UK.

An estimated 40,100 (35,300-46,700) MSM were living with HIV in the UK in 2010, of whom 26% (1636%) were undiagnosed (additional information on MSM is available [1]).

An estimated 47,000 (43,900-50,400) heterosexuals were living with HIV, of whom 19,300 (17,70021,100) were African-born women and 9,900 (8,800-11,300) were African-born men.

One in three heterosexuals living with HIV were born in the UK or countries other than Africa (8,800 [8,100-9,700] women and 8,900 [8,000-10,300] men).

Among heterosexuals, men were less likely to be aware of their HIV infection with 28% (22%-35%) undiagnosed, compared to women with 21% (16%-26%) undiagnosed. Low rates of undiagnosed HIV infection in women demonstrate the effectiveness of antenatal screening programmes.

An estimated 2,300 (1,900-2,700) people who inject drugs were living with HIV in the UK, of whom 21% (12-32%) were undiagnosed.
""

So Ake and Keith's epidemic is actually a chronic manageable condition, which, with treatment gives a near-normal lifespan with far fewer side effects compared to the earlier drug regimes.

Ake has been bleating for years about research into HIV/AIDS being stifled by the Gay Marriage debate, and demanding that he be taken seriously, by which one might suppose that he wanted gay men locked up for the good of society (hasn't that been tried already?).

It now transpires that the research and the gay marriage debate continued side by side without negatively affecting each other, to the end that gay marriage is almost assured, and his worries should have been assuaged by the progress in controlling the disease.

Unfortunately, neither Ake nor Keith will be at all pleased at this, because their underlying agenda isn't about health.

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 11:08 AM (#3455341)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

So enlighten us Ake and Keith.

Are you going to demand that marriage be denied to every sufferer of a chronic manageable condition, or just this one?

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM (#3455346)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

When anyone suggests that other humans should have less/fewer rights than any others, that indicates some sort of animosity. This animosity is xenophobia, mysogeny, homophobia, or some such, even if it is not as blatantly, openly hostile as some other examples. It is still ...phobia; ...ogeny.

Akenton indicates this frame of mind. But when he is confronted, he refuses to own it. Moving on. Nothing to see here, folks...

Saul


21 Dec 12 - 01:00 PM (#3455370)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "Aw, cripe, get off Steve's case!
Not EVERYONE has heard that the acronym "MSM," as it is being used here, stands for "Men having Sex with Men." Considering that "MSM" also stands for
    Marine Safety Manual
    Manhattan School of Music
    Missouri School of Mines
    MaAfee System Management
    Minnesota Science Museumon."

Talk about SPIN!!! No wonder you stay so stubbornly stupid, and promote the same stupidity to others!
..Now what?..you're going to attack me for saying the flagrantly obvious??

GfS


21 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM (#3455398)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

I got an answer...sort of;

"There seems to be no heath problem amongst lesbians, but there are other grounds for opposing the legislation which I have detailed above."

So, you have insisted that your opposition to gay marriage is because of your deep concern for public health, but when we remove the health issue, you say that there are "other grounds".

Shifty.


21 Dec 12 - 02:42 PM (#3455414)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don, I am a scientist.
I have only commented on the science.


21 Dec 12 - 03:16 PM (#3455429)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don, I am a scientist.
I have only commented on the science.
""

I have just posted the facts as at 2010, not the out of date, no longer true 2007 figures.

If I found them, you could have done the same, but no. You carry on in your usual fashion, hook on to an untenable position and cling to it to the point of insanity.

How can you expect anybody to believe anything you say?

Don T.


21 Dec 12 - 03:57 PM (#3455446)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don, we had this identical discussion 2 years ago and I just regurjitated some research I did then.
It is still valid.
MSM infection rates have not improved and the influx of another high risk group was well under way then.


21 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM (#3455448)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

regurgitated


21 Dec 12 - 04:06 PM (#3455453)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Okay... *I* will...

Ake... "... the facts are being deliberately concealed from the UK public."

You got ANY idea what you said? If they are concealed, you can't see them. Your vision, wisdom and compassion are just as blind.


21 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM (#3455467)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST

What "SPIN?"

You're a moron, Goofus.

Don Firth

P. S. My apologies to the morons of the world for lumping you in with someone as non compos mentis as the Goofball!


21 Dec 12 - 04:51 PM (#3455483)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Thank you Don, for validating my point.
You actually can't see the 'spin'?????????????????
Give me a break....and quit falling on your own sword!...then claiming its somebody else's altering of the facts!

Try not being 'Suicidal...and proud of it!'

GfS


21 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM (#3455501)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Validating your point?

But you're POINTLESS, GoofBall.

Don Firth

P. S. Did someone say something about "spin?" Heck, I can keep this sucker spinning all day long! He keeps coming back and can't see how he's being played.

But I shouldn't do this! My mother always told me to be kind to dumb animals.


21 Dec 12 - 06:34 PM (#3455521)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Of course it is an epidemic.   you can have an epidemic of any infectious disease.

Hiv/aids is not an epidemic amongst the general population.....but certainly is an epidemic amongst MSM.

An epidemic is gauged on infection rates, these rates are very low in heterosexuals including heterosexuals who inject drugs, but are extremely high in male homosexuals(MSM)
In this issue, real numbers are meaningless as the numbers of homo's and heteros who live in the UK differ so widely.
Infection rates (percentages) are the only valid gauge.

Hiv/aids is not as Don would have us believe, equivalent to the common cold, but tho death rates falling, the disease is still a life sentence to mainly young men. As well as the human tragedy, the cost of lifetime medication and care for these young men is likely to be horrendous.
While human rights legislation is used to conceal the facts about this disease, the chances of irradicating it in the UK are minimal.
We need a public enquiry on why the link between MSM and hiv continues to worsen, followed by compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups


21 Dec 12 - 07:07 PM (#3455538)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Ake... no response to my post? Didn't really expect one.

I'll check out this thread in another hundred posts unless aleterted by one of the "good guys" to check it out sooner. Thanks, bud... >;-)


21 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM (#3455558)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Folks . . . arguing health figures with Akenaton allows him to conduct the discussion on his terms. As most of us know, health concerns are not the issue when it comes to civil rights. There are other questions that Akenaton needs to answer before his health statistics become pertinent:

How do you logically get from risky behavior to denying civil rights?

If you are going to deny civil rights because of risky behavior, why not deny them to skydivers, police officers, and drivers?

Even if risky behavior were a reason to deny civil rights, can you prove that all homosexuals engage in risky behavior?

I agree that we shouldn't let hate speech stand, especially on a forum we care about. But confronting it with Akenaton can be accomplished by simply asking him to answer the above questions every time he types one of his hate screeds. His inability to answer these questions is all the proof we or any casual reader needs to show that he's just a garden-variety hate-monger rather than a person who cares about health. Arguing with him about health statistics allows him to put a veneer of respectability on it.


22 Dec 12 - 02:54 AM (#3455651)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "P. S. Did someone say something about "spin?" Heck, I can keep this sucker spinning all day long! He keeps coming back and can't see how he's being played.."

Well, it is refreshing to see that you at least admit to 'keep this sucker spinning all day long...."

...so, if I compliment you on 'spinning the truth'...because you are all about you..then it should make you feel good..and it does.....
..well, at least we know it's 'spin'....(Been telling you that for a long time!)

GfS

Oh, P.S......a good psychologist can draw out, what is inside, so the person who is disturbed by it, can realize what it is.
Snap now..and avoid the 'rush'.


22 Dec 12 - 03:23 AM (#3455655)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Tell you what Goofus.

As you are an expert in the field and come with glowing self references, analyse Akenaton for us and save people the trouble of trying to work out his problem.

He'll submit to your consultation without legal consent so no problem there. After all, his enthusiasm for compulsory medical testing of Gay people fits nicely with quack assessments of bigots.


22 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM (#3455660)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

I have my impression and my impression is that I don't post my impressions...especially publicly. If he gives me a buzz, I'd be happy to talk to him.....jeez, you can give me a buzz, to...you might even be interesting...

GfS


22 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM (#3455674)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Musket..... questions for you.

What do we do when infection rates in MSM become so large that they can no longer be concealed from the public......I would reckon about four years, at the current annual increase?

What would you do about the increasing infection rates?

You say improve information and education, but if no one listened while the disease was a definite death sentence, why should they listen now when lifelong medication can lower morbidity?

Is it not obvious that the very issue of "risk taking" is endemic to those who take part in male to male sex?
The high number of sexual partners reported amongst most sexually active MSM appears to bear this out

One thing is certain, the last thing we need at this juncture, is legislation to promote homosexuality, while these infection rates apply.
The vast majority of MSM do not want monogamy, are sexually active, and have no obvious brake on risky sexual activity.(family structure)


22 Dec 12 - 04:55 AM (#3455679)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

BTW Musket.....Someone in your position should know that the relevent health agencies are already looking at testing and contact tracing in "problem areas"....... this means areas of the country or city, which contain large numbers of "at risk" groups.

I dont like the weasel words any more than you do, but I'm afraid thats where "liberalism" leads.


22 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM (#3455692)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Hiv/aids is not as Don would have us believe, equivalent to the common cold, but tho death rates falling, the disease is still a life sentence to mainly young men. As well as the human tragedy, the cost of lifetime medication and care for these young men is likely to be horrendous.
While human rights legislation is used to conceal the facts about this disease, the chances of irradicating it in the UK are minimal.
We need a public enquiry on why the link between MSM and hiv continues to worsen, followed by compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups
""

Is it that you can't read, or just that you don't bother. The situation as at 2010 was not an invention of mine, but the FACTS regarding HIV/AIDS laid out for the education of fools and bigots by The Health Protection Agency, whose pronouncements are, according to you and your toadies, gospel when they seem to support your prejudice, and rubbish when they do not.

HIV is reduced to a "chronic manageable condition" with the prospect of "a near normal lifespan".

Those are not my words, they are not spin. They are the assertions of highly qualified medical practitioners, whose word is infinitely more credible than the maunderings of a bunch of homophobes who spend their time trying to interfere in others' sexual practices.

You lot are the ones who need treatment.

Don T.


22 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM (#3455695)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""The vast majority of MSM do not want monogamy, are sexually active, and have no obvious brake on risky sexual activity.(family structure)""

Bottom line (excuse the unintentional pun), produce credible evidence for this statement, or withdraw it.

Incidentally, you sly change of direction toward cost of treatment has been noted. Another layer of the onion revealed.

We're getting there, slowly but surely, and the day is coming when you'll have nowhere to hide and will have to admit what most of us already know:

You CAN'T STAND HOMOSEXUALS!

Don T.

Don T.


22 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM (#3455697)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

BTW Ake. You mentioned the subject of "family structure".

The irony of that is superb.

It's the likes of you that actively try to prevent them achieving any family structure.

You should be ashamed to even mention it.

Don T.


22 Dec 12 - 09:25 AM (#3455745)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

One thing is certain, the last thing we need at this juncture, is legislation to promote homosexuality, while these infection rates apply.
The vast majority of MSM do not want monogamy, are sexually active, and have no obvious brake on risky sexual activity.(family structure)


Ignore me all you like but I'm not going away and I'm not going to stop picking you up on your disgusting prejudices. If you have figures to support these assertions, let's be having them. And if you think they have no brake on risky sexual activity, let's compare the infection numbers for HIV with gonorrhoea, chlamydia and HPV, to name a few only, all passed on by risky sexual activity. Those numbers make HIV/Aids look like a walk in the park, but I don't hear you harping on about them. Finally, tell me why you don't think that a good, non-moralising, practical programme of education for safe sex, and not just in schools, wouldn't do a lot more to reduce infection rates than any of your spouting and moaning about legalising gay marriage and the rest.


22 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM (#3455771)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I dont ignore you Steve and will continue to respond while you stay civil.

The figures are available, I have printed them on other threads, they include take-up rates for civil union and homosexual"marriage" where available.
The figures for numbers of lifetime sexual partners are also available...hetro and homo....these figures are of course estimates based on a random section but are very much higher in homos than heteros
I have urgent business to attend to to-night, one of my greyhounds is contesting a big race at Shawfield stadium in Glasgow, so I have no time to search.

Infection rates for almost all STDs are much higher amongst homos than heteros......these figures can be easily located in the CDC website, but of course the main issue is HIV/AIDS.


22 Dec 12 - 11:04 AM (#3455777)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Akenaton. It is difficult to remain civil, it really is.

Nothing is being hidden. HIV awareness is targeted in certain areas, just as other high risk groups in other clinical specialties are targeted. You ask what will happen when figures can no longer be concealed? Open your eyes and look out of the window, we are there. Figures are not concealed and whilst statistics can be read in many ways, the figures are open to interpretation. For me, I'll stick to the analysis of those charged with protecting public health who study the epidemiology around this. The director of public health from my old authority I chaired went on to lead on STDs at The Dept of Health for a while. When it comes to listening to him or you?

Well for starters, he isn't blinded by his bigotry, doesn't find tenuous figures to support his preposition and speaks of all risks in all groups concerning all STDs.

Your concerns have the advantage of addressing a real concern, albeit one of many. One thing you do say is sadly true; STDs in male Gay people is slightly higher than heterosexual figures for the same socio economic and geographical groups. Luckily, one of the main reasons has been identified. Sadly, the reason is you.

People need to engage with health agencies period. Some people have issues due to society's lack of acceptance of their lifestyle. If you wonder why I hold you in sheer contempt, it is because some people want society to reflect their values only and don't see the rest of society's stakeholders as equal members of said society. Hence they get pushed out, cut adrift and stigmatised by those who think solutions mean me running the risk of breaching Godwin's Law...


22 Dec 12 - 11:41 AM (#3455795)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Hey Goofus. You're a bit late if you want to analyse me. I asked my pet greyhound to do it yesterday, and if it's all the same to you, I'll stick with his diagnosis.

He said "Woof Woof Woof Woof!"

You'll have to admit, after an analysis like that, you'd have to raise your game a bit if you were to second opinion him.


22 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM (#3455815)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""these figures are of course estimates based on a random section but are very much higher in homos than heteros""

Or to use the correct nomenclature,.....GUESSES!

We asked for evidence.

Don T.


22 Dec 12 - 12:45 PM (#3455821)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Musket, What brought this on??..If you like rapping with the dog, hey, go right ahead....and if you like the dog's analysis, he might like your scientific conclusions!....and if you like being wooden, maybe your dog likes barking up a tree...maybe you'll be so lucky as to have it lift its leg on your knee!

Pretty soon, you might even get jealous of the dog....at least he gets to stuff his nose in people's crotches!....multiples, too!

GfS


22 Dec 12 - 12:47 PM (#3455822)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Musket ~~ Didn't your analyst find just a little bit of WARP among all that WOOF?

;-}


22 Dec 12 - 12:50 PM (#3455827)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

(Well, I guess that didn't go the way he thought it would.....he really stepped in it, this time....)

GfS


22 Dec 12 - 02:27 PM (#3455868)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

STDs in male Gay people is slightly higher than heterosexual figures for the same socio economic and geographical groups.

Slightly higher?
The rates are many times higher.

Or to use the correct nomenclature,.....GUESSES!
No Don.
You can not ask millions of people.
Resspectable, reliable, reputable surveys are carried out on samples.
That is not guessing.
That is how it is done.


22 Dec 12 - 02:36 PM (#3455875)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1216022461534
Young men who have sex with men
There have been worrying increases in the number of younger men
diagnosed with STIs in the past decade, with more than a doubling of
diagnoses of HIV (from 128 in 1998 to 281 in 2007) and a threefold
increase of gonorrhoea (339 to 1001) – increases similar to that observed
in older men who have sex with men.
http://www.swish.org.uk/?q=sex_info/stis
Numbers of all STIs have increased in the last few years and some of them, such as Chlamydia, have doubled in the past 6 years, especially amongst young people and gay men.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/LGBhealth/Pages/Sexualhealthgaymen.aspx
Gary Williams from Birmingham's Healthy Gay Life project

"Gay men should have a check-up at least every six months at a sexual health clinic, because for some infections you will not see any symptoms," says Williams.
http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticuk.htm
Cases of gonorrhea rose steadily from 1999 and peaked in 2002. Since then, the number of new cases has declined. Diagnoses are high among specific groups, such as black ethnic populations and men who have sex with men (MSM).
The UK's syphilis epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM),


22 Dec 12 - 02:59 PM (#3455885)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

HPA
Men who have ex with men (MSM) are a group at increased risk of specific sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as gonorrhoea, syphilis and lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV). MSM experience 73% of syphilis cases, 30% of male gonococcal infections seen in GUM and 43% of HIV cases attending specialist care in the UK in 2010. MSM have other specific sexual health needs including Hepatitis A and B vaccination and rectal and pharyngeal gonorrhoea testing.
Added/updated: 10 December 2012


22 Dec 12 - 07:21 PM (#3455961)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Actually, Keith, so what? Would you condemn paragliding or white-water rafting or Formula One racing or rock climbing on the grounds that they are risky? You know, people who indulge in those pastimes all know the risks. They all follow the respective protocols of their activities with regard to safety procedures. Some people say it's elfansafety gorn mad, even. But they know the risk and they know what insurance will cover them and what won't and they proceed accordingly. People who indulge in such things are highly educated in their specific activities. I don't hear you condemning them on moral grounds, yet you are more than prepared to condemn gay sex on moral grounds (and please don't pretend you're saying what you do out of the goodness of your heart because your primary concern is their well-being). So how come your posts, and akenaton's posts, are not full of calls for much better education for safe sex? So that everyone knows what is high-risk and what is low-risk? And please don't tell me again, tediously, that queers are already awash with information. Everybody should know everything, and it needs to be presented to everyone in an open, clergy-free, moralising-free, embarrassment-free, from-the-hip manner. It's far too important not to do so, and we do live in the 21st century. Not just homosexuals, everyone with a working dick or fanny. Before they have a working dick or fanny. That simply is not done. Why is it not done? Because people like you get in the bloody way all the time, that's why. Your agenda is to bash gay people, that much is clear. Naturally, anything that gets in the way of your gay-bashing is rather unwelcome. Both of you have studiously ignored my repeated calls for better sex education. If you disagree, prove it: fill all your subsequent posts with demands that the government ploughs resources into effective sex education. Not just in schools, but in the papers, on the telly, everywhere. I don't want people to die of Aids. I'm beginning to suspect that people dying of Aids actually suit your purpose rather nicely. After all, it's far easier to gay-bash when you can do the Daily Express thing of smearing gay people with visiting horrid plagues on the rest of us. Without Aids, your argument would be so much weaker, wouldn't it? You'd have nothing but queers' pink shirts and white socks to go on, would you?


22 Dec 12 - 08:33 PM (#3455990)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

When will you people stop contradicting these figures from reputable agencies.

Whether you like it or not, promiscuity is part and parcel of homosexual practice, resulting in the figures presented to you.
My stance has always been that the legislation to promote homosexuality as safe and healthy is at best misguided and should not be supported. That stance is vindicated by these figures...IMO
I believe, that if most people were aware of the true homosexual health figures, the govt would find it impossible to bring forward such legislation.

People like Steve and Musket who started out denying these figures, h now make silly comparisons to sporting pursuits or work which involves a limited amount of danger.

They just make themselves look foolish, perhaps they should take orders from our resident "heterosexual,homosexual, activist" Mr Peekstock, and pretend we, or the figures we present, do not exist.

Just curl up in your opaque soundproof bubble, in the feotal position and wish for the nasty truth to go away.


22 Dec 12 - 09:25 PM (#3456006)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The truth is that any "risky activity" can be made far less risky given education. No-one is denying any of your statistics, though you do have a habit of doing that time-honoured thing of presenting the ones you imagine support your case. Let me shock you and tell you that I don't give a damn whether gay people are more promiscuous than anyone else. So what? Are you saying that promiscuity is immoral or something? If so, where's you line in the sand? How many people per annum can you shag, and how often, before, in your eyes, you qualify as "promiscuous"? It's just another of those tendentious terms innit, ake, like bubonic plague or incest, thrown into the mix. A means of tarring gay people. They are promiscuous. They act like incestuous people. They bring us gay epidemics.

So, whaddya think? Do you think that a well-funded programme of education, in schools and in the wider community, no vicars, no moralising, full of no-holds-barred practical advice on safe sex, would reduce the infection rates of those diseases you're so scared of? What are you frightened of? I've been blissfully wed for 36 years and I watch my kids grow up into brilliant adults, never thought I was ever even vaguely gay, but I'm not scared! Why are you? Don't you get out much?


22 Dec 12 - 09:34 PM (#3456010)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

SOB! FIVE long paragraphs of eloquent response and POOF! GONE! I was SO upset, I didn't copy it before I hit the "submit". PMO!!!!

I'll sum it up...

ake... how dare you treat fellow humans in such an inane, callous and ignorant manner. How dare you hide behind statistics you pathetic bully. Fuck you, asshole.

I said it much more eloquently and in much more depth but it got lost in the ethernut.

I shall copy this post before I "submit" on accounta it equates to what I said in the "lost" post and having a copy and paste calling ake a bully and an asshole, troll at best, will probably save me time in future.

I'll bet your mother ain't proud of you, ake. At least, I am pretty sure she wouldn't be if she read your posts herein. Grow up, get a pair and TRY to understand thet even YOU are just a human. No better than any other human. Judge ye not... on accounta that shit simply lets all others judge you for what you are when spew your vile and ignorant shit.


22 Dec 12 - 10:41 PM (#3456037)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from

Steve Shaw: "The truth is that any "risky activity" can be made far less risky given education...."


22 Dec 12 - 11:07 PM (#3456046)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

700..and gee whiz!...

Steve Shaw: "The truth is that any "risky activity" can be made far less risky given education..."

and this one is hilarious!:
"So what? Are you saying that promiscuity is immoral or something? If so, where's you line in the sand?"

So, it's the educating, you say....ya' think that is going to stop a hard dick, and emotional immaturity, from implementing discipline?
You blame everyone EXCEPT the participants..how stupid is that??

Now one place that you are SORTA correct..but off by a mile..you seem to indicate that government(funded) education of homosexuals, who are promiscuous is the blame....BUT, the HIV virus was conceived of, and implemented BY the government. It was developed at Fort Kendrick, as part of a chemical/biological warfare project, and unleashed in Africa, and the homosexual communities. Maybe you didn't know that...but then is it a waste of time to educate you?..What makes you think anyone else will care, or take corrective measures..because in this matter, you ain't going to 'educate' some people away from the emotional and physical addiction to sex. this bullshit about it 'not being about sex' is a crock of bull-crap.
I felt that your posts, especially your earlier one, was just YOUR rationalizations to write it all off.

Akenaton is quite correct, in citing the homosexual community and promiscuity in that group, for being the lead in all this...but remember, they were targeted!!...and now the cat has gotten out of the bag.
The development of this was late '70's, and taken into Africa about 1980...and as an aside, the scientists who worked on it, (and you can get the list), seemed to all have met untimely deaths...'accidents', suicides, 'illnesses'....and if you don't believe me, Google it up for yourselves...if they haven't closed the sites down yet!

The first time I had ever heard of this HIV/AIDS was at UCLA Hospital, and some guy came in for a check-up, because he felt like shit, no energy, sick etc.,etc......and the TEAM who examined him had just received health bulletins..there was NOT much info on it..and they came out in environmental suits to examine him. Nobody had ever seen or heard of anything like this before..and that was in 1982..I was there..I SAW it!

just for what it's worth.....
...and BTW, Akenaton is indeed correct with his posts of the amount, disproportionate to the rest of society...but remember...THEY WERE TARGETED..as the Africans. In Africa, they put the virus in with the vaccinations, and distributed by WHO..World Health(?) Organization.
This is verifiable..go look.

Now the government wants to 'come to the rescue'...or so it appears...but it won't be the first time they've bullshitted a willing to be entertained audience!

GfS


22 Dec 12 - 11:10 PM (#3456047)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

...and don't bother with rebutting with the COVER story about the green monkey....It was just a cover story!..you know...how those government disinformation tidbits pop up every so often..
...so save it!

GfS


23 Dec 12 - 03:00 AM (#3456080)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Steve, no so what.
I was replying to Musket who said that the rate was only slightly higher for MSMs.


23 Dec 12 - 04:15 AM (#3456088)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Actually, if you had said "so what" when the health issue was raised, the discussion would have been cut short.
Instead you tried to deny it, allowing Ake to rub your noses in your ignorance.
STI pathogens ought not to discriminate in a liberal world, but they do and there is no point in blaming the messengers.


23 Dec 12 - 05:04 AM (#3456092)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve....I dont honestly think that "education" or additional information is the answer to this issue.
I think male to male sex is the problem...it does seem to carry with it a need to participate in extremely risky sexual activity.
To be blunt, sex seems desperately important amonst young MSM without the stabilising effect of children, especially children created by a traditional heterosexual couple; and the family structure which is built up therebye.

Gay marriage is really a bit of a red herring, a cause celebre for "liberals" with too much time on there hands. The only reason it has any prominence is through the support of the arts and entertainment media, which controls how many of our younger populace think...or fail to think.
Also, control of important information, like the figures we are posting, gives the appearance of all being well in the community of MSM....I repeat, very few people are even aware of the desperate situation, thinking that as overall hiv figures are falling, they are also falling in the MSM demographic.
The exact opposite is the case and instead of promulgating the cosy notion that "all is well", "leave them alone", "Lurve conquers everything", we should be making serious attempts to irradicate a disease which has now become an epidemic within male homosexuality.

A degree of compulsion is required if the life sentence passed on these thousands of young men is to be rescinded.

"liberals" would be better to concentrate on the quality of life which can be achieved for homosexuals, rather than loading their shoulders with "rights" which simply ensure that the unbelievably cruel status quo continues to oblivion.


23 Dec 12 - 06:58 AM (#3456117)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""After all, it's far easier to gay-bash when you can do the Daily Express thing of smearing gay people with visiting horrid plagues on the rest of us.""

Which, of course, would be arrant nonsense anyway.

The concept is self destroying idiocy. The clue is in the "Men having sex with Men".

Apart from a very small number of bi-sexuals (and most bisexuals are oriented more toward hetero) they aren't passing anything on to the hetero majority.

In fact the reverse is more likely these days.

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM (#3456121)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Is it that you can't read, or just that you don't bother. The situation as at 2010 was not an invention of mine, but the FACTS regarding HIV/AIDS laid out for the education of fools and bigots by The Health Protection Agency, whose pronouncements are, according to you and your toadies, gospel when they seem to support your prejudice, and rubbish when they do not.

HIV is reduced to a "chronic manageable condition" with the prospect of "a near normal lifespan".

Those are not my words, they are not spin. They are the assertions of highly qualified medical practitioners, whose word is infinitely more credible than the maunderings of a bunch of homophobes who spend their time trying to interfere in others' sexual practices.
""

Your answers to the findings of the HPA would be appreciated Keith and Ake.

Ake's homophobia is a given, but Keith is building up an impressive list of well respected and generally truthful international bodies with whose statements he disagrees. The United Nations, Amnesty International, The HPA, and many many more are flat out wrong and Keith is right.

He'll be wanting recognition as a Divinity before long.

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 08:15 AM (#3456134)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don, I did know that HIV can now be controlled with drugs, and near normal life expectancy achieved.
You post as if I had suggested otherwise.

I posted some statistics on the very much higher risk of acquiring STIs for MSMs.
I hope you are not challenging any of them Don.

What you may not know is that control of HIV is only possible with an early diagnosis from a blood test.
AIDS is still a sentence to a lingering death if you wait for symptoms to appear.
There is good evidence of large scale undiagnosed HIV within the MSM community.


23 Dec 12 - 08:19 AM (#3456136)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

In the meantime I will carry on working as I do, regulating those working in the field of amongst other things STDs.

Luckily, as they deal with the real world they plan capacity and approach from the facts and competent analysis.

They leave any views at home. They don't base their work on views.

If they did the situation would begin to look like Akenaton's hell and Keith's party political scare stories to attract votes for an obnoxious right wing party.


23 Dec 12 - 08:43 AM (#3456146)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

HPA
HIV is an extremely serious infection. There are excellent treatment options available nowadays but these are only at their most effective if the infection is diagnosed early, before symptoms appear. This is a challenge as most individuals will not be aware of their infection until they get tested for HIV. Testing for the infection must be increased in order to catch the infection as early as possible.

"The impact of late diagnosis is clearly demonstrated when you look at deaths among people with HIV - three out of five of HIV positive individuals that die are diagnosed too late to gain the most health benefits from their treatment, like increased life expectancy.


23 Dec 12 - 08:48 AM (#3456147)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket,
Keith's party political scare stories to attract votes for an obnoxious right wing party.

What are you implying and with what justification?
All I have done is provide some factual evidence that is freely available from HPA.

I am sorry if it exposed a lack of knowledge in some here, but that is no excuse for personal, ad hominem attacks.


23 Dec 12 - 10:45 AM (#3456171)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Keith, please explain how health statistics and civil rights are connected.

Are you suggesting we deny marriage rights to people who are sick? Or to people who engage in risky behavior?

I don't think so. You are suggesting we deny civil rights to people who you don't like. The only reason you don't like them is because they do things in bed that are different than what you do in bed. That sort of deep interest in what other people are doing in bed is kind of sick. Aren't you embarrassed to display your perversion for the world to see?


23 Dec 12 - 11:07 AM (#3456172)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I am not suggesting anything.
I just corrected some errors of fact that contributors have made.
No spin.
No interpretation.
Just hard facts.


23 Dec 12 - 12:13 PM (#3456182)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Keith, earlier you said:

Like everyone else they do not have the right to marry an underage person, a close relative or anyone of the same sex.

So, yes, you are suggesting something. Yes, you are deeply interested in what other people are doing in bed, interested enough to want to have laws about it. Please stop begging the question.

Why do you think gay people shouldn't have the right to marry?


23 Dec 12 - 12:57 PM (#3456190)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I have not expressed an opinion about gay marriage.
What you quote was an obvious statement of fact.


23 Dec 12 - 01:29 PM (#3456196)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Remember the days(not THAT long ago), when to get a marriage license, you needed first to get a blood test, to see if the 'applicants' has STD's??
Do you think that would fly today?...or would that be a perceived violation of somebody's rights?

GfS


23 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM (#3456201)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth


23 Dec 12 - 01:52 PM (#3456207)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Sorry. My mouse hiccupped before I was ready.

Will wonders never cease!?? A half-way intelligent thought from GoofuS! YES, it would be a good idea for everyone to get screened for STDs before getting a marriage license. Everybody!

####

Wrong end of the stick, Ake.

I don't know how things are in your neck of the woods, but around here, it was not us stupid, ill-informed liberals who started plumping for gay marriage, it was GAY MEN.

I don't think they would have started this whole thing if all they wanted was to have sex with as many other men as possible.

All kinds of people on this thread are manipulating HIV/AIDs figures to fit their own prejudices, which does not address the REAL issue. The right to self-determination.

Everybody here is screaming about MSM, but what about women having sex with other women?

Don Firth


23 Dec 12 - 02:19 PM (#3456215)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

To clarify:   as a general principle, it would be a good idea to be tested for STDs before getting married. But this should be for the information of the participants, and not a legal bar to marriage should the test of one or more of the parties be found positive.

Some STDs can be cured with a penicillin shot, and undoubtedly as research continues, soon HIV/AIDs as well will be eliminated with the appropriate treatment.

What will those who are opposed to same-sex marriage latch onto next?

Don Firth


23 Dec 12 - 02:22 PM (#3456216)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""You post as if I had suggested otherwise.""

As is normally the case, Ipost at least twice before you respond, and then you select one sentence and go of at a tangent to answer a question you haven't been asked.

You no longer have any credibility.

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 02:26 PM (#3456218)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""What you may not know is that control of HIV is only possible with an early diagnosis from a blood test.""

Just goes to show you do not read others' posts in their entirety, as this formed a part of the HPA statement I originally posted verbatim.

You make assumptions about posts you haven't even read, and every time you do that, you prove my points about your lack of credibility.

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 02:31 PM (#3456221)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""just for what it's worth.....
...and BTW, Akenaton is indeed correct with his posts of the amount, disproportionate to the rest of society...but remember...THEY WERE TARGETED..as the Africans. In Africa, they put the virus in with the vaccinations, and distributed by WHO..World Health(?) Organization.
This is verifiable..go look.

Now the government wants to 'come to the rescue'...or so it appears...but it won't be the first time they've bullshitted a willing to be entertained audience!
""

Goofie, you are certifiable.

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM (#3456222)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""The impact of late diagnosis is clearly demonstrated when you look at deaths among people with HIV - three out of five of HIV positive individuals that die are diagnosed too late to gain the most health benefits from their treatment, like increased life expectancy.""

And this is true of every serious or life threatening disease known to medicine.

So waht makes HIV special in this respect, other than your homophobia?

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 02:38 PM (#3456223)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Remember the days(not THAT long ago), when to get a marriage license, you needed first to get a blood test, to see if the 'applicants' has STD's??""

Not in the UK you didn't. Your government obviously is more prone to interfering.

Land of the Free?

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM (#3456235)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

And this is true of every serious or life threatening disease known to medicine.

So waht makes HIV special in this respect, other than your homophobia?

Ask HPA.
It was their quote.


23 Dec 12 - 04:20 PM (#3456255)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

From research article BMC.

Persons diagnosed with HIV infection had considerable excess mortality in comparison with the general population of the same age group and sex, despite wide availability of combined antiretroviral treatments. This excess mortality was largely due to deaths from AIDS-defining conditions, but other causes of death were also important, such as drug overdose or addiction, hepatic disease, non-AIDS-defining cancers, and cardiovascular disease. Excess mortality associated with HIV infection was observed in both men and women, and in persons with and without a history of injecting drug use.

Numerous studies have reported substantial reductions in mortality in HIV-infected persons after the introduction of combined antiretroviral treatments [21,22], the same as we found in Navarre [9]. Nonetheless, mortality in this group is still 14 times higher than in the general population after adjusting for sex and age group. Some studies have found somewhat lower excess mortality [23], but different results could be explained by the epidemiological characteristics of those infected, time of evolution of the infection, and whether or not persons who are not receiving antiretroviral treatment are included. Health authorities should be alert not only to those causes with relative excess mortality, but also to those that are responsible for the largest absolute number of deaths.

In the era of combined antiretroviral treatments, mortality among persons diagnosed with HIV has continued to decline, mainly in those without a history of injecting drug use [21], but is still a long way from reaching mortality levels similar to those in the general population [5].


23 Dec 12 - 04:35 PM (#3456261)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"In Africa, they put the virus in with the vaccinations, and distributed by WHO..World Health(?) Organization.
This is verifiable..go look."

Gfs, you'll never get most folks here to accept that. Most of them won't even accept the fact that we are all governed by shape-changing lizard creatures masquerading as humans.


23 Dec 12 - 04:37 PM (#3456262)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Akenaton, you can, and have posted FACTUAL data, till cyberspace is filled with it....and the wannabe ideologue morons will not accept them..because it flies in the face of the fantasy bullshit world they live in...they deny scientific data..but claim, and misquote 'science' to back up their position.....and then call YOU names!..how fucking immature and stupid is that??...and no matter the amount of impartially gathered statistics you post, they are afraid you are promoting 'hate'..because they think you want them to stop sucking their thumbs...and God forbid, thumb-sucking is genetic! ..they can't 'help it'! ....Helplessly suicidal and proud of it!!
..and then they have the deluded excuse to think it is a 'civil right' issue, like segregation was...or at least argue that way.
methinks they just got in late in the game, and are trying to 'make up' for cowering away during the REAL civil rights issues....and try to sound like an important 'member' of the righteous civil rights gang...
...and they'll probably show up to a rally.....as soon as they dry out their sheets, from wetting their beds!

GfS


23 Dec 12 - 05:03 PM (#3456275)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

You no longer have any credibility.

Why. For quoting HPA and stating demonstrably true facts?
For that I get called a homophobe and a fascist.
Why are you people so nasty?
Why can you not make your case without making it personal?


23 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM (#3456284)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

HPA.
An estimated 40,100 (35,300-46,700) MSM were living with HIV in the UK in 2010, of whom 26% (16­-36%) were undiagnosed .
26% of 40 100 is 10 400 infected people receiving no treatment and probably passing it on.


23 Dec 12 - 06:22 PM (#3456301)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

It means NOTHING to them..THEY DON'T CARE!
What they have done is taken a 'political' position, unsubstantiated by anything factual...and then resorted to how the FEEL about it...in other words, they have adopted delusion, as reality.
Maybe soon they will be arguing, that homosexuals can mate with each other, bear offspring...so THEN it can be called 'genetic'! ...except they left out one small detail...then they will claim 'discrimination'!!!!

GfS


23 Dec 12 - 06:41 PM (#3456308)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Why. For quoting HPA and stating demonstrably true facts?""

No, of course not!

For selectively quoting HPA and trying to play down the fact that they also said

""HIV is reduced to a "chronic manageable condition" with the prospect of "a near normal lifespan".

It's one of your regular devious actions to deny facts which take away the validity of your prejudices, which are many and varied.

As for the late diagnosis distraction, it also applies to Testicular Cancer, Bowel Cancer and many other conditions, so to try, as you have, to attach it to MSMs with HIV as an indictment of them, is disingenuous and dishonest, or to put it another way, par for the course with you.

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 06:45 PM (#3456309)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

And Goofie, you have already amply demonstrated your qualifications for a long stay in a nice rubber walled room.

I'd confine yourself to watching out for men in white coats if I were you (God forbid!).

Don T.


23 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM (#3456325)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Ye homophobes need to organize yerselves a circle-jerk on accounta yer present cluster-fuck is quite embarassing.


23 Dec 12 - 07:37 PM (#3456329)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"What they have done is taken a 'political' position, unsubstantiated by anything factual...and then resorted to how they FEEL about it...in other words, they have adopted delusion, as reality."

An excellent assessment of their position Sanity.....concise.


23 Dec 12 - 07:47 PM (#3456335)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Sorry. Plenty of factual information. That you won't ACCEPT those facts doesn't mean they are any the less true.

Even if you don't like it.

Don Firth


23 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM (#3456337)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Don....you are being extremely silly, if you cannot understand the point Keith is making about late diagnosis and mortality, perhaps you would be in a more comfortable zone in another thread?

Of course late diagnosis also affects death rates in other serious illnesses, but you were attempting to contend that Aids was no longer viewed as a serious illness ....were you not?

The piece I posted stated that "mortality is 14 times higher in hiv positive persons, than in the general population, after adjustment for age and sex"


23 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM (#3456347)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

So, resident homophobes ake, Keith and Goofie, - what a bloody crew! :-) - take a leap. You are convinced you have the numbers. So let's move on now to your solutions. Quickly now, chaps, we've all had more than enough of the wheeling around of the figures. What do we do about it? And do be serious. I'm looking for whatever you suggest to have a really significant effect on infection rates. You've whinged enough about queers and we know you're scared of 'em. So what should we do? As individuals? As a nation?? Would you like me to make it easy for you and provide a multiple choice tick-list?


23 Dec 12 - 08:58 PM (#3456365)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake, need I point out that this thread is about same-sex oriented people who wish to form stable relationships? Not about matters of AIDs and promiscuity!

Who's being silly now!??

Don Firth


23 Dec 12 - 11:15 PM (#3456404)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,.gargoyle

I know gay / les couples that have longstabding permanet relationships. They enter into contractual commitments. It is ALL legal. Some have foster children. (Most blessedly....it is contract law ...... it is not a marrage (a holy sacrament established and sanctioned bt God)

On.a different note:
The fudge - packers have done quite well my be.

In the year 2000 ... I was forced to go to an ENT specialst.
All of my cures (hydrogen peroxix, olive oil, vinegar, alcohol, vitamine C liquid, bees wax candles, and several other concoctions) refused to remove the horric "itch " inside my left year.

I can only guess that the condition developed from my propensity to stick my head under water in communal "hot tubs " to listen to the bubble jets. He treated me for candidiasis aka yeast infection in the ear.

On the way out of his office ....crowded with sniveling, hacking senior citizens ... he explained that there was epidemic influenza in the area. He wrote a pre ription for Tamalu...and said to take it at the first sigh on a high fever...when the aches and pains and a fever of 103 set in.... I drug myself to.the pharamacy and laid my 75.00 usd down.

It Worked...along with five days off woeked.

ROTH IRA were still quite new. I like Buffet 's philosohy.

Here was a product that worked on influenza.
Millions and millions of people get influenza.
They get it for a week to ten days abd move on.

I purchased 200 shares in the ROTH IRA ... almost everything.
Since its purchase in 2000 the stock has had FIVE 2 for 1 splits...in a tax free acount.
Count them out on your fingers.

My investment strategy was off base...I figured on the universiality of influenza.
The GILD   in Gilead was the discovery of access to a Virus's vulnerabilty.

okThe key to their miraculus growth was not the five day treatment for flu.....but life long
antiviral
treatment for HIV / AIDS.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

The wages of sin is death....and some of those wages have lined my pockets. I have known two who died from AIDES ....I know about eight more that are HIV position ( one a woman from an organ transplant)


24 Dec 12 - 01:41 AM (#3456420)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "Sorry. Plenty of factual information. That you won't ACCEPT those facts doesn't mean they are any the less true."

Well post at least ONE!

Don Firth: "Ake, need I point out that this thread is about same-sex oriented people who wish to form stable relationships? Not about matters of AIDs and promiscuity!"

No Don you misunderstood the thread title..it doesn't say 'wish to form stable relationships' it says 'marriage'....read it..it's just up ^ there....and does marriage mean promiscuity??

I'll give you last word......:

Don Firth: "Who's being silly now!??"

GfS


24 Dec 12 - 02:16 AM (#3456428)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Please do not call me a homophobe because I point out factual errors in your posts.
Just check your facts before posting nonsense.
I have expressed no opinions at all, an not homophobic and have never said anything that could be so interpreted.
I do not even have an issue with gay marriage.

Don.
For selectively quoting HPA and trying to play down the fact that they also said
""HIV is reduced to a "chronic manageable condition" with the prospect of "a near normal lifespan".


I did not play it down at all.
You make that up.

I did point out that it requires early diagnosis by blood test, and that it is too late when symptoms appear.
I also pointed out that HPA calculates there are thousands of undiagnosed MSMs in UK whose chances are slipping away and who are spreading the virus.


24 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM (#3456450)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Why would we be interested in your tick list Steve?
You do not appear to understand the problem, so how should you be able to provide the solution?


24 Dec 12 - 07:02 AM (#3456464)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Keith, you are a homophobe because you are deliberately highly selective and tendentious in the information you employ to make your case. You focus exclusively and obsessively on HIV/Aids as though it was the one infection that can be passed on by sexual contact, yet the truth is that it is in a tiny minority of overall STIs. You neither acknowledge that nor offer any solutions and you ignore my calls for better education. I can only conclude that you think education would have an such inconvenient effect on infection rates that it would weaken your case, so you'd rather not think about it. You are similarly highly selective about what you put forward about Israel/Palestine, completely blind to the plight of one side, so that makes you an Islamophobe too. You are what you are, by your fruits we know you, and bleating about it when you get called out is, frankly, pathetic.

Ake, I've given you my suggested solution ad nauseam. A good, moralising-free, religion-free programme of education for safe sex and personal relationships would reduce STIs, unwanted pregnancies and abortions dramatically. We do not have that in this country. What we have is piecemeal, arbitrary, non-compulsory and shambolic. Resources ploughed into that would reap dividends far beyond their money cost. I asked for your solution, but all I get from you is veiled moralising and, well, homophobia. Certainly nothing like a balanced view. Shed your fear of gay people and start to look at the situation a little more objectively.


24 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM (#3456469)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Fascinating debate here, if you are interested in HIV/AIDS and risk groups.

However, wouldn't it be nice if we had a thread about Gay marriage. Obviously, you couldn't weave it into a thread about STDs because it is a very different subject.





Unless you are a paranoid and / or bigoted individual who jump at any opportunity to see if anybody else shares your obnoxious take on society.


24 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM (#3456500)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

<>i>
Keith, you are a homophobe because you are deliberately highly selective and tendentious in the information you employ to make your case.
Completely untrue Steve.
I was not making a case.
I was not selective.
My posts were in response to, and in correction of, other people's posts and were purely factual.
No opinion expressed, tendentious or otherwise.

You people start name calling whenever your case is challenged and you have no answer.


24 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM (#3456541)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

And Steve, suppose I was homophobic (which I am not).
The facts I have posted would still be facts.
You could still not refute them.
What is the point of your name calling?
Just answer what I say instead of making personal attacks on me.
(of course, if you could you would)


24 Dec 12 - 11:57 AM (#3456568)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Well Steve, I also gave you MY solution, which happens to also be the solution being "looked at" by HPA and CDC.

The only problem is they cannot say what they mean directly because of "rights/anti discrimination legislation."

In the developed countries, hiv/ aids has become mainly a disease of one "at risk" group,   MSM.

All other demographics have very low rates of infection and these rates are falling, while infection rates in MSM are very high and rising steadily.....this is not homophobia, but incontravertible fact.

I would first instigate a public enquiry to determine why infection rates are so high in this particular demographic, then start compulsory testing and contact tracing in at risk groups with high infection rates.
To test everyone in a given geographical area, regardless of their demographic is almost unworkable, too expensive and unlikely to be effective.

I would also ensure that the full facts regarding hiv was presented to the public. This is a serious issue and concealment....as seems to be favoured by most people will serve no one well....especially male homosexuals


24 Dec 12 - 04:12 PM (#3456654)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Goofy sez:
Don Firth: "Sorry. Plenty of factual information. That you won't ACCEPT those facts doesn't mean they are any the less true."

Well post at least ONE!
Okay, Goofy, here you are: If sexual orientation is not directly genetic, geneticists DO agree that it has a strong genetic component, and quite possibly goes down through the mother. One theory is that it is the timing of the infusion of hormones while the fetus is in utero.

Facts: it is NOT a simple choice, nor is it primarily a psychological problem, and as studies have shown, it cannot be cured with psychological counseling, psychotherapy, or so-called "aversion therapy." All attempts have either resulted in complete failure (recidivism), indeterminate result because the subject completely abstains from sexual activity of any kind, or in many cases, severe depression, and in a number of cases, suicide.

There are SEVERAL facts there for you to contemplate. If your "therapy" gets different results, then perhaps you should publish your results in the appropriate scientific journals, let them be subjected to peer review (rather than trying to bull US with them), and if you are indeed right, become highly esteemed among your fellow (ahem!) counselors.

Interesting sidelight:   the Republic of Indonesia consists of a large group of islands in Southeast Asia, northwest of Australia. The Indonesian archipelago has a population of some 238 million people. My wife's cousin made frequent trips there, particularly to Bali, and he once reported that because of the size of the population, the Indonesian government wanted to reduce the birth rate. So they started a program to encourage homosexual relationships!

Over a period of time, it was noted that it had NO EFFECT on the birth rate OR the number of same-sex relationships among the populace.

The FACT IS that sexual orientation is NOT a matter of CHOICE. In that respect, you are what you are and you cannot CHOOSE to be otherwise.

The whole world is currently suffering from a number of problems due to overpopulation. But that method of reducing the birth rate is an abject loser.

Those are FACTS, Goofy. Suck 'em up!!
Don Firth: "Ake, need I point out that this thread is about same-sex oriented people who wish to form stable relationships? Not about matters of AIDs and promiscuity!"

No Don you misunderstood the thread title..it doesn't say 'wish to form stable relationships' it says 'marriage'....read it..it's just up ^ there....and does marriage mean promiscuity??
Let me get this straight. From your comment just quoted above, it would appear that, although it is generally assumed by most people that marriage IMPLIES a stable relationship, i.e., faithful to one partner, you do not agree with this?

Let me point out that it is homosexuals, both gay men and lesbians, who initiated the campaigns for same-sex marriage—NOT we "fuzzy-headed Liberals." So it is quite logical to assume that by participating in a marriage ceremony, either in a church, or a judge's chambers, or justice of the peace's office, they are making a declaration that they wish to form what is intended to be the stable relationship which is known as "marriage."

If you do NOT think that this is what "marriage" means, then if you are married or intend to get married, does your wife or intended wife KNOW that you do not believe that "marriage" means devoting yourself to one person?
I'll give you last word......:

Don Firth: "Who's being silly now!??"
Obviously, you!

Don Firth

P. S.   I'll leave you with Carl Sandburg's "Eleventh Commandment:
Thou shalt not commit nincompoopery.


24 Dec 12 - 11:54 PM (#3456753)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,.gargoyle

I have known those ... who from even the youngest of age ... have a "predisposition " to theft.


And known others that appear to have an adaptation to adultry.

Still otbers prone to swear a blue streak at the slightess provocation...and those to continualy curse God for their misery. More than once my path has crossed those of a murderous nature.

Are we as a society...to "ebrace " such of our fellow men and toss their "faults " lightly
.... because they were "born " with a predisposition.   I am sure a habitual theaf has different scan of their cerebral cortext than a "mother Teresa.

Why accept the lowest common denominator?

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

The miracle of rebirth is that one is one is NOT condemned to follow a path of unrightousness from birth to the grave.   We DO have free will and salvation...through Grace.


25 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM (#3456803)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""An excellent assessment of their position Sanity.....concise.""

Ake the sex nazi thinks Goofie is sane.

Now I know he can be dismissed out of hand.

Don T.


25 Dec 12 - 07:23 AM (#3456812)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I think it is rather strange to see grown men behave like school bullies in a playground. "Goofie" do you not feel foolish to use such terms?

Sex nazi?......well I suppose its the most original statement you have produced for some time.......is it something to do with SM?

Gargoyle, you make a valid point.....of course, it will not be addressed here.


25 Dec 12 - 08:12 AM (#3456827)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

AKE SAYS:- ""In the developed countries, hiv/ aids has become mainly a disease of one "at risk" group,   MSM.

All other demographics have very low rates of infection and these rates are falling, while infection rates in MSM are very high and rising steadily.....this is not homophobia, but incontravertible fact.
""

HPA SAYS:- "" -snip- In more recent years, men who have sex with men (MSM) remain the major risk group, while heterosexually acquired infections, particularly among African-born individuals, have also become of increasing public health importance.-snip- ""

AND:- "" -snip- Thirty years on, where antiretroviral therapy is widely available, it has transformed HIV infection from a fatal illness to a chronic manageable condition. Today, people treated for HIV infection can expect a near-normal lifespan with far fewer side effects compared to the earlier drug regimes.-snip-""

ALSO:- "" -snip- The surveillance of HIV in the UK has adapted to major changes in the clinical management and epidemiological features of the infection.

The data have been the driving force behind policies to prevent and control HIV infections and ensure those living with the virus are tested promptly and receive high quality health care. -snip-
""

So Ake isn't interested in facts. He isn't interested in medical advances. He isn't interested in the Health Protection Agency's publication of the current situation, and he isn't interested in the well being of Homosexual Men.

He deplores their existence and wishes that they could be, if not converted, eradicated.

I used, in my previous post, the phrase "Sex Nazi", because Ake's attitude to Homosexual men is very closely akin to that of the Third Reich.

He plays the "Concerns about their health" card time and again, but won't answer questions about whether he opposes marriage for gay women.

That is because the answer would show up his bias against all gays, and not for the reasons he would have us believe.

Don T.


25 Dec 12 - 03:11 PM (#3456917)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

My particular interest in this matter is that Barbara and I have some good friends who happen to be two men in a relationship who have been living together for some years—plus a number of other people who are same-sex oriented. Why so many? Happenstance, plus the fact that, apparently Seattle is second only to San Francisco in percentage of LGBT population in the United States. Seattle, 12.9% compared to San Francisco's 15.4%.

These are ordinary people, like everyone else. At least four attorneys, a medical technician in a hospital, a number of different occupations, including a Washington State legislator and a Seattle Transit System bus driver. They differ only in that for the most intimate of all personal relationships, they gravitate to someone of their own gender.

The comments that Ake keeps making about disease statistics, and that gay men's supposed fixation on promiscuity making them a menace to society as a whole, or that Guest from Sanity makes about how gay men are psychological basket-cases who need to be "cured" of their "perversion," when such attempts as "aversion therapy" have turned otherwise contented gay men into psychological basket cases (including depression and suicide) more than amply demonstrate that they know nothing of the matter, and are operating on their own prejudices.

One is given to wonder why they are so interested in the sexual practices of others, and so adamantly opposed to granting same-sex oriented people the same rights as everyone else.

One also wonders why they are particularly interested in the activities of gay men, and don't seem to have the same concerns about lesbian women.

Why such intense interest in gay men?

Don Firth


25 Dec 12 - 04:02 PM (#3456937)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Well well Don, so the wheel has spun full circle.

Several years ago you attempted to traduce my position on this issue, as your argument gets thinner and thinner, you revert to default abuse mode.

Do you never read any other posts but your own? A couple of days ago I answered TIA that there was no hiv epidemic amongst lesbian women.

But of course you knew that......didn't you?


25 Dec 12 - 04:50 PM (#3456956)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

My position on this issue is rock-solid, Ake.

And althought HIV/AIDs figures ARE a matter of concern, you make it the whole issue, and complain about the SOLUTION to the problem, which is to PROMOTE stable relationships among same-sex oriented people. Instead of DENYING them!

I smell the rank stench of hypocrisy!

Don Firth

P.S. It's Christmas day and we have guests coming, so I will probably not be back today.


25 Dec 12 - 04:52 PM (#3456957)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don T.
All other demographics have very low rates of infection and these rates are falling, while infection rates in MSM are very high and rising steadily.....this is not homophobia, but incontravertible fact.""

HPA SAYS:- "" -snip- In more recent years, men who have sex with men (MSM) remain the major risk group, while heterosexually acquired infections, particularly among African-born individuals, have also become of increasing public health importance.-snip- ""

The two statements are not contradictory.
The arrival of a new and growing high risk group does not alter the fact that infection rates in MSM are very high and rising steadily.

"The data have been the driving force behind policies to prevent and control HIV infections and ensure those living with the virus are tested promptly and receive high quality health care. -snip-""
There is a real problem with MSM testing.
HPA calculates about ten thousand infected but untested MSMs in UK.
I hope they find an answer and achieve prompt testing soon.


25 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM (#3457019)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""A couple of days ago I answered TIA that there was no hiv epidemic amongst lesbian women.""

Yes I knew that, as I also know that in spite of that you oppose marriage between gay women, for what you refer to as other considerations.

Conclusions are drawn as to the likelihood of your finding more and more "other considerations" as the health situation improves, which it has done and continues to do, despite your devious, though futile, efforts to deny the fact.

Your conspiracy theory about a government cover up is particularly feeble and would definitely qualify you for a place among the wearers of tinfoil hats.

I'm sure, if you ask him nicely, GfS will be happy to propose you as a new member.

Don T.


26 Dec 12 - 03:24 AM (#3457116)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well, first..Merry Christmas........next, I was going to answer Steve's post first...but before I do, is there anyone out there, from his 'position' that agrees with that post?..You are all fine with it?..and find all his points consistent with yours?

And Don, you are making SOME strides..you are now posting half truths..but that's a start.
YES, I agree that SOME predispositions come through the mother, during gestation..but it's still not genetic. Most homosexuality is BEHAVIORAL, and the 'predisposition' happens in their early years.

So, I noticed you were more 'impassioned' on your post...but, passion about an inaccuracy, may 'feel' like the truth, but passion based on an inaccurate 'opinion', is merely a 'passion based on an inaccurate 'opinion'....and can easily be a delusion....which, I laid out on my earlier post:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 06:22 PM

"It means NOTHING to them..THEY DON'T CARE!
What they have done is taken a 'political' position, unsubstantiated by anything factual...and then resorted to how the FEEL about it...in other words, they have adopted delusion, as reality."

To have accurate understanding, BTW, does NOT mean the same thing as being 'homophobic'....especially if the accuracy is not in agreement with erroneous 'popular' opinion!!

As far as the 'treatment' you keep talking about..all I've ever said about it, is that, yes, it IS there, and should be available to those who want it. I don't think it should be DENIED, solely on the reason that promoters of a political agenda don't like it...or deny that it is there....nor do I support forcing anyone to get it...but it should be available.

As to your homosexual friends, we've talked about it before, and in light of that, I don't think you can be completely objective(being as you have friends, and there is an emotional reason not to be objective....fair enough?...I'm sure you've heard plenty of emotional rationalizations mixed with friendly exchanges...not the best place to work from, with one's objectivity intact....again, fair enough?

I, myself have had homosexual friends, that know EXACTLY what I'm/was talking about..and have NO problem with it....one, who taught me a LOT about sound engineering happens to be dead, due to AIDS..and his 'partner', Mark, died from the same, about 6 months prior to him!

As I mentioned before, the homosexual community WAS targeted, for the AIDS virus....so Akenaton's stats, and sources do not surprise me...even though we ALL know there are other ways to contract AIDS, why jump out into traffic when you know the risks??...and I mean ALL promiscuity!

OK, enough for now...I'm interested to see how many people agree with Steve on this one:......From: Steve Shaw
                        Date: 24 Dec 12 - 07:02 AM

GfS


26 Dec 12 - 04:39 AM (#3457131)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

The typical Canadian family a la recently.


26 Dec 12 - 07:24 AM (#3457175)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

999, This was the only relevant(to the thread) piece, in your post"

"Same-sex couples were also on a steep incline, up 42.4 per cent from 2006. About half of these couples were married, while the rest were common-law. Still, same-sex couples only made up 0.8 per cent of all couples in 2011."

"...same-sex couples only made up 0.8 per cent of all couples in 2011."

.08% is not really enough to warrant a 'redefinition' of marriage...is it?

GfS


26 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM (#3457192)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

My main objection to the proposed legislation to redefine marriage, is the hiv epidemic which continues to worsen within the male homosexual demographic.
"As far as the general public are concerned, it is the "institution" of marriage and the family structure which many see as being harmed by re-definition, to include people who were never intended to reproduce....in the the eyes of my friends and neighbours here...and indeed the whole country...the marriage template is mother /father/ children/ and extended family.
Should people within that template chose not to reproduce, or sadly, be unable to reproduce for medical reasons, that is fine, but the template remains, and any attempt to alter it weakens the "institution"......I tend to agree with that assessment and would vote accordingly
Same sex couples do not fit within that social template, neither male nor female,as they are incapable, as monogamous couple, of reproduction.


26 Dec 12 - 10:13 AM (#3457224)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Pretty desperate stuff there, ake. Template, eh? What about those societies that practise polygamy? Polyandry, polygyny, group marriage? Do look up the entertaining wiki article on the topic. Why, even those old testament types were at it all the time! It's amazing, the number of societies that don't stick to your template, ake. There is not just one template. There are loads of different templates and you rail against gay marriage just because it doesn't happen to fit the one you're used to. Very imperialistic, old boy!


OK, enough for now...I'm interested to see how many people agree with Steve on this one:......From: Steve Shaw
                        Date: 24 Dec 12 - 07:02 AM


I do for one. I suppose I would, wouldn't I? What's to not agree with? You against education, Guffissimo? The slapdash and ungrammatical nature of your posts does suggest that it's a long way down your list of priorities...


26 Dec 12 - 04:10 PM (#3457346)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

What gets me is that Akenaton is showing by his selective statistics that gay marriage between men would lower incidence of HIV but then goes on to say he is against it despite it having fuck all to do with him unless he happens to be struggling with himself.

He then embraces Gargoyle's reasoning that miracle of rebirth and salvation etc are relevant to your predisposition. Not bad from someone claiming to be atheist.

Mind you I notice that church leaders have chosen Xmas to ask us all to hate gay people. So I suppose bigotry is in itself a broad church. ..


26 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM (#3457348)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Should people within that template chose not to reproduce, or sadly, be unable to reproduce for medical reasons, that is fine, but the template remains, and any attempt to alter it weakens the "institution"......I tend to agree with that assessment and would vote accordingly""

This whole paragraph is nothing more than the perfect exposure of the prejudice and discrimination of the dyed-in-the-wool homophobe. Broken down into plain language it translates as "Homosexuals are not normal human beings, I hate the way in which they live their lives. They are dirty perverts and since I am normal, I should not be subjected to their being allowed the same rights I enjoy".

If you want to inject a little (very little) credibility into your claims, you should be prepared, not only to say that Gay Marriage weakens the "Institution", but precisely how, and why it does so.

Otherwise you are simply expressing your opinion, which is no more valid than mine, or that of "Gay Pride".

Don T.


26 Dec 12 - 05:13 PM (#3457369)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

No, GfS, I have not altered my position that homosexuality has a genetic component.

There have long been indications that male homosexuality, at least, runs in families. Lesbianism is not quite so clear, but for male homosexuality, it seems to hold.

There is a family I have been acquainted with for many years. I first met Bob, who was the cousin of a female friend of mine, maybe some forty years ago. He was gay. I learned that he had an uncle who was also gay. Then I met a nephew who came up from California to stay with Bob for a week and HE was gay, almost stereotypically so. Effeminate mannerisms and such.

Now, I know you are thinking that the various uncles molested their nephews when young and thereby made them gay. But that would be a bit hard to do considering that these uncles and nephews lived in different parts of the country and, although they were certainly aware of each other's existence, they did not have contact with each other until WELL AFTER puberty.

The hypothesis among many geneticists who have noted this pattern is that the GENE which determines the boy's sexual orientation is carried by the MOTHER, and triggers a mis-timing of the release of certain hormones in utero. The formation of the male genitalia, determined by the presence of the Y chromosome, has already begun when the determining gene mis-times the release of the hormones that determine the male structure of the brain centers. There are noticeable differences in the hypothalamuses of homosexual males from those of heterosexual males.

So if the male homosexual himself does not carry the gene, it is STILL genetic. The gene is carried by the mother. And THAT runs in families.

This is science, not wishful supposition.

Nor can you write it off as a "political agenda."

And as to the availability of "therapy" purported to change one's sexual orientation, no, it should NOT be denied to anyone who wishes it. But they should be made aware of the true results, determined by scientific surveys of this kind of therapy (which I have noted in a post above) before submitting to this and spending their dime. But IN NO CASE should anyone be coerced into this kind of therapy.

And as far as my position being emotionally biased due to the fact that a few of my friends and acquaintances are homosexual, that is a spurious assumption (an attempt to save face on your part) and has nothing to do with it. I have observed their behavior in social situations and have noted over a long period of time that these couples are staying together in the same way that heterosexual married couples stay together, and I see no reason whatsoever that they should be denied the same legal and social rights and privileges that Barbara and I enjoy.

And as far as HIV/AIDs is concerned, these people, in their striving for marriage rights (which in a few states including Washington State, they now have—by the vote of the populace at large), they are hardly jumping out into traffic. They are attempting to create a situation that minimizes risks.

So what's your problem—and Ake's problem—with that?

Don Firth


26 Dec 12 - 07:03 PM (#3457421)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

The ability to access Civil Union, or Homosexual "marriage" where it has become available, has produceded no improvement in the serious hiv figures amongst MSM.


Please try to absorb some facts.....wishful thinking rarely solves any problem.


26 Dec 12 - 07:34 PM (#3457430)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Civil Union in the United States does NOT contain all the legal rights and privileges that marriage does.

It's not the same thing.

Don Firth


26 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM (#3457434)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Ake... "The ability to access Civil Union, or Homosexual "marriage" where it has become available, has produceded no improvement in the serious hiv figures amongst MSM."

So, does that mean it has slowed the rate from the previous increase you talk about? Seems logical to me. Bravo gay boys!

Ake... why not show some appreciation for their efforts and go suck a dick. That's not a question.


27 Dec 12 - 04:22 AM (#3457493)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I am not aware of any "hate" from any church at Christmas or any other time.
The Catholic Bishop of Westminster pointed out that the legislation was being instigated without being part of any election manifestos, without any Green Paper or consultation, and only a "listening process" which showed a large majority against.

I think you would all be outraged if any other Tory legislation was steamrollered through like that.
This is pure Tory political expediency, and you are all complicit.


27 Dec 12 - 04:34 AM (#3457497)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Don....What do "legal rights and privileges" have to do with the health figures we were discussing?


27 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM (#3457503)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""The ability to access Civil Union, or Homosexual "marriage" where it has become available, has produceded no improvement in the serious hiv figures amongst MSM.


Please try to absorb some facts.....wishful thinking rarely solves any problem.
""

Oh really!

You know damn well that such changes don't happen overnight. There hasn't been time since the first access to civil partnership for any significant improvement to hit the statistics which, in any case, are always a couple of years behind.

Your disingenuous attempts to distort, deny, or make up ""facts"" do you no credit at all, being merely a demonstration of the weakness of your argument arising from the prejudice of your viewpoint.

Don T.


27 Dec 12 - 10:26 AM (#3457623)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The Catholic Bishop of Westminster pointed out that the legislation was being instigated without being part of any election manifestos, without any Green Paper or consultation, and only a "listening process" which showed a large majority against.

Not so. An ICM poll commissioned by The Guardian showed 62% in favour and only 31% against, 7% undecided. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

If you want to inject a little (very little) credibility into your claims, you should be prepared, not only to say that Gay Marriage weakens the "Institution", but precisely how, and why it does so.

Precisely, Don. And, while he's at it, he should also be prepared to explain why he rails so much against gay marriage "weakening the institution" whilst the far more more common and ever-more pervasive institution-weakening habit of not bothering to get married at all, shagging muchly and having kids out of wedlock doesn't raise so much as a whisper of complaint from him.


27 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM (#3457640)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

The Independent.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has described the Government's plans for gay marriage as undemocratic and a "shambles".

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols made the comments in an interview with the BBC.

He said there was no mandate to enforce same-sex marriage laws.

He said: "There was no announcement in any party manifesto, no Green Paper, no statement in the Queen's Speech.

"And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation.

"From a democratic point of view, it's a shambles.

"George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre. I think the process is shambolic."

The religious leader claimed that during a "period of listening", those who responded were "7-1 against same-sex marriage".


27 Dec 12 - 12:26 PM (#3457673)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "No, GfS, I have not altered my position that homosexuality has a genetic component."

A genetic component???? What?..You mean they all have heads and arms and legs and hair and arms and skin?....What a fucking cop-out!

Don Firth: "There have long been indications that male homosexuality, at least, runs in families. Lesbianism is not quite so clear, but for male homosexuality, it seems to hold."

Sounds a bit 'over convenient' to me, Bucko..I guess if your friends were lesbians, it would be the other way around!....Genetic for males, and not so sure for lesbians.....hmmm......What a fucking stretch!
Lesbians are immune to 'genetics'...????. Shouldn't genetics be applicable to everyone..or are you going to call them bigots and discriminatory??

Give it up...it's just stupid!

GfS


27 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM (#3457682)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

If the MSM figures are 2 years out of date(which they are not), that would mean that the figures are even worse than the ones which i have posted, as male homosexual hiv rates are rising approx 8% per annum.

Steve stop waffling, we are discussing proposed legislation to allow two people of the same sex to "marry".....We cannot legislate to make marriage compulsory, or monogamy.....for that matter, but by far the highest number of sexual parters is amongst MSM.

The health issues only apply to male homosexuals, perhaps you could explain why this is the case?


27 Dec 12 - 03:11 PM (#3457762)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

HIV/AIDS does not discriminate between the genders...as much as someone who chooses what preference they want to imitate....and all the imitation on the planet, will NOT cause a man to bear a child or a woman to provide a seed...and that stuff comes with the mental and emotional circuitry to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GfS


27 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM (#3457770)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

...and P.S.......The energy you put into a system, tends to change that system!....You can only fake it so far..imitation falls down sooner or later. if there is sane people out there who don't feel like faking it, and being an imitation, to amuse themselves, OK..but don't think that EVERYONE HAS to take that seriously!

GfS


27 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM (#3457773)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake, if you don't see that the move among male homosexuals themselves toward stable relationships—marriage—is, along with the emotional components, an effort to reduce the incidence of promiscuity (which does spread the AIDs virus, in the same way that promiscuous sex spreads ANY venereal disease), then you are either dense beyond imagination or so locked into your prejudices that no amount of information will get through to you.

And as for YOU, GfS—you're a fine one to be calling others "stupid." The same thing I said to Ake holds as to your level of density blinding you to the obvious!

Lesbianism? Quite possibly it, too, is genetic. But so far, more research has been done into male homosexuality and although there is speculation that the same thing is true for lesbians, all the info is not in yet.

I'm sorry if it cuts into your income as a snake-oil salesman, but those are the FACTS!

Unlike you, I've done the research on the matter.

Don Firth


27 Dec 12 - 06:11 PM (#3457835)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Get serious!

One is ...and one might be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!

GfS


27 Dec 12 - 06:14 PM (#3457836)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Let me re-state:

Get serious!

One is ...and one MIGHT be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!

GfS


27 Dec 12 - 07:51 PM (#3457867)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""One is ...and one MIGHT be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!<.i>""

And you are a parody of a caring human being!! And a pretty bloody poor one at that!!

Don T.


27 Dec 12 - 07:55 PM (#3457869)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Let ME re-state:-

""One is ...and one MIGHT be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!
""

And you are a parody of a caring human being!! And a pretty bloody poor one at that!!

Don T.


27 Dec 12 - 09:45 PM (#3457926)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

I scratch my head in sheer puzzlement as to why anyone should worry about whether gayosity is "genetic" or not. I care not a jot. I care a big jot, though, about intolerant and bigoted people like ake and Keith and Goofo who would like to limit anyone's freedom of choice as to how they should manage their private lives. And hey, akie baby. You think I'm waffling, do tell me which bits of my posts you're thinking of. If anyone's waffling round here it's you and your little cohort of fellow homophobes who are desperately looking for anything - anything to support your lost cause! And it was sixty-two to thirty-one....


27 Dec 12 - 11:06 PM (#3457947)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

There are certain qualitative differences, as yet unresolved, between male homosexuality and lesbianism.

The sources of most of my most recent information are "Scientific American" and "Psychology Today."

And Goofy, yours is. . . ?

Don Firth


28 Dec 12 - 04:37 AM (#3457992)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

intolerant and bigoted people like ake and Keith and Goofo who would like to limit anyone's freedom of choice as to how they should manage their private lives.

Do you think it makes your posts fresh and incisive when you call people names Steve.
In fact it is just repetitive and boring.
A homophobe would care not a jot how gay folk manage their private lives.

All here have given reasoned arguments against changing the concept of marriage, except me whose only concern is the speed and lack of consultation on pushing through a Tory whim.

If you do not challenge those reasoned arguments your posts are just pointless.
Just asserting a motive for the posts, which all concerned deny, is also pointless and boring.


28 Dec 12 - 06:02 AM (#3458010)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Puzzle no more Steve,the long, weary and unfulfilled search for a genetic link, is simply an attempt to validate homosexual behaviour, to prove that homosexuals are indeed, a different third sex of humanity.

Without the genetic link, which given the progress made in genetics over the last couple of decades, should be as obvious as the nose on your face, homosexuality would be just another minority sexual behaviour, like incest.

To validate the practice a genetic link is required and in all probability will be manufactured "to measure"

Unfortunately this will open a new can of worms as other less well supported groups queue up to be validated by science.
The future for society looks bleak.


28 Dec 12 - 06:09 AM (#3458013)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Errr... Keith?

If not caring how people manage their private lives is homophobic, then that is what I must be?

trying to limit peoples' freedom of choice on the basis of the gender of their partner is homophobic though. Your quotes from the political pamphlets of a joke extremist organisation UKIP are just as pointless and boring as any reiterated truism from Steve. Name calling you is something I too have no issue with, as reasoning should be restricted to those capable of listening to reason.

This Tory whim, let's just put it to bed shall we?

The previous government put forward a bill on equality. A bill they had a manifesto mandate for. On that basis, the coalition government felt it right to honour the bill as the calling of the election was the only thing preventing its passing into law. So we have equality legislation. Full stop and in line with prevailing human rights legislation.

One anomaly within the act is that of religions, who have fought for privilege and claim equality interferes with their teachings. Not just CofE but most mainstream religions. However, as CofE is linked to the state, the state has to ratify their constitutional position.

This isa what is happening. Secondary legislation, of the type that makes up the day to day work of Parliament is being used to clarify existing legislation.

Now.. I don't happen to agree with the "illegal for CofE to marry Gay people" bit, and as I respect democracy, my opposition goes that far.

However, I am bolstered by the somewhat transparent but not widely reported aims of The Prime Minister. He knows that to make it illegal to conduct marriage of Gay people for one organisation, a quasi public sector body at that, will fall foul of the first challenge to go to The European Court of Human Rights, which we signed up to, following a general election, in 1946 and none of the political parties aiming for government have sought to repeal our position. Of course, BNP, NF, UKIP etc waffle on about it, but that is from a position of ignorance rather than any laudable view.

In the meantime, we have the head Catholic bishop using his peace and goodwill Xmas speech to say that a free vote on clarification of existing legislation by elected members of Parliament is undemocratic.. His boss is legally infallible! What right has he got to lecture on the will of the people?

The only question with regard to Gay marriage is, and always should be; "Do you, Mike take this man Tony to be your lawfully wedded husband?"

And by not upsetting them with a "view" I shall be, as Keith puts it, a happy homophobe

zzzzzzz


28 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM (#3458015)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""except me whose only concern is the speed and lack of consultation on pushing through a Tory whim.""

And another example of Keith's prejudice overcoming his cognitive ability.

Once again it is necessary to remind Mr Bias of Hertford that we have a COALITION governing this country.

Don T.


28 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM (#3458018)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Without the genetic link, which given the progress made in genetics over the last couple of decades, should be as obvious as the nose on your face, homosexuality would be just another minority sexual behaviour, like incest.""

Same question then.

At what point in your life did YOU choose heterosexuality as your preferred sexual behaviour?

If you can't give a rational answer to that, your statement falls flat on its face.

Don T.


28 Dec 12 - 06:32 AM (#3458026)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Puzzle no more Steve,the long, weary and unfulfilled search for a genetic link, is simply an attempt to validate homosexual behaviour,

"Validate behaviour"?? In whose eyes?

to prove that homosexuals are indeed, a different third sex of humanity.

Well that's a novel way of putting it. A "third sex" eh? Where d'you get this from, or is it an ake original?

homosexuality would be just another minority sexual behaviour, like incest.

Smear, smear, smear. Shame on you!


28 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM (#3458033)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Incest is illegal. Not just for moral repugnance reasons but for the sake of the health of any offspring.

Putting Gay relationships in the same frame blows out any of your silly earlier "it's about HIV" arguments and shows you for what you are.

Back into your soil worm, there's a good chap.


28 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM (#3458046)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Pink News, October 2012.
Prime Minister David Cameron remains determined to press ahead with marriage reform.

According to the Independent, Mr Cameron has told ministers to prioritise equal marriage legislation and the paper claims it could be on the statute book before the end of next year.

A senior Downing Street source is quoted as saying that the prime minister: "regards this as a straightforward matter of equality and believes that we should just get on with it."

In a concession to his backbench critics, Mr Cameron has given Tory MPs a free vote on equal marriage – unlike Labour or the Lib Dems.

The No 10 source added that Conservative MPs "can vote how they want – it's a free vote – but it won't deflect us."

Mr Cameron is said to have acknowledged that the issue of marriage equality has provoked anger among many Conservative Party activists as well as natural Tory voters, but believes their views should be confronted.

Over the weekend, a ComRes poll of 100 Conservative Party constituency chairmen showed 71% think the policy should be abandoned whilst 47% believe David Cameron's support for the move has cost them members.


28 Dec 12 - 07:19 AM (#3458051)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Meaning what?

Politicians debate, it's what we pay them for? Labour and Lib Dem have a whip, which is in line with their manifesto commitment to equality. Conservatives have been offered a free vote as Cameron has the right to release them from obligation if he sees fit.

They poll their members in order to inform their own views somewhat.

Any point to this Keith?


28 Dec 12 - 07:26 AM (#3458053)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket.
The previous government put forward a bill on equality. A bill they had a manifesto mandate for. On that basis, the coalition government felt it right to honour the bill as the calling of the election was the only thing preventing its passing into law. So we have equality legislation. Full stop and in line with prevailing human rights legislation.

As Labour's Bill made no mention of same-sex marriage, what is YOUR point Musket?
This idea came from nowhere to become a flagship policy which Cameron is "determined" to put into force within this Parliament.
No manifesto mentions.
To mention in the Queen's Speech about Government intentions.
It is indeed Cameron's whim, and has come out of the blue.
Tory Blue.


28 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM (#3458062)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Lbour's bill made no mention of same sex marriage any more than it said you can no longer after this date refer to African children as piccaninies.

All political parties support equality other than rabid right wing fascists and dreamers. Any party with a chance of running the country has, every time, manifesto pledges to maintain and bolster equality. After all, we expect people to vote as equals, so if your vote counts, the effect of it does too.

It isn't any flagship policy. Equality was a flagship policy, and this does no more than clarify a point. The point of equality. We have been striving towards it since the post war government signed us up to human rights. Our only issue is how long it took to get there, and for that we should be collectively ashamed. Those who look down on other stakeholders in society should be shamed on that count too.

If you don't believe in equality, and you don't believe in the parliamentary process of refining existing primary legislation through secondary legislation, then I suggest you join a party that doesn't understand politics.

Oh. You appear to have already done so.


28 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM (#3458079)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

If you really believe in equality, you dont waste your time as a government or as a member of this forum, screaming about "marriage" rights for homosexuals.


28 Dec 12 - 08:19 AM (#3458083)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

The Coalition honoured Labour's Equality Bill to the full.
It became law.
Same Sex marriage was never any part of it, and it is very misleading of you to claim it as some kind of mandate.
There was no mandate
How could there be?
No-one knew it was about to be pushed through Parliament on Cameron's whim.

No mention in any manifesto, Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem.
No consultation.
No Green Paper.
No mention in Queens Speech on Government intentions.
It came from nowhere.
It was never an issue of any significance before, but now it is suddenly a priority.


28 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM (#3458088)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Musket....I remember quite clearly when homosexuality was illegal(i did not agree with that law any more than I do the proposed legislation)

Politicians make the laws, not the electorate, I suppose we can all think of legislation which does not have the support of the public?

As far as sex between close family members is concerned, "human/civil rights" would still be denied, even if there was absolutely no chance of cenception.

To most heterosexuals, incest and homosexuality contain the same "ughh" factor.


28 Dec 12 - 08:43 AM (#3458096)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I suppose the correct term for Mr Cameron's sleight of hand would be Neoliberal......which of course, is just another way of saying "liberal".HERE


28 Dec 12 - 09:29 AM (#3458116)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

800!
Gaystarnews.
Around 60 UK politicians have slammed the government's plans to legalize gay marriage, claiming Prime Minister David Cameron has 'no mandate to redefine marriage'.

Members of Parliament from all major political parties and peers from the Lords signed the open letter which was published in The Telegraph newspaper today (17 December).

'At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage,' wrote the group of 58 MPs, which included 35 Conservatives.

'It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition's Programme for Government.

'These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.

'Instead the government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans.'

They added: 'The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world.

'We believe that the government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.'


28 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM (#3458122)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Telegraph, 10th December.
MPs will be told that the biggest official "listening exercise" ever undertaken on a government proposal found that a narrow majority support the highly contentious move.
This result is based on the responses of around 228,000 people who took part in the consultation earlier this year, the vast majority of whom submitted anonymous online forms to the Government.
Yet petitions organised by campaigners, in which more than 500,000 people opposed plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples and around 64,000 supported them, have been ignored by ministers.
In addition, participation was not limited to UK residents despite claims that lobbying groups in the US had been attempting to recruit people to submit responses.
Opponents of the plan have cried foul, arguing that the consultation's finding of majority support amounted to dishonesty.


28 Dec 12 - 09:51 AM (#3458130)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

"I realize that homosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is - but then, of course, heterosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is, too. And being a man is a serious problem and being a woman is, too. Lots of things are problems."

Edward Gorey


28 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM (#3458159)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Shock horror!

MPs pretend they didn't know what equality meant when they voted through a bill ensuring it!

Read all about it!!

Akenaton. I find you offensive. Luckily, I don't extend that to all Scots.




Sorry for the gap, I was genuinely trying to think of a Gay person who I find offensive. I am sure there are some. But when you go through life having to endure the prejudice of others, I suppose you are not so quick to judge others. Hence a bit difficult to find any.

Of course, there are plenty. Most of all the hypocritical people who decried a Gay lifestyle whilst having one themselves in private. The likes of Peter Tatchell do a good job pointing out their unsustainable position.

His work is becoming less though as society is coming to terms with itself. At one time, "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish" was seen on pub doors. Now, society would be outraged by it. The same with ignorant low life who see Gay people as different, something to fear, something to hate.

About those who don't want Gay marriage. I am glad they have registered their view. Even if they were 51% of the voting population, (which they aren't) it would make no difference. Equality is equality is equality, and since when did a modern Western democracy say that a majority can hold a minority in contempt and make laws restricting them? Our politicians may have their problems and may not be of the calibre we expect in some ways, but they are not so thick as to exclude non popular necessities. if you did a poll, there would be no overseas aid, no independence of newspapers, no multi nationals, no banks, and eventually no country to live in. Politicians are there for us to trust their judgement not tell them how to vote. Government by referendum cannot work whilst ignorant twats are allowed to put a tick in a box. As ignorant twats are also part of society, we need a safety lever. We call it Parliamentary democracy.

Fuck off to Zimbabwe, the pair of you. You will be less confused and possibly happier there. Less chance of me pointing to you in the street and telling my Grandchildren that's what a bigot looks like. Take a good look as soon, they will be hopefully no more than a footnote in history books.


28 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM (#3458180)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

pretend they didn't know what equality meant when they voted through a bill ensuring it!

Do not be silly Musket.
Parliamentary legislation is precisely defined and unambiguous.
There must be no room for misunderstanding.
There was never any question of it ever being intended to even consider changing the rules on marriage.

If there is a will to have the rules changed, that is fine but why the unprecedented, undemocratic rush?
The institution of marriage has existed for millennia.
We could wait a few more weeks until everyone was clear on what was intended and what would be the consequences.

Be liberal and tolerant enough to accept that some people think the rules of marriage should remain as they are, and not for reasons of homophobia as you claim.
That would make a large proportion of the population, if not a magority homophobic.
What about the rights of those who wish for equality for polygamous marriage.
Do you support polygamy equality, or are you a polygamaphobe?
Incestophobe?
Child marriagophobe?
Bestialophobe?


28 Dec 12 - 11:23 AM (#3458183)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Good one!

GfS


28 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM (#3458311)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: dick greenhaus

In the US, is it possible for a civil marriage to be anulled?


28 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM (#3458358)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Civil marriage, annulled, yes.
Civil 'partnerships'?, not sure...but in many states, and they differ, in the length of time, if you live with someone, as husband and wife, but no formal 'wedding', they consider you married, as 'common law'...for instance, California seven years...Colorado 6 months.

GfS

.......and P.S." I'll answer Don and Steve shortly...and point out CLEARLY, just how confused they made themselves.


28 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM (#3458361)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Yeah Goofus. A good one.

I am liberal enough to accept that some people have ignorant views based on bigotry.   After all, I regulate prison healthcare so am used to trying to seek empathy with views different to mine.

So long that bigots also are liberal enough to know that I have the right to hate them on behalf of all those whose lives are unduly affected by promotion of their hate.

I fail to understand why people voice their irrational hatred. Being simple soul and no angel myself I have no problem with treating such people with contempt.

No fancy logic chopping and no intellectual argument to counter yours. You have no argument. So all we have left is hating people for being different. Is that all the thanks you can give your parents for your education?


28 Dec 12 - 04:30 PM (#3458362)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

annulled on grounds of non consummation?


28 Dec 12 - 04:41 PM (#3458369)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

You have no argument. So all we have left is hating people for being different.

So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.

You are a very intolerant, illiberal person.
A Stalinist.


28 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM (#3458384)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

It would seem that, far from being a Tory whim, this is official policy for Labour and LibDem and a free vote for Tories, which suggests that dissenting Tories will actually make the bill a Labour/LibDem success. The following answers quite neatly the lie about this being a sudden whim and without consultation.

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".

In February 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

On 7th December, 2012, the BBC announced that the Coalition government was going to extend the right to have a same-sex marriage conducted in a place of worship provided the religious body approved.

This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.

In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.

The following groups and individuals have expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    The Liberal Democrats
    The Labour Party
    The Conservative Party (though many within the party oppose)
    The Green Party of England and Wales
    The Times
    The Guardian
    Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome website

Opposition

The following groups and individuals have expressed their opposition to same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    UK Independence Party
    The Telegraph
    Daily Mail
    The Sunday Times
""

Seems the Tories are least in favour but still determined to do the right thing, with the backing of all the moderately sane parties in full support.

Looks like democracy at work in the spirit in which it was intended to function, with genuine majority rule.

And since 71%, or 55% (depending on whose poll you look at) of the public is in favour, that would suggest that democracy still happens occasionally.

Some Churches are anti, but they are exempt if they wish to be, while those who, in a genuine Christian spirit, follow Christ's teachings ("Love thy neighbour"; I don't recall him being quoted as adding "unless they're gay") are free to welcome couples to be married in church.

Lifelong relationships will follow and HIV risk will eventually diminish, though Ake will claim it hasn't after waiting three months from the first marriage ceremony.

Don T.


28 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM (#3458388)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

This idea came from nowhere to become a flagship policy which Cameron is "determined" to put into force within this Parliament.
No manifesto mentions.
To mention in the Queen's Speech about Government intentions.
It is indeed Cameron's whim, and has come out of the blue.
Tory Blue.

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".
""

NOTE THE DATES!

Not from nowhere and not a Tory initiative. Find another dead horse to flog Keith.

Don T.


28 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM (#3458392)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.""

NB Ake. Your own Parliament is apparently ahead of the Westminster government in making the same decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are precisely NO Tories in that government.

Don T.


28 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM (#3458393)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.
""

No! Just you and Ake, who betray your agenda more with each lie, obfuscation and distortion of the truth, and Goofie, who is, well.......Goofy!

As to the general public, you ahve no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!

You lose on every front! Learn to live with it, because your 500,000 dissenters are only one one hundred and fortieth of the population, a very small minority.

Don T.


28 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM (#3458439)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

If you really believe in equality, you dont waste your time as a government or as a member of this forum, screaming about "marriage" rights for homosexuals.
This is the most egregiously stupid remark I've read on any forum all year. Well done, achy tony!


28 Dec 12 - 07:22 PM (#3458457)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

I suppose the second line should not have been in italics.


28 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM (#3458466)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Depends how "egregiously" stupid you are?


28 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM (#3458471)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?
Housing estates full of unemployable young people. Univercities turning out unemployable graduates
Workers on PAYE..... corporations in tax havens.
A financial sector who's uniform should comprise of a striped jumper and a mask.

and you scream about "marriage rights" for homosexuals.....pathetic!


28 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM (#3458475)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

"This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?
Housing estates full of unemployable young people. Univercities turning out unemployable graduates
Workers on PAYE..... corporations in tax havens.
A financial sector who's uniform should comprise of a striped jumper and a mask."

Then, Ake, bend yourself to those tasks. The stuff quoted above is fixable. Homosexuality is a fact of life.


28 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM (#3458483)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"Akenaton. I find you offensive. Luckily, I don't extend that to all Scots."
Ian(musket),I am not offended by what you post.....I know what you are and really dont care what your personal view of me is.

I do see your thought processes as being very muddled, you are a prisoner of an idiotic agenda.


28 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM (#3458487)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Amen to that!!

There is so much in this world that needs fixing, that it's just plain silly to invest time and effort into something that will never change, nor should it necessarily change, just because one feels it has an "'ughh' factor."

So stop obsessing about it!

Don Firth


28 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM (#3458488)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

My "Amen" is referring to what 999 said in the post above.

Don Firth


28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM (#3458490)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry bruce...but while we cling to this economic and social system nothing can be fixed

The obvious inequalities are accepted or ignored, while all the energy is directed into the irrelevances.


BTW I owe you a PM my friend....the delay is shameful......Best!


28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM (#3458492)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

and you scream about "marriage rights" for homosexuals.....pathetic!

When you put stuff in speech marks it's supposed to mean you're quoting something verbatim. When you put stuff in speech marks to make people think you are quoting something verbatim, even though you're not, you are doing an Aunt Sally. A straw man.

Housing estates full of unemployable young people.

No such people.

Univercities [sic] turning out unemployable graduates

No such graduates.


28 Dec 12 - 08:11 PM (#3458495)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

Ake, YES you do--and truth be told I've switched deodorant seven times! Write when you can. Please include your mailing address because my Yahoo account got spammed or hacked or whatever the heck it's called and I trashed the whole thing to prevent infecting others. Don't know that that would have made me shoot my dog, but real close.

I trust you are doing well. If you are or ain't, please let me know.


28 Dec 12 - 09:11 PM (#3458514)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

He ain't.


29 Dec 12 - 04:42 AM (#3458603)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

As we have equality legislation, I wonder if anybody would like to define the word?

Perhaps in context of, chosen totally at random, colour of hair, race, inside leg measurement or gender of marriage partner?

I suppose, as much as the political facts Don relates, helps here, I am a lone voice in seeing that with equality embedded within Parliamentary primary legislation, European Human Rights legislation and most of all, common decency, I have problems in seeing what all the fuss is about? This is secondary legislation. If you leave a secondary bill in The Commons library for a fortnight and nobody lodges a question, it becomes law anyway.

So.. Who would seek to touch it? Moreover, who isn't in control of his own party when he has to offer his members a free vote to retain his own leadership? I wonder if there are any previous examples of free votes over secondary legislation? Ah yes.. Section 28. Cameron apologised for Th*tcher's homophobia last year.

Why I wonder does gay equality stir so much hatred? I am not gay, yet even deep down, I can't see why I have to look at gay people in the same way Heidi and Gunther were encouraged to look down on non aryans? They say that the most anti semitic of the 3rd reich gang were so due to a family tree that they might not wish to be known in public.

A bit like over in The USA, where Hoover had transvestites arrested, presumably for looking far more fetching in a skirt than he did....


29 Dec 12 - 05:26 AM (#3458612)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket, we have had decades of equality legislation but none of it has ever proposed changing the ancient definition of marriage.

Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.
Instead, Cameron stole it as a piece of Tory political expediency and is "determined" to force it on Parliament without any of those essential democratic preliminaries.

Don I note that you now accept that a large minority, if not a majority of the population (minus 3!) can have valid and reasonable objections not " motivated only by hate and no rational reason"


29 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM (#3458613)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake,....


29 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM (#3458622)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Well, I suppose it's about the sort of society we want to pass on to our grandchildren.

Homosexual relationships appear to be vastly different to heterosexual ones, which contain the elements of procreation and family building. Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.
This behaviour seems endemic in male homosexuality and is doubtless partially to blame for the horrific homosexual health figures; and dont say that homosexual "marriage" with its very poor take up rates would improve the situation.....not being "legally married" does not require people to behave in such a promiscuous and anti social manner.
The legislation is simply a sop to a very politically important section of the media, which has a rather large over representation of homosexuals in its number.

As I have said already monogamy seems to be anathema to sexually active male homosexuals, and this legislation opens the door into mainstream society to other minority groups who's lifestyles would completely destroy the social template which has served us well for centuries.

If this legislation is passed are all other sexual orientations to be deemed acceptable?
In Scotland, the govt's consultation document produced a result of 70% to 30% against homosexual "marriage", yet it is still to be foisted upon Scottish society.


29 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM (#3458645)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Yeah, homosexual relationships do appear to be vastly different to heterosexual ones. For starters, err... both have similar voice pitch? If it's blokes, they both leave the toilet lid up? If its women, they must fight like hell over what to watch on telly! Either gender, I bet the war over soft furnishings is a bloody one eh?

err,, What other sexual orientations? Let's see, we have men wishing to marry women, men wishing to marry men, women wishing to marry women. I reckon I have run out of permutations there Akenaton. What other permutations are left with regard to marriage? I suppose you have polygamy, although not much call for it outside Utah USA, to all accounts, and then not exactly widespread since the Mormons dropped it outside of living memory.

Tell you what, start a thread on different sexual behaviours, as that seems to be your fascination. You keep talking about it rather than marriage, so start a bloody thread about it and perhaps allow this thread to carry on about matrimony?

All your arguments against Gay marriage would equate to civil partnerships too. Are you against that also? Why? Society has civil partnerships already so the only debate here is the difference, if there is any between that and marriage. Do you have anything to offer that debate or do you just want to remain the resident homophobic rant merchant?

Keith - We have had years of chipping away at barriers to equality and just because marriage is a word that Christians claim is purely religious, (although how they equate it to non Christian marriage is something they keep quiet about) doesn't make it bad.

A similar argument to yours there was put about regarding the suffragettes. Why change tradition in the name of equality? Why the 1911 Childrens Act? I thought they enjoyed 80 hour weeks in factories and mines? Why did we stop burning witches? It was alright for my great great great great granddad so why can't I do it?

Equality isn't a Labour whim. It isn't a Conservative whim either. It started in modern history with votes for women, got a kick start with the post war government and Human Rights, continued with European values and now, the final frontier, removing the stigma of choice of those you wish to marry and intend to share your life with.

And don't say they can do that but with a piece of paper that says "Contract between two disgusting queers to share financial liability and assets just like normal people." Stakeholders in society deserve no more and no less than equality.


29 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM (#3458655)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)

Politicians like David Cameron and Alec Salmond are pushing equality rights for all at the moment so that the next round of electioneering will be fought on their own agendas and not clouded by seemingly contetious issues .
Their line at the next election if asked about gay martriage will be that their respective elected collegues voted either for it or against it on a "free" vote, thereby killing the subject as a contentious election issue.
The rights and wrongs of the subject will be debated and voted on by wily polititions.
In the meantime can the mudcat elves give us a voting mechanism to show how we would vote on any particular subject at the end? of any debate
It would be an interesting, statisticall speaking, to see how the voting would turn out. BTW 1 poster 1 vote


29 Dec 12 - 10:33 AM (#3458697)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""This system is loaded with inequality, in fact it depends on inequality to survive....trickle down economics etc....something to aspire to?""
What a revelation!

It's a good thing we have you to tell us what we already know Ake.

But we want to take this imperfect situation and make it equal for all.

You want some to be less equal than others (Gays, travellers and anyone else you happen to dislike).

You are the problem, so don't try to tell us what is right.

You are a self discredited representative of the unequal society.

Don T.


29 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM (#3458706)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don I note that you now accept that a large minority, if not a majority of the population (minus 3!) can have valid and reasonable objections not " motivated only by hate and no rational reason"""

Keith, would you please do me a huge favour and STOP rearranging and re-interpreting my posts.

I accepted NO SUCH THING and you are a LIAR putting that construction on my post.

I said that I do not claim that they act from homophobia because I do not know, and you do not know, their motives.

For all I know to the contrary, they may indeed all be raving homophobes, and some undoubtedly will be.

55% is a population majority (not a Party, or a constituency majority) and that is how democracy works, in case that hasn't sunk in yet to your impenetrable skull.

And remember that 55% was the lowest of the polls, the highest being 71%.

Don T.


29 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM (#3458710)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket.
marriage is a word that Christians claim is purely religious
You just made that up Musket!
Anyway, it is older than any religion.

I agree about other ancient traditions needing to change, but why rush this one through without any of the usual democratic processes?
After millennia, a few more months hardly matter.

What other sexual orientations? Let's see, we have men wishing to marry women, men wishing to marry men, women wishing to marry women. I reckon I have run out of permutations there Akenaton. What other permutations are left with regard to marriage? I suppose you have polygamy, although not much call for it outside Utah USA

There is a sizeable minority in UK who would like to be allowed polygamy.
Also child brides.
Incestuous marriage is already allowed for first cousins and could be extended to other close relatives.
All could be justified by equality.

Equality isn't a Labour whim. It isn't a Conservative whim either. It started in modern history with votes for women, got a kick start with the post war government and Human Rights, continued with European values and now, the final frontier, removing the stigma of choice of those you wish to marry and intend to share your life with.
Same sex marriage is a whim.
It was never mentioned when Labour was forming its equality legislation, or when Civil Partnership legislation was going through.
It has just been conjured up out of nowhere.


29 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM (#3458715)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don, you posted this.

""So anyone who disagrees with you, a large proportion of the population, is motivated only by hate and no rational reason for disagreeing can possibly exist.
You will not listen to or tolerate anyone whose views differ from yours.""

No! Just you and Ake, who betray your agenda more with each lie, obfuscation and distortion of the truth, and Goofie, who is, well.......Goofy!

As to the general public, you ahve no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!

You lose on every front! Learn to live with it, because your 500,000 dissenters are only one one hundred and fortieth of the population, a very small minority.

Don T.

To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.


29 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM (#3458719)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.

Don, I accept that this was a Labour whim.
It would have been discussed at conference, put in their next manifesto, included in the Queen's Speech and then put to parliament.
I could have no objection to that.
Instead, Cameron stole it as a piece of Tory political expediency and is "determined" to force it on Parliament without any of those essential democratic preliminaries.
""

It's all in the phraseology when trying to denigrate the other side isn't it Keith?

I would say that if Labour were in the process of doing this particular right thing, for which I commend them, when a general election got in the way, there isn't any theft if the Coalition (not the Tories) completes it.

You do seem to have some memory problems, so for your education:

1. Our current government is a CO-A-LITION of TWO PARTIES!
2. The Tories are split on the issue, with a minority in favour, while the LibDems are solidly FOR, and 77% (another majority, you see) of Labour MPs are FOR.
3. It is official Labour and LibDem Policy, so this will likely be a Labour/LibDem victory, as originally intended.

Don T.


29 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM (#3458723)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.""

Credible source for this disgustingly twisted pile of Bullshit?

Don T.


29 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM (#3458725)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Ok. One last time. Then I stop rolling in shit with the pigs.

Cousins cannot be justified on equality terms. The rights of children with inbred issues precludes condoning it. By your twisted logic, equality would allow incest paedophilia and rape. Comparing gay marriage to anything other than hetero marriage shows your sinister agenda.

Why not ask Nigel Farage for your views like you seem to do with everything else? After all, he was all for Gay rights till his lover jilted him allowing him to extend his hatred.

Or is hypocrisy alright if it promotes a past England that thankfully cannot and will not ever exist again.


29 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM (#3458726)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

I posted ""As to the general public, you have no idea what they think and neither do we, but at the lowest poll result 55% of them are in favour and that, however you try to avoid admitting it, is a MAJORITY!""

Keith responded "To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.""

No it Fucking does NOT!! It says what it says, that neither you nor I know what their motives might be and, unlike you, I will not attribute motive when I don't have a clue what it is.

Those people may, for all you or I know to the contrary, be raving homophobes like you and Ake, or they may not. Most likely about half and half. Either way your response is a gross misinterpretation of what I said (A BLOODY LIE!), and you should be ashamed of using such tactics.

Don T.


29 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM (#3458728)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Majority rule is beside the point. Or, if it is, when do we get to vote on your civil rights?

The definition of marriage is two people who choose to legally combine their affairs and to let their friends and families know they are a unit. Rather than saying we are trying to redefine marriage, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are trying to grab a word and a concept and make it yours, denying it to others?

Marriage being defined as a procreational proposition is a straw man; lots of heteros get married with no idea (or no possibility) of having children. Pulling that into the conversation is putting forth a baseless idea.

Of course there is lots of inequality in our culture. We could, if we had the will, pass laws making it illegal for any individual to have more than their share of our money. It is not, however, possible to pass laws that would change a person's race, gender, or sexual orientation. Since no one, not the individual and not society as a whole, can change those things, why should we not treat them all equally? Inequality exists in a race, where the better athlete will likely win. Your argument seems to be that we should also be able to tell the better athlete that he or she can't get married.

I know it's been said many times before, but I've never heard a good answer for it: Take all the comments about homosexuals and substitute the words "black person" or "woman". How do your arguments read now?

There is no logical argument that proposes limiting the civil rights of a group of people that doesn't end up at "I don't like it so it ought to be illegal." If you think otherwise, show me the logic and answer me when I poke holes in it.

I've made this offer before and I'll probably make it again: how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?


29 Dec 12 - 12:02 PM (#3458736)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Also, I can make a really good case the idea that people who are so interested in other peoples' sex lives that they want to make laws about are sexual perverts. Can you refute that? Remember, there is no conversation about homosexuality that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. Why is it any of your business?

Akenation, Keith, and GfS: Please tell us, in detail, what you and your partners do with each other in bed. Allow us to comment on it, make judgements about you because of it, and pass laws about whether or not you should be allowed to do these things. Let's make it all very public, just as you are doing to homosexuals. Or does your goose get a different sauce than everyone else's?


29 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM (#3458748)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Same sex marriage is a whim.
It was never mentioned when Labour was forming its equality legislation, or when Civil Partnership legislation was going through.
It has just been conjured up out of nowhere. Keith A.
""

Good old reliable Keith. The only man I know whose prejudiced thinking allows him to ignore all the evidence and all the facts, and hold fast to the untrue statement he hopes will slip by the rest of us unnoticed.

The following from Wikipedia:


""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.""

That is the party leadership contest before the 2010 General Election, which was won by Ed Milliband. So not really conjured out of nowhere then, especially not by David Cameron who wasn't yet PM.

""On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, a junior member of the governing coalition, officially endorsed same-sex marriage when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion called "Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom".""

That is the LibDems confirming the policy.

""In February 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

On 7th December, 2012, the BBC announced that the Coalition government was going to extend the right to have a same-sex marriage conducted in a place of worship provided the religious body approved.

This would bring Westminster legislation in line with the plans of the Scottish Parliament to legalise both civil and religious same-sex marriage.
""

February 2011 to December 2012. That would appear to be a reasonable period of consultation for something upon which all parties (except the UKIP funny farm inmates) are in broad agreement.

What is it Keith? Are you miffed because they didn't ask your opinion?


""In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.

The following groups and individuals have expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:

    The Liberal Democrats
    The Labour Party
    The Conservative Party (though many within the party oppose)
    The Green Party of England and Wales
""

So, just short of three years of rushing it through, with nearly two years of consultation, to be followed by implementation no later than 2015, five years overall.

As you have missed all those eight references to same sex marriage from all shades of political party, I have highlighted and underlined them, for your benefit.

Perhaps a visit to SpecSavers?


Don T.


29 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM (#3458775)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

how about a moderated debate on the subject where all facts come from mainstream news sources, the logic has to stand up, you have to answer refutations of your arguments, and personal insults cause you to lose. Any takers?
Yes please.
Indeed I already follow those principles.

Can I please remind everyone that I have stated that I have no problem with same sex marriage?

Don, the Labour leadership elections, and the wheeze to put same sex marriage in their NEXT manifesto, came AFTER the last election.
Not one single party went in to the last election with the remotest suggestion to voters that they planned, never mind were "DETERMINED", to push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage.

Musket. First cousin marriage is already legal and thousands of babies are doomed to a life of suffering and an early death every year as a result.
Would you deprive those couples of the equality they now enjoy?


29 Dec 12 - 01:33 PM (#3458781)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

I have no problem with same sex marriage . . .

. . . push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage


Hmm . . . .


29 Dec 12 - 01:54 PM (#3458791)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

John, it is not a small change we would be making to the fabric of our society.
It is a crime against democracy to rush it through on the whim of a few politicians.
There are democratic processes that should be gone through.

Let there be proper consultation and assessing of the public's wish for the change.
Let it be put to the parties' conferences.
Let it be in election manifestos BEFORE the people choose.
If there is a coalition, let it be part of the coalition agreement.
Let it be put in the Queens Speech as intended government legislation.
THEN put it to Parliament with ALL parties given a free vote.

Not one of those steps have been followed.
An institution that has served us for millennia is to be discarded by a few self seeking politicians within the same Parliament as the wheeze was first thought up in.

I am utterly bewildered that so many here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.


29 Dec 12 - 02:46 PM (#3458806)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Keith, as I suggested, put the words "black person" or "woman" in your posts and then see what they sound like. Do you think interracial marriage should be up for a vote? Do you think women should have to get your permission before they can get married?

When do we get to vote on your civil rights? Why do you think you should get to vote on anyone else's? Why do you want to control what other people do in bed?

Although you keep saying that you have no problem with gay marriage, you also keep saying that you do have a problem with gay marriage. Which is it? You mostly sound like all the other anti-civil rights folks who can't come up with any real reason for their desire to have laws dictating what other people get to do. Everyone I have ever heard bleating about changing the definition of marriage were anti-gay marriage. Are you really any different than that? If so, why are you bleating?

But, to get back to the real issue, please be fair and tell us in detail what you like to do in bed and with whom so we can all comment on it and try to pass laws about it. Or perhaps you should stop trying to change the ancient definition of privacy.


29 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM (#3458818)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Akenaton doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in health concerns, ignoring the illogical leap from health statistics to the denial of civil rights.

Keith doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in strawman concerns about the definition of marriage and majority rule, ignoring the fact that he's also just trying to deny other people their civil rights.

Guest from Sanity is just incomprehensible and doesn't seem to know that's not a good reason to have laws.

Anyone else?


29 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM (#3458821)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

John, I will try to explain again.
I do not care what any consenting adults do.
I have no issue with same sex marriage, but I respect the views of those many people who do, except those who just object to anything concerning gays out of prejudice.

For millennia marriage has been between male and female.
I know that many people, for deeply held personal convictions think it should continue to be.
They mostly believe that gays should be able to marry but call it something else.

In this country John, we have never had an issue with inter racial marriage and it has existed here for centuries.

Let the move to full same sex marriage follow its course by why must the normal democratic processes be stealmrollered flat to suit the self serving whims of a few politicians?

After thousands of years, waiting until the next Parliament and due process seems the most reasonable way to proceed.


29 Dec 12 - 03:46 PM (#3458823)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Futwick

This is nothing but a prurient interest topic. They want all the juicy details of how gays consummate their marriages. If a man and woman married and never once had sex, not one person would care one iota. But when it's gay partners suddenly we have everything they did on their wedding bed to make sure the marriage was legal.

The OP should be ashamed of himself for even bringing this up. Jesus, some people will talk about anything.


29 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM (#3458829)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Keith doesn't like gay marriage but knows that's not a good reason to have laws so he dresses it up in strawman concerns about the definition of marriage and majority rule, ignoring the fact that he's also just trying to deny other people their civil rights.

I do not recognise myself in that John.
You are joining the others in throwing abuse instead of discussing.
The definition of marriage is NO strawman.
It means much to many people whose views do not deserve to be trampled over.
And for what?
If there is a strong common consent for it to change then it should change, but not without the normal democratic considerations.
Why do you all want it done without that?
Why do you have such contempt for the views of others and want them dismissed without any consideration.
That is Stalinism masquerading as liberal tolerance.


29 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM (#3458883)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

And for millennia we endorsed slavery and subjugation of women.

Any more bright ideas Keith?

Look, it would be less of a problem if you admitted you find gays repulsive. At least you would have the benefit of honesty instead of insulting the intelligence of decent people by trying to tell us people don't want it.   Gay people seem to want it and so what the hell has it to do with the rest of us?


29 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM (#3458884)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Well said Keith.


29 Dec 12 - 07:05 PM (#3458900)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Paper # 971   
A Comparison of Sexual Behavior Patterns among Heterosexual Men and Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men
Sara Nelson*1, M Morris1, B Foxman2, S Aral3, L Manhart1, K Holmes1, and M Golden1
1Univ of Washington, Seattle, US; 2Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, US; and 3CDC, Atlanta, GA, US

"Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) have higher rates of HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STI) than heterosexual men and women. This elevated risk reflects biological and behavioral factors.

Methods: We compared sexual behavior patterns between MSM and heterosexuals using 4 population-based random digit dialing (RDD) surveys. A 1996 to 1998 survey of MSM in 4 US cities and 2 surveys of Seattle MSM (2003, 2006) provided estimates for MSM; a 2003 to 2004 Seattle survey provided data about heterosexual men and women.

Results: The heterosexual survey targeted a younger population (age 18 to 39 years vs age ≥18 years), but participants were similar to MSM in education and race/ethnicity. Age at same-sex sexual debut was slightly younger (age 16.5 to 17.0 years) than opposite-sex sexual debut (17.6), although among MSM anal sex sexual debut was years later (19.6 to 20.2). Among those aged 18 to 24 years, the median lifetime number of sex partners was 4 in heterosexuals and 15 in MSM. The proportion of heterosexuals who formed a new partnership in the prior year declined from 44% at age 18 to 24 years to 15% at age 35 to 39 years. In contrast, among MSM, 86% of 18 to 24 year olds and 72% of MSM aged 35 to 39 years formed a new partnership in the prior year. The median lifetime number of sex partners for persons aged 35 to 39 years was 10 among heterosexuals and 67 among MSM. Over one-third of MSM aged <30 years had a recent partner who was >5 years older, compared to only 7% of male and 20% of female heterosexuals. MSM reported that 51% of their recent partnerships, and 42% of their recent anal sex partnerships, had lasted ≤3 months, compared to only 22% of heterosexual men and 10% of women. Among recent partnerships lasting ≤3 months, approximately two-thirds of MSM always used condoms during insertive anal sex and three-quarters during receptive anal sex; only 53% of heterosexuals in partnerships of similar duration reported consistent condom use. For longer partnerships, consistent condom use ranged from 25 to 50% in MSM and was 23% in heterosexuals. In the Seattle surveys, MSM met 17% of their most recent partners online compared with only 3% of heterosexuals.

Conclusions: MSM have higher early rates of partnership acquisition, continue to form partnerships later into life, meet more partners online, and display more age disassortative mixing than heterosexuals. These factors likely help explain the higher HIV and STI rates among MSM, despite higher levels of condom use."
These are median numbers and do not represent the highest or lowest reports


29 Dec 12 - 08:38 PM (#3458943)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Ah, I get it Keith. You are not opposed to gay marriage, you are just selflessly standing up for those who are, and you think it ought to be up to a popular vote. A hundred years ago, would you have been standing up for those who thought women shouldn't be able to vote? I confess that I don't know if the UK has anything like our Constitution that guarantees certain rights, but the thing about rights is that they are rights and shouldn't be subject to a vote. I ask again, when do we get to vote on which rights you get to have?

All of which begs the question of why you think you or anyone else should have anything to say about what other people are doing in bed. You can say that gay sex is legal all you want to, but as long as you support laws that discriminate against gay people, you are poking your nose into other peoples' sex lives and using the law of the land to do so. There is no conversation about homosexuals that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. There is no law about gay people that isn't a law about what people may or may not do in bed. Just out of curiosity, why stop with gay people? There's lots of groups of people you could try to make laws about. Have at it.

Oh, and speaking of straw men, one of your points seems to be: "You are being intolerant of people who want to be intolerant. This is Stalinism." First of all, no, it isn't Stalinism. That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Go read some history. Two, the logic is backwards. The same thing gets said over here a lot by Christians who feel discriminated against because the rest of us don't want them to pass laws enforcing their religion, not understanding that forcing other people to follow their dictates is the only discrimination going on. Think it through. That dog just won't hunt.

If you really want to have a moderated debate on the subject, we'll have to find a logic professor to be one of the moderators. You don't seem to have a very good innate grasp of the subject.


29 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM (#3458955)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

As I have said already monogamy seems to be anathema to sexually active male homosexuals, and this legislation opens the door into mainstream society to other minority groups who's lifestyles would completely destroy the social template which has served us well for centuries.

Monogamy seems quite attractive, actually, to those who want to enjoy gay marriage. You should be supporting it. As for that template you mention that you hoped I wouldn't notice, well that's just your preferred template out of hundreds the world over. Very imperialistic of you to promote yours above all the others.

I am utterly bewildered that so many here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

62% in favour of gay marriage, just 31% agin. I am utterly bewildered that several homophobes here have such dismissive contempt for the deeply felt convictions of so many fellow citizens.

To anyone that says you are not accusing much of the population of homophobic hate just because they have reservations about changing the ancient definition of marriage.

That would be the one ancient definition of marriage out of many that you personally happen to prefer. There are hundreds of definitions of marriage on this planet. You prefer our one because of the random event of your having been born here, no more, no less.

Homosexual relationships in the majority of cases contain large numbers of sexual partners, studies say hundreds, sometimes thousands.

"Studies say..." is weasel words. Go and look that up and don't bloody well do it again. In fact, your whole sentence is a complete lie which is intended to demonise homosexuals (you'll be telling me next that you're not a homophobe). Let's have your "studies", please.

And one more thing. Yes, repeated inbreeding of close family members results in a higher level of genetic abnormalities. But occasional reproduction by first cousins carries approximately the same increased risk of genetic abnormality as the risk taken by women over 40 having babies. Comment is free but facts is sacred.


30 Dec 12 - 04:32 AM (#3459026)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

you think you or anyone else should have anything to say about what other people are doing in bed.
You keep saying that John, but it is not true.


Ah, I get it Keith. You are not opposed to gay marriage, you are just selflessly standing up for those who are,

Correct.
It is not your views that make you liberal, it is your tolerance and respect for the views of others.
and you think it ought to be up to a popular vote.
No.
Parliament should decide after giving a proper hearing to all dissenting views.
That is how these things should be done.
Why are you all against letting other people have they say.
That is intolerant and bigoted.


30 Dec 12 - 04:51 AM (#3459031)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Keith. Letting others have their say is sound in principle but falls at the first hurdle if your say restricts the say of others.

You feel it is a legitimate say to inflict inequality on others? So, , doyou think those who demonstrate when dead soldiers are returned have every right to be heard? Back in the '70s did you support The Paedophile Information Exchange to have their views aired?

So why does discrimination of Gay people seem a legitimate cause for acceptable debate?


30 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM (#3459032)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I have posted EXTENSIVELY about my objection to the lack of democratic process.
Every word has been ignored, except by Don who had got all his dates mixed up.
Instead, John keeps going on about bedroom behaviour, and he accuses ME of being obsessed about it!
I have told you that I do not care, and have never posted anything that could be so interpreted.
That John is a strawman.
You pretend that I have made a silly case so you can appear to knock it down.
How about responding to what I actually say John?


30 Dec 12 - 04:58 AM (#3459033)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

So why does discrimination of Gay people seem a legitimate cause for acceptable debate?
It is not.
The issue is whether to make a change to an ancient institution.
Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined, and so is Civil Partnership.


30 Dec 12 - 06:11 AM (#3459048)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don, the Labour leadership elections, and the wheeze to put same sex marriage in their NEXT manifesto, came AFTER the last election.
Not one single party went in to the last election with the remotest suggestion to voters that they planned, never mind were "DETERMINED", to push through any change in the ancient definition of marriage.""

Well Keith, if you recall, the election to leadership of Ed Milliband predated the General Election.

Now, try very hard to get your head round this:

""During the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, all the leadership candidates endorsed same-sex marriage as Labour Party policy.""

They endorsed it as policy and went into the General Election with that firmly established.

The voters, who you claim were unaware of this must, like you, have been asleep at the time, if you are right.

It was all done in a blaze of pre-election publicity.

Your problem is that your memory is terminally selective, and only supplies you with what you WISHwere true.

Don T.


30 Dec 12 - 08:11 AM (#3459072)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don dear, you have got it all wrong, but please don't bother to apologise.
The 2010 Labour Party leadership election was triggered by a general election on May 6th which resulted in a hung parliament. On 10 May, Gordon Brown resigned as Leader of the Labour Party. The following day, he stepped down as Prime Minister.[1] The National Executive Committee decided the timetable for the election the result of which would be announced at the annual party conference.[2][3] On 25 September, Ed Miliband became the new Leader of the Labour Party.[4]

Not one party went in to the last general election with same-sex marriage or any suggestion of changing marriage on their manifesto.
It had been discussed at no party conference, and no consultations had ever taken place.


30 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM (#3459137)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Why are you all against letting other people have they say.
That is intolerant and bigoted.

How about responding to what I actually say John?


I have. I'll try again: We are saying, "You don't get to discriminate against us." You are saying, "It is discriminatory to tell us we can't discriminate against you."

We are saying that you must leave us alone, not intrude on our lives, not tell us what rights we may and may not have. You are saying that you should be able to tell us what rights we may and may not have, and that by telling you to back off we are trying to silence you and are, in fact, discriminating against you. If you don't understand that this is faulty logic I don't have much hope of having a rational discussion with you.

And yes, you are obsessing about what people do in bed, to the point where you are willing to lay claim to the word 'marriage' and the concept behind it and deny its use to other people because of what they do in bed. No one is trying to change the definition of the word. We are saying that if it is a legal right that is available to some, it is a legal right that ought to be available to all. We are saying that there should be no difference between gay people and straight people in the eyes of the law, and that no one should get to vote on that. The courts should simply toss out all discriminatory laws and be done with it. I'm not obsessing about it. I'm saying you should have the decency to keep your nose out of other peoples' bedrooms. I'm also saying that since you don't respect the sexual privacy of other people, you have lost the right to expect sexual privacy for yourself.

Do you not understand how dangerous it is to our society to say that the public or their Congressional/Parliamentary representatives should have the right to vote on other peoples' civil rights?

You say that you don't have any problem with gay marriage, yet every post you make has something somewhere in it that says that we are trying to change the 'ancient definition of marriage' or that we are trying to trample the rights of people who don't think gay people should be able to get married. I'm saying that, since there is widespread disagreement about the definition of marriage, we should go with the definition that doesn't discriminate against a group of people. The whole concept of the 'ancient definition of marriage' is a straw man. It was made up fairly recently by people who are opposed to gay marriage. The reason many of us are badgering you about this is because you are supporting it. It is a discriminatory position for you to hold.

Keith, so far you have called me Stalinist, intolerant, and bigoted. All because I deny that you should have the right to have anything to say about whether or not a group of people gets to enjoy the same civil rights as you do, and because I deny you the right to lay claim to the institution of marriage and to define it to suit your whim. Please back up a bit.


30 Dec 12 - 11:17 AM (#3459140)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

And one more thing. Yes, repeated inbreeding of close family members results in a higher level of genetic abnormalities. But occasional reproduction by first cousins carries approximately the same increased risk of genetic abnormality as the risk taken by women over 40 having babies. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

I do not believe that Steve.
Where did you get this information please?


30 Dec 12 - 11:21 AM (#3459142)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

John.
How about responding to what I actually say John?

I have. I'll try again: We are saying, "You don't get to discriminate against us." You are saying, "It is discriminatory to tell us we can't discriminate against you."


BUT I HAVE NOT SAID THAT OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE SO INTERPRETED!
So, how about responding to what I actually say John?


30 Dec 12 - 12:17 PM (#3459169)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Steve.
risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk.
The risk for mothers aged 40 is 1.6%


30 Dec 12 - 02:06 PM (#3459210)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""I have no issue with same sex marriage, but I respect the views of those many people who do, except those who just object to anything concerning gays out of prejudice.""

The standard Keith A get out clause. I am just reporting what people whose opinions are more credible than mine have said, so you can't accuse me of having views of my own.

Don T.


30 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM (#3459247)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

It happens to be the truth Don.
Sorry if that is not good enough for you.
And never mind all the abuse you gave me, selective memory and such, in your confusion.


30 Dec 12 - 07:23 PM (#3459346)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined

Let me expand this into its full meaning: "Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined, including to homosexuals as long as they deny their natural sexuality and find a partner of the opposite sex to marry."

Nice one, Keith. The very definition of homophobia, neatly done in such a short sentence.

Parliament should decide after giving a proper hearing to all dissenting views.
That is how these things should be done.
Why are you all against letting other people have they say.


You are being a bit vague here, Keith. What "other people" do you mean? For gay marriage to become legal, legislation will be required. The three main parties all support gay marriage. Tough, eh? That's democracy for ya! They will have to debate it in parliament and pass a law. And in just about every poll in the last ten years, there has been a majority in the country for gay marriage (look it up on wiki, why don't you). We elect our MPs to act legislatively on our behalf. If you don't like your MP's stance on gay marriage, then vote against him next time (actually,you'll be all right with your bloke, eh, Keith, a nice Tory backwoodsman!). Are you asking that priests and bishops should have a lot more say or something? What exactly are you asking? For gay marriage to be a special legislative case? Wanna referendum??? (you'd lose!)


30 Dec 12 - 07:45 PM (#3459354)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steven....sorry for delay hospital visit.

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested.
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· Also Bell and Weinberg "Male and female homosexuality"


30 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM (#3459362)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."


30 Dec 12 - 08:10 PM (#3459367)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Wiki(sorry)
A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found that 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to twenty partners, and 25% had more than twenty partners.[15] More recent studies have reported similar numbers. [16] Early studies found men with homosexual contact were more likely to have a very large number of sexual partners, but a 1989 study found a very high number of partners (over 100) to be present though rare in that demographic. The difference was attributed to sampling problems with earlier studies, and the influence of AIDS.[17]


30 Dec 12 - 08:14 PM (#3459369)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake, how many partners do you think heterosexual men and women might have over a lifetime if adequate birth control were readily available and marriage was not an option?

Here's a bulletin:   marriage, and the emotional relationship that prompts it, is NOT just about sexual intercourse. That's true for BOTH heterosexual AND homosexual people.

Don Firth


30 Dec 12 - 08:24 PM (#3459377)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

I admire anyone who can keep count after about 40 or 50 (ol' Cleggie couldn't!). Lucky buggers. But, ake, even if these figures are accurate, they are making a very strong case in favour of gay marriage. In the kind of marriage that you and Keith "approve" of, you pledge loyalty to just the one person. You should be a strong advocate for gay marriage then, innit!


30 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM (#3459381)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""In the kind of marriage that you and Keith "approve" of, you pledge loyalty to just the one person. You should be a strong advocate for gay marriage then, innit!""

You would think so, wouldn't you Steve?

But dear old Ake has been shying away from any thought of comparing with Heterosexual statistics,

After all it's apples and oranges ain't it. "Heteros are normal", says Ake and Homos are a bit queer.

As for Keith, he's just admitted that he hides his own opinion by finding somebody who thinks the same way and blaming him.

Don T.


31 Dec 12 - 02:56 AM (#3459448)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford


As for Keith, he's just admitted that he hides his own opinion by finding somebody who thinks the same way and blaming him.

I did not Don.
Either by confusion, forgetfulness or dishonesty you have have posted yet another untruth about me.
Why can you people never confine yourselves to the truth and what people actually say?

Steve, do you not believe that dissenting views should get a fair hearing?
I agree that same sex marriage is going to happen and that is fine.
Do you deny that it is unusual for an issue to be raised from nowhere and legislated for within a single Parliament?
After millennia, why the unseemly rush given the deeply held convictions that people have?
It has certainly not been thought through.
Are you clear on what role churches can play, what they must play, and what they can not play?
That should have all been worked out before the consultation.
It was not, and the consultation has anyway failed to win the confidence of those with genuine reservations as a fair hearing.


31 Dec 12 - 04:01 AM (#3459451)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Err
Keith.   Should dissenting views get a fair hearing?

Now's your chance to get your views in then.

Where do you stand on Muslim marriage? Been going only half the time that Christian ones have so fail at your ancient clause.   How about black people? What rights should they have? Slaves used to jump over a broom stick because tradition said they couldn't be legally married. That was the preserve of white Christians.

Do you support civil partnerships because it is a system of apartheid? Do you like being able to legally point and say they are different?

In fact do you like being compared to Akenaton? Or don't you think your bigotry is as bad as his so somehow more acceptable?

If you as usual ignore the above, how about whether a view is valid regardless? There are those who if pressed would say they would like to abuse children without it being illegal. Let's buy them a soapbox. Fancy Chipping in?

No different to those who hate gays on the basis of it once being illegal and related to old men cottaging in public toilets.   Cottaging. That's an old word eh? Used by our local UKIP candidate. Funny that.


31 Dec 12 - 04:36 AM (#3459457)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

"Where do you stand on Muslim marriage? Been going only half the time that Christian ones have so fail at your ancient clause."
Marriage is older than both religions.
I do not think we should allow child marriage or polygamy here without considerable debate and consultation.
" How about black people? What rights should they have? Slaves used to jump over a broom stick because tradition said they couldn't be legally married. That was the preserve of white Christians."
That was how poor people were married too.
I do not believe in discrimination.

"Do you support civil partnerships because it is a system of apartheid?"
No opinion really.
There was widespread support, and some objections by excluded groups.

" Do you like being able to legally point and say they are different? "
No.

"In fact do you like being compared to Akenaton? Or don't you think your bigotry is as bad as his so somehow more acceptable?"
Neither of us is in the slightest way bigoted.

"If you as usual ignore the above, how about whether a view is valid regardless? There are those who if pressed would say they would like to abuse children without it being illegal."
I do not think that child marriage should be brought back.
Some would say that is discriminatory.
Do you?


31 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM (#3459462)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

No-one EVER answers my questions!


31 Dec 12 - 04:48 AM (#3459463)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""The standard Keith A get out clause. I am just reporting what people whose opinions are more credible than mine have said, so you can't accuse me of having views of my own.

Don T.
""

Response:

""It happens to be the truth Don.
Sorry if that is not good enough for you.

Keith A.
""

An absolutely clear admission.

Don T.


31 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM (#3459468)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Do you deny that it is unusual for an issue to be raised from nowhere and legislated for within a single Parliament?""

Yes, I would emphatically deny that. If a government were only able to legislate that which was in its manifesto, it would be totally hamstrung in the face of changing circumstances. Also, secondary legislation commonly follows on from a manifesto pledge (e.g. Equality foe all, not just for those Keith A finds worthy).

""Are you clear on what role churches can play, what they must play, and what they can not play?
That should have all been worked out before the consultation.
""

YES! The whole country (except apparently you) knows the answer to this. They can if they wish, but they do not have to, carry out same sex marriages.

That would seem to address the views of dissenting churches.

""-snip- Steve, do you not believe that dissenting views should get a fair hearing? -snip-

-snip- the consultation has anyway failed to win the confidence of those with genuine reservations as a fair hearing. -snip-
""

The only thing that you would accept as a fair hearing or a proper consultation would be one which dragged on until everybody agreed with your biased views.

And there is somebody who answers your questions, ME!

You just don't like the answers!

Don T


31 Dec 12 - 05:40 AM (#3459481)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

You don't belieive in discrimination, eh, Keith? So what's this, then?

Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined

Which means:

"Marriage is available to all as it is currently defined, including to homosexuals as long as they deny their natural sexuality and find a partner of the opposite sex to marry."

As currently defined, marriage is unavailable to homosexuals who refuse to deny their sexuality by marrying a partner of the opposite sex. On the other hand, heterosexuals may enter into marriage without denying their sexuality. That is treating people differently. One group has it better than the other by design. By any measure, that is discrimination and you appear to condone it. You may think that's trivial, Keith. A piece of piss for a gay person. Well that shows how intolerant you are and how little you understand same-sex relationships.


31 Dec 12 - 05:57 AM (#3459485)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Steve, do you not believe that dissenting views should get a fair hearing?

Yep. And they're getting it. There is plenty of scope for open debate on all manner of platforms, including this one. I think your problem is that there is nothing like the groundswell of opinion against gay marriage that you seem to think there is. I've scarcely heard anything at all except from a few out-of-touch churchmen and the odd Tory MP from Backwoodshire.

Do you deny that it is unusual for an issue to be raised from nowhere and legislated for within a single Parliament?

From nowhere? You mean it wasn't in a manifesto somewhere? Blimey, if we held every party strictly to its manifesto we wouldn't half be having fun here, wouldn't we! As long as proper parliamentary procedure is followed (and this is hardly being played out in private either, is it), there's nothing wrong. Gay marriage is a big change, but so was abolishing hanging and allowing abortion and cutting the tax rate for millionaires. You have to do these things in one go on the whole, not drag them out. You can hardly complain that equality for gay people in general, and gay marriage in particular, has suddenly come out of the blue. Let's get on with it!

After millennia, why the unseemly rush given the deeply held convictions that people have?

After millennia of what? Your kind of marriage tradition out of all the hundreds of marriage traditions the world over?


31 Dec 12 - 05:58 AM (#3459486)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Steve, marriage always has had, and always will have restrictions.
Over the centuries some restrictions are challenged and changed.
Child marriage for instance.
Then again, different cultures have different restrictions.
Although no known culture in all human history has ever allowed same-sex marriage, it may be time for that to change in our culture now.

Don.
Yes, I would emphatically deny that. If a government were only able to legislate that which was in its manifesto, it would be totally hamstrung in the face of changing circumstances. Also, secondary legislation commonly follows on from a manifesto pledge
Very silly Don.
Of course issues come up suddenly but this one is centuries old, so why the mad rush?
What has "secondary legislation" to do with this?

Don you are wrong about the position of churhes, but this time the confusion is not your fault.
It keeps changing because the implications had not been thought through.
I think the latest wheeze is that some churches are prohibited from doing it, but I am confused too.

And Don, I clearly admitted that I post the views of others.
I have stated my own views.


31 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM (#3459493)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I've scarcely heard anything at all except from a few out-of-touch churchmen and the odd Tory MP from Backwoodshire.
Then you have had your eyes closed Steve.
MPs and Peers from all parties.
High Court Judges.
Huge petitions.
Many, many people of all faiths and none.

Do you even know what the main objections are Steve?
Quickly. No Googling.

It came out of nowhere for the Tories.
Many Tory voters are cross about that.
It was in no manifesto, the Coalition Agreement or the Queen's Speech. Why not.
Was there a single reason for it not to be?

All the other issues you mention WERE given a proper hearing.
Why not this one?


31 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM (#3459501)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

BBC.
Some Conservative MPs grumbled during Mrs Miller's statement that promises to "preserve" marriage had been broken.

They said that when civil partnerships became law, they had been reassured that same sex marriages would not follow.

A look back at the Commons Hansard, from the second reading of the Civil Partnership Bill, on 12 October 2004, provides some evidence for their claims.

Labour's Chris Bryant, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriages, told the Commons eight years ago that he didn't want "same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense".

The then equality minister, Labour's Jacqui Smith, said she recognised that people felt "very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage". She said the government was right to take a "secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples".

Her then Conservative shadow, Alan Duncan, who is now a minister in the coalition government, said it would be up to churches to decide what happened in future on the issue of same-sex marriages.

"The clear distinction between a civil secular partnership and the institution of marriage will, in my view, be preserved," he said.


31 Dec 12 - 07:34 AM (#3459511)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Well then, Keith, you can hardly complain that the matter isn't getting an airing. I suppose some of us don't listen enough to the stuffshirts when they start spouting about "morals", etc. The fact remains that there is hardly a massive public outrage going on, though there is plenty of airing. As for the haste which you pejoratively refer to, well I don't know about you but in matters of human rights I don't much care for slow-grinding and long delays perpetrated by the men of marble. We should be getting on with it, post haste. Only people who like the idea of discrimination would want all that delay that you're calling for.

And I can't be the only person around here who doesn't give a stuff what churches do or don't do. Weddings to them are largely money-making affairs (they tend not to press prospective couples too much, after all, as to whether they actually ever go to church! Some principle...)The legal bit is the couple of minutes of the marriage process. The rest is ceremony, and you can do what you like with that for all I care. I wouldn't license any church to conduct marriages at all if they said they intended to discriminate against gay people. They're getting away with blue murder otherwise.


31 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM (#3459512)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Are you standing in the next election for your mates then?

You need to brush up a bit on not answering questions first. The trick is to not just claim to have answered them but give an answer as well.

Of course you don't agree with the outrageous examples I gave. Unfortunately you don't seem to see the connection with stigmatising gay people. It's all the fucking same my deluded old chap, all the fucking same.

Oh and if you can't see the hate and bigotry in Akenaton and his diatribe your credibility in these matters is, if I may say so is blinkered.


31 Dec 12 - 07:45 AM (#3459516)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steven....you say that there is no evidence of a "groundswell" of opinion against homosexual "marriage", but the latest and largest question on the issue was posed by the Scottish govt only a few months ago in their consultation document.

The result was 32% for HM.....and 67% against.

Mr Salmond being the wily politician that he is, ignored the voice of the Scottish people and announced that he would go ahead with the legislation.
Why would any politician go against the clearly stated views of his electorate?
Because Mr Salmond undestands only to clearly the power of the media, which would adopt the same tactics as the majority of posters on this thread......to reduce what is clearly a complicated issue to the simplistic ethereal myth of "equality" and attempt to browbeat all opposition with the tag of "homophobia".....another meaningless term in this context.


31 Dec 12 - 08:07 AM (#3459522)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The apparent public opinion against gay marriage in Scotland is a bloody myth. The reason for the apparent high numbers opposing is that organised mass-postcarding and petitions from pressure groups were included in the count. If those "votes" are excluded, 65% of respondents were in favour of gay marriage, very much in line with opinion polls the UK as a whole. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

I don't mind your saying my name like my mum does, but it's Stephen with a "ph".


31 Dec 12 - 08:21 AM (#3459528)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian (musket)......verbally abusing other posters does not constitute a reasoned argument

In place of reason, you depend on an ethereal myth of "equality" within a social and economic system built on inequality and which could not survive without inequality.
You support this system unreservedly.

Many people read this forum....from many countries and your aggresive mindless abuse does little to help your cause here, rather it gives the distinct impression, I have been informed......that the thought locker is empty....and shut tight.


31 Dec 12 - 08:22 AM (#3459529)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

You clearly have no idea what the objectors' views are.
You just know they are wrong.
A perfect definition of prejudice.

I am just asking why the usual procedures are not being followed.
That is why people feel that their views are being ignored.

This has not just come out of the blue, it actually goes against what Parliament had previously been assured.

I will answer any question clearly put to me.
Any chance of answers to some of miine?


31 Dec 12 - 08:26 AM (#3459531)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

hate and bigotry in Akenaton and his diatribe

Just challenge what he states if you can.
Name calling is not an alternative.
I have seen not one expression of hate nor one example of bigotry.
Perhaps I missed it.
Remind me of the very worst thing he has said.


31 Dec 12 - 08:34 AM (#3459537)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve.....dont be so touchy, I thought you were older. your spelling is excellent....much better than mine.

Anyway of course there were pressure groups.....this is a very divisive issue......but most people of faith would have voted no anyway?
Most social conservatives in this area did not even know how to respond to the consultation document.....whereas all the rights groups were represented.

So funnily enough with real equality, the no's would have won by an even bigger majority.
But as you know equality is only desirable if it represent your point of view?


31 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM (#3459570)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

That's an amazing interpretation of a survey. :-)

I wasn't being touchy about the spelling. Just thought I'd mention it, that's all. Have a nice mahogany.


31 Dec 12 - 12:32 PM (#3459612)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Labour's Chris Bryant, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriages, told the Commons eight years ago that he didn't want "same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense".

The then equality minister, Labour's Jacqui Smith, said she recognised that people felt "very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage". She said the government was right to take a "secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples".

Her then Conservative shadow, Alan Duncan, who is now a minister in the coalition government, said it would be up to churches to decide what happened in future on the issue of same-sex marriages.

"The clear distinction between a civil secular partnership and the institution of marriage will, in my view, be preserved," he said.
""

So, because your hidebound mind is locked into your idee fixe (that's "obsession"), you deny others the right to change their minds.

Another example of your tight shut mind and its hard wired bias.

Don T.


31 Dec 12 - 12:44 PM (#3459618)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Good new year to you too Steve.......wishing you all the best A.

I'll have one small whiskey at the bells to a man with a wee sense of humour. :0)


31 Dec 12 - 01:20 PM (#3459645)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

you deny others the right to change their minds.
There you go again Don!
I never even suggested such a ludicrous thing, and nor did the BBC journalist who wrote it, so why did you?

It just emphasises what a sudden and dramatic out of the blue surprise this has been to everyone.
That is no way to deal with a highly sensitive issue, is it?


31 Dec 12 - 05:39 PM (#3459749)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""It just emphasises what a sudden and dramatic out of the blue surprise this has been to everyone.
That is no way to deal with a highly sensitive issue, is it?
""

A surprise that takes three years (two of them spent in consultation with everybody apparently but you) to assimilate is somewhat unsurprising to most people.

Of course if your mental responses are that slow, I suppose you could be surprised by it, but I can't help feeling that you are not actually one of the interested parties who deserved to be consulted.

They didn't consult me either, but I'm neither miffed nor bothered. I'm quite willing to accept that the process was fairly discussed and settled, without the benefit of your wise counsel.

Don T.


31 Dec 12 - 05:44 PM (#3459751)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

And if you really belive those people have the right to change their minds, what was the point of posting their out of date previous comment?

Transparent Keith, just like a sheet of plate glass. Pity your poorly concealed real agenda keeps showing through.

Don T.


31 Dec 12 - 05:51 PM (#3459754)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Of course if your mental responses are that slow

I will let that pass without comment Don dear.

A surprise that takes three years (two of them spent in consultation with everybody apparently but you)

That did not happen though Don, did it!?
Dear David Cameron announced his determination to rush it through just this year.
A "consultation" was attempted that was a complete shambles, and the proposed legislation was so shambolic that it all had to be changed making the shambolic "consultation" irrelevant anyway!

And you are happy with that Don?
I think that a very sensitive issue that involves strong feelings and deeply held convictions on both sides should be treated with a little more gravitas and respect.
Don't you Don?

A happy New Year to you and all the Ts anyway.
Catch you next year.
keith.


31 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM (#3459756)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

And if you really belive those people have the right to change their minds, what was the point of posting their out of date previous comment?
Just to show that it has not just come out of the blue, but is a complete turnaround on what was previously agreed.
goodnight.


31 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM (#3459810)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999

You folks talk too much.


02 Jan 13 - 10:40 PM (#3460664)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Yeah... they do, don't they? Twits.

Maybe they need some music to soothe thier savage souls.


03 Jan 13 - 06:03 AM (#3460733)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

You folks talk too much.--- 999

Yeah... they do, don't they? Twits.--- gnu
.,,.


So ~~ you two guys taken Trappist vows have you?

That WILL be the day!

Tee hee

Likewise LoL

~M~


03 Jan 13 - 07:01 AM (#3460748)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Just to show that it has not just come out of the blue, but is a complete turnaround on what was previously agreed.""

I almost admire the way in which you make contradictory responses to individual questions.

If you are going to obfuscate, you should make notes of your previous statements.

Now, it is either ""Just to show that it has not just come out of the blue"", or ""It just emphasises what a sudden and dramatic out of the blue surprise this has been to everyone.""

DUH?

Don T.


03 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM (#3460750)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Those two statements were made on 31st December 01:20 and 05:53, four hours and thirty three minutes apart.

You really need to work on that short term memory Keith.

Don T.


03 Jan 13 - 07:37 AM (#3460759)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Why dont you guys(Don and gnu), just go and suck you thumbs.

Or pick a fight with folks with folks who are not in possession of most of the facts.
Being abusive, or parroting "it just isn't fair" bill earn you no Brownie points.


03 Jan 13 - 08:12 AM (#3460769)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

If you read with brain AND eyes Don, I was saying that it is not only an out of the blue surprise, but actually a complete reversal of what was previously agreed.

Do you get it now?
Cameron plucked it form the air.
Not in conference, not in manifesto, not in Coalition Agreement, not in Queen's Speech.

When an alternative form of marriage, Civil Partnership for same-sex partners was agreed, it had been stated that marriage was NOT going to be changed, and everyone was happy.
Now suddenly it is.


03 Jan 13 - 09:21 AM (#3460795)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

everyone was happy.

Self-evidently untrue, Keith. Everyone is your tightly-closed and prejudiced circle, perhaps.


03 Jan 13 - 09:52 AM (#3460814)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Everyone IN. Sorry.


03 Jan 13 - 10:04 AM (#3460820)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steve.....Keith is referring to the manner in which this legislation is being foisted on the public, without due process.
He has never stated that he is agaist Homosexual "marriage" or Civil Union in principle.


03 Jan 13 - 10:08 AM (#3460824)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Had "everyone been happy" we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? Some applecarts just need upsetting.


03 Jan 13 - 10:31 AM (#3460836)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie

Ake, It wasn't so long ago in human history that people with dark skin were not considered people. It also wasn't so long ago in human history that women were considered second-class citizens who had no expectation of being taken seriously when they said they were abused or raped, or had a reasonable expectation of employment on par with men. Also in recent memory and still today but less so, homosexuals were/are not treated as full human beings.

It mattered not that Blacks have a higher propensity to sickle-cell anemia, or that women have an, um, greater tendency to become pregnant than men. It also matters not whether homosexuals carry 90%, 70%, or 20% of the cases of HIV. Discrimination against ANY people is wrong in most moral codes. Discrimination against Blacks is racism. Discrimination against women is mysogyny. And discrimination against homosexuals is homophobia, plain and simple. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck; it is a duck. If you replace any of the reasons for discriminating against Blacks or women with "homosexuals" you can see how very silly it sounds.

You can come up with all kinds of statistics trying to "justify" your hatred/fear of certain people. But that does not entitle you to treat them as anything less than human beings. Fortunately for the rest of us, Ake, dinosaurs like you are becoming fewer and fewer.

Saul


03 Jan 13 - 11:18 AM (#3460865)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Or pick a fight with folks with folks who are not in possession of most of the facts.
Being abusive, or parroting "it just isn't fair" bill earn you no Brownie points.
""

NO! I prefer to fight with people who are using misinformation in a feeble and unsuccessful attempt to hide their homophobic agenda.

Or to put it another way, you and "Flippy Floppy" Keith.

Don T.


03 Jan 13 - 11:24 AM (#3460870)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

So, since you did make both the statements

""It just emphasises what a sudden and dramatic out of the blue surprise this has been to everyone."" Dec 31st 01:20

""Just to show that it has not just come out of the blue"" Dec 31st 05:53

We can assume that you ALSO have suddenly changed your mind.

That would be a good idea if either mind were working properly.

Don T.


03 Jan 13 - 03:22 PM (#3460973)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Saulgoldie has the right of it. Yeah, verily!

Don Firth


03 Jan 13 - 03:39 PM (#3460982)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Ake, your "facts" suck, big time. Saul's don't... especiaslly about dinosaurs. Fact is, you and the other bigots are the ones sucking their thumbs.


03 Jan 13 - 05:51 PM (#3461027)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"Discrimination against ANY people is wrong in most moral codes"

Completely and utterly wrong...... Many people of all colours and genders are discriminated against.....some rightly, some wrongly

I do not discriminate against Blacks, Women or Homosexuals, but I do stand against obviously stupid legislation.
If Society discriminates in its legislation towards those who wish to avail themselves of group "marriage", "marriage" to a close relative,or any other proscribed pairing, why do they wish to redefine the institution to include a sexual minority with such horrendous health figures?
As always the answer is political......a sop to the media and celebrity, which contains a huge over-representation of homosexuals
and represents huge political power


03 Jan 13 - 05:59 PM (#3461030)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

"some rightly, some wrongly"????

Nuff said.


03 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM (#3461038)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Oh, so you think that there should be no curbs on human behaviour?
That some people should not be criminalised for what they do?

This world is full of positive and negative discrimination.

If you do not understand that, go back to sucking your thumb.


03 Jan 13 - 06:47 PM (#3461043)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Discrimination, like equality, is a "liberal" buzz word..........completely meaningless in our society.
I have worked hard all my life, and still work hard, tho' i am well over retiring age.
I have endured three hernias, numerous broken bones, punctured lung and countless cuts, bruises and strains.....all work related.
I have only a basic standard of living, as I know most of my customers struggle to pay the going rates and I charge accordingly.....but the hierarchy of our financial system who have caused so much misery by their greed and avarice continue to enjoy a standard of living far beyond anything I could even dream of.

Is this equality?   Will it ever change under this system?
No! this system depends on inequality, no one down here wants to be equal to Joe next door.....most of us when we are young dream the dream......and when we grow up (a little) we just suck our thumb.


03 Jan 13 - 07:51 PM (#3461066)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""I have endured three hernias, numerous broken bones, punctured lung and countless cuts, bruises and strains.....all work related.
I have only a basic standard of living, as I know most of my customers struggle to pay the going rates and I charge accordingly.....but the hierarchy of our financial system who have caused so much misery by their greed and avarice continue to enjoy a standard of living far beyond anything I could even dream of.
""

So, instead of fighting your inequality of life, you use it as an excuse for discriminating against those who fail your elevated criteria for consideration as equal human beings.

Nuff Said!

Don T.


03 Jan 13 - 10:33 PM (#3461103)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

In response, ake, let me re-quote you more fully... "Many people of all colours and genders are discriminated against.....some rightly,"

YOUR words, written and posted for all to read for eternity.

There. Can I be any more clear?

Except, of course, to say, fuck off, eh?


04 Jan 13 - 03:08 AM (#3461124)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I assume this is the point where I push my glasses up the bridge of my nose with a self satisfied smirk? After all, Akenaton has just admitted to his rather transparent hate and bigotry. Thing is though I'm not.

Mainly because he still stands by his position. In fact it appears to be on the basis of having a hernia and envy of those who seem to have had a bigger lick of the pudding biwl than him. In that case he always will feel bitter and twisted.   So not much point in debating with him.

Keith on the other hand has gone quiet. Possibly to think through his previous position but possibly to check Nigel Farage's latest position before giving the rest of us the benefit of it.

Discrimination is wrong and inequality may be impossible to eradicate but that doesn't mean you have laws to promote inequality. I'm married and it has nothing whatever to do with lawmakers whether it is consummated or not. Human rights legislation is higher than law on grounds for divorce. So there is no argument for differentiating other than promoting an obscene form of apartheid.


04 Jan 13 - 05:01 AM (#3461141)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth: "Saulgoldie has the right of it. Yeah, verily!"

What a load of crap!..He would have it 'right' IF you could tie race, creed or color into it..but homosexuality is BEHAVIORAL!...not genetic!

Now look at this PERFECT EXAMPLE of what I posted previously:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 06:22 PM

"It means NOTHING to them..THEY DON'T CARE!
What they have done is taken a 'political' position, unsubstantiated by anything factual...and then resorted to how the FEEL about it...in other words, they have adopted delusion, as reality."


NOW LOOK AT THIS!!

From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM

Lesbianism? Quite possibly it, too, is genetic. But so far, more research has been done into male homosexuality and although there is speculation that the same thing is true for lesbians, all the info is not in yet.

'ALL THE INFO IS NOT IN YET'?????????????????????...AND YOU ARE CALLING IT A FACT?????????!!!!!!

Don Froth: "I'm sorry if it cuts into your income as a snake-oil salesman, but those are the FACTS!"

What FACTS????..You haven't presented ANY in support that homosexuality is genetic!!..NONE!!! ZIP!!! NADA!!

Once you posted a study done by a homosexual researcher out of Massachusetts,..AND YOU BANTERED THE ARTICLE.....BUT IN THE ARTICLE, EVEN THE RESEARCHER SAID THAT NO GENE HAD YET BEEN FOUND....BUT YOU INSISTED THAT HE FOUND THE GENE!

Don Froth: "Unlike you, I've done the research on the matter."

...and you deluded yourself...JUST AS I POSTED!:..."It means NOTHING to them..THEY DON'T CARE!
What they have done is taken a 'political' position, unsubstantiated by anything factual...and then resorted to how the FEEL about it...in other words, they have adopted delusion, as reality."

....someone who chooses what preference they want to imitate....and all the imitation on the planet, will NOT cause a man to bear a child or a woman to provide a seed...and that stuff comes with the mental and emotional circuitry to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Delusion defending delusion!

You should seek help!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 05:22 AM (#3461144)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Guest from Sanity?

Far from sanity.

If sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice, as you mistakenly believe, then you will have no difficulty in telling us exactly when you chose to be heterosexual.

You are the one who should seek help.

Don T.


04 Jan 13 - 06:12 AM (#3461155)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Keith has been quiet because I have been away.

Flip flop? I have been consistent.
When I said everyone was happy, I meant in Parliament.
However, I do not remember there being any outcry against Civil Partnerships.
Was there?
Did Musket, Don T, Steve, Gnu post anything here decrying them as discriminatory, or were you quite pleased with it at the time?

Please remind us all boys.


04 Jan 13 - 07:26 AM (#3461168)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Gnu.

In response, ake, let me re-quote you more fully... "Many people of all colours and genders are discriminated against.....some rightly,"

YOUR words, written and posted for all to read for eternity.Completely and utterly wrong...... Many people of all colours and genders are discriminated against.....some rightly, some wrongly


Those were not his words.
You selectively edited his words to change his meaning.
He said,
"I do not discriminate against Blacks, Women or Homosexuals, but I do stand against obviously stupid legislation."

It was clear from his previous statement that he was referring to criminal behaviour being rightly discriminated against.

Why do you all need to demonize anyone who does not share your views?
Why not just challenge the actual statements?
No need to impugn a nasty motive behind the statement, just attack the statement.
I suppose the problem is that many statements are factual.
Attacking the messenger does not change the message.


04 Jan 13 - 09:04 AM (#3461196)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

impute!


04 Jan 13 - 10:18 AM (#3461223)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Civil partnerships are and always will be discriminatory. I said it at the time and every one I have been a guest at, (four or five I reckon) I have felt that one day I will be telling my Grandchildren one day about when in my living memory, people could have signs outside pubs saying no blacks, no dogs, no Irish. How some women had the word "obey" used at their marriage vows and how Gay people weren't even allowed to have marriage vows! Eventually, till reason overcame, there was a system of apartheid called civil partnership.

I see it as a stepping stone and events appear to bear that out. I also see bigotry being exposed both within religion and secular. I see how every politician who says we should strive for equality is waking up to what that simple statement means. I see religions having to yet again alter their understanding of their translations in order to appear somewhat relevant.

I also would like to yet again point out that the thread title, Gay marriage question, is a question for gay people to consider, usually about the time they want to get married.. I also would like to point out that we have European conventions and courts that will correct any political pandering to right wing idiots.

Most of all, I see that pointing out odious attitudes is seen as demonising apparently. I'm a fucking demon, that's what I am. zzzzzzzzzz

if you don't like being a bigot, stop speaking as one.


04 Jan 13 - 11:06 AM (#3461240)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Guest from Sanity, since you clearly have decided to behave as a heterosexual, I have to assume that you are bisexual. For me, and for everyone else I know who is firmly either heterosexual or homosexual, there wasn't a choice. You are one of the lucky few who get to choose your sexual partners based on who they are, without also having to take into account what gender they are. I'm sorry you have chosen to limit yourself to women. That must be difficult for you sometimes.


04 Jan 13 - 12:04 PM (#3461267)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

From GfS in the course of a single post:

"… homosexuality is BEHAVIORAL!...not genetic!"



"ALL THE INFO IS NOT IN YET'?????????????????????...AND YOU ARE CALLING IT A FACT?????????!!!!!!"

The irony, hypocrisy, ignorance,... (you choose) displayed by making these two statements in a single screed is funny-sad.


04 Jan 13 - 12:19 PM (#3461273)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I see that pointing out odious attitudes is seen as demonising apparently.

If you find some-one's attitude odious, you should say so.
If someone makers a reasoned statement of fact, it is wrong to say they must have odious attitudes based only on that.

I do not believe anyone has made an odious statement, and see no evidence of odious attitudes.


04 Jan 13 - 02:53 PM (#3461332)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well, children..that's all fine and dandy...but you CAN NOT post ANY proof that homosexuality is anything else but behavioral..to the point that, (in reality), is nothing more than being reproductively IMPAIRED!..and being that ALL living things on the planet have two attributes in common, the will to survive and reproduce(you should have learned that in your first biology class), then I would have to say, that heteros do not make that choice..but homosexuals THINK they cannot....and that is really a shame..because there are some homosexuals that I've known, who were really pretty talented and sensitive people...and the bummer is, we ALL lose that...because those traits that they have in them, is removed from the gene pool...because they FEEL they can't pass it on...and have CHOSEN (for a number of reasons..usually emotional), to hold onto various resentments toward a parental figure, who may have unjustly or unthinkingly offended them, and emotionally they FEEL, either a lack of confidence, or as a matter, of mutual familiarity, to have sex with someone of their own sex....and that my dear pubic brothers and sisters is the plain TRUTH..unlike those who grab an OPINION, and try to turn it into a 'fact'...which evolves to a delusion...and you know what??...'schizophrenia' is a condition that one cannot distinguish reality and fantasy(or delusion)....AND THAT happens to be a true FACT!
So I'm sure to some of you, your 'passions', have become your opinions, (and vice verse) and to you they appear to be facts...but they are not....
Just like those living things on the planet, try procreating by believing your illusionary delusions...NOTHING HAPPENS!!!..(you know why?....it's not a FACT of life!)

Now I guess I've become the 'bad guy' breaking the 'bad news' to you...but so what?....Somebody had to do it....to be faithful to the truth!

Good Luck.....but in REALITY try raising a child of your own blood, and nurture it, to become full of the things that you were unjustifiably denied...use what you know to avoid the hurts you have experienced along the way..because those 'wrongs' seemed to have never been righted...and THAT is the shame of it all...and the hurt that many homosexuals live with.....and in knowing that,they really have SO MUCH to offer!

...and if you are going to counter my statements, try doing it with a FACT...at least once in a while, instead of an OPINION that is becoming the popular delusion, of the reproductively impaired!!!!..and their pompous self-righteous promoters of bad science, and other assorted bullshit they like to spout!

Don't like it?..tough!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 03:13 PM (#3461350)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

Why are you folks getting so worked up over this? Do any of you imagine you're going to change anyone else's opinion here? Or prove for all time how bad and how wrong they are?

And even if you did prove it, then what? There's no Inquisition around anymore, see? So you can't have them arrested and burnt at the stake for not seeing things your way.


04 Jan 13 - 03:34 PM (#3461364)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

That, Little Hawk, is why I'm not arguing the point anymore. I have GfS and Ake pinpointed, and no reasonable argument or mountain of facts is going to change their minds.

Both of those "homophobes," especially GfS, are scared spitless of their own genes. They'd probably be a lot happier if they came out of the closet to themselves.

Little point in arguing.

Don Firth


04 Jan 13 - 03:38 PM (#3461370)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don, I'm NOT 'homophobic'...that's just the name the idiots use when they can't substantiate their opinions with facts!..so they resort to stupid, inane name-calling... I guess it's easier that to correct one's self-willed delusions..and want to 'sound educated'..of some sort.
It's a load of crap!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 03:43 PM (#3461374)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

And why do you call Ake homophobe?
He has said nothing against the gay community, merely pointing out the huge risks that MSMs run from infection.
He actually cares about them.
If STIs did not exist he would have no objection to same-sex marriage or anything else.


04 Jan 13 - 03:43 PM (#3461375)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Froth: "...Both of those "homophobes," especially GfS, are scared spitless of their own genes."

Care to give me the number of that 'gene'??..They DO catalog them..surely the 'gene' in which you speak has a designation number..go for it!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 03:45 PM (#3461377)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . .

How come you and Ake spend so much time obsessing about what other people do in private? You two have sure devoted a lot of verbiage to it.

Do you ever think about anything else? I didn't think so!

Don Firth


04 Jan 13 - 04:00 PM (#3461384)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

This is a lot like watching the WWF, only less sweaty and not so noisy. Keep it in good taste, guys!


04 Jan 13 - 04:05 PM (#3461388)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Number please.

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 04:07 PM (#3461393)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"Well, children..that's all fine and dandy...but you CAN NOT post ANY proof that homosexuality is {...} behavioral.."

On whom lies the burden of proof?






And no LH, we may not change any minds, but fear and loathing of those who are different must be opposed whether you think you will "win" or not.

You love to say that some of us are in these discussions "to win".
Not true, because as you point out, there is very little chance of "winning", and we are well aware of that. But principle sometimes dictates fighting even when there is no possibility of a "win".


04 Jan 13 - 04:21 PM (#3461398)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Number, please??
Don??
TIA??
Don T??
Musket??
Saul??
Steve??

Without it your rap falls completely down!

So just come up with a number for the 'gene'..if you can't Google it up, you can always rely on your delusional imaginations.

Number???????

GfS

P.S. Maybe a 'new' thought may dawn on them, when they can't find it!


04 Jan 13 - 04:38 PM (#3461410)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

GFS, I know for an absolute fact that the ability to roll one's tongue is a genetic trait, but I could not give you a catalogue number.
Further, like most genetic traits, it is not under the control of a single gene but a complex interaction of several.


04 Jan 13 - 05:01 PM (#3461413)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

The cause of many conditions was identified as being of genetic origin before the technology to identify the specific gene responsible was available.


04 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM (#3461415)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Yeah..and one in a thousand (true number) can roll it backwards!...but I'm sure with all these 'experts' on here who specialize on 'homosexual genes', would have THAT number..you'd think it would be dear to their hearts.
Fact is..it doesn't exist!


Oh??..you say it does??..Post it!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 05:17 PM (#3461416)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

bobad, and your source was????
Give me a name of a researcher..a lab, a date....ANYTHING, that goes beyond 'suggests', 'seems to indicate' 'may suggest'..give me a FACT!

..and yet there are some ridiculous Bozos who INSIST that it is a fact(some of them right here on Mudcat!)

..and no matter how much they INSIST...they have NOTHING to back up their claim.

Go figure!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM (#3461419)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Just not getting the subtlety are we?

What is your "proof" that it is behavioral?

I do not accept the burden of proof. I say it is yours.

Don't like it? Tough.


04 Jan 13 - 05:57 PM (#3461430)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Here, TIA....this is just for starters: Here, (just for starters)TIA, read up on it...

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 06:02 PM (#3461433)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P

Here's a number: go find 100 gay people and ask them whether any of them had a choice about who to get turned on by. Here's another number: go find 100 straight people and ask them whether they had any choice about who to get turned on by. Here's another number: You will find 100% agreement. You should consider using common sense.


04 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM (#3461436)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Try not to be a TOTAL ass, GoofuS (Oh, sorry! I really shouldn't be asking you to do the impossible!)

No, I do not know the "queer gene's" mailing address, apartment number, and zip code, but geneticists agree that there is more than enough evidence extant to indicate that homosexuality is genetically determined, probably by a combination of genes, and they are currently seeking further data.

Don't bitch at me, take your whining to them!!

AND why are you getting hysterical!??

Don Firth


04 Jan 13 - 06:06 PM (#3461438)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

...even though I have disagreements with the source...there is some factual evidence.

Oh, and the closest, for all those who can't come up with it, or didn't know, and just spouted nonsense, the closest thing they have to a
'genetic link' is 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28.

Oh, I know...you 'knew' it all along...but they are ONLY indicators...NOT the determining 'gene'....unless, of course, you wanna' stretch the truth...which I'm sure some of the more outstanding, outspoken ASS-umers, may wish to do...and probably will...

...but it ain't the 'gene'.

That issue will lie in the subject of 'receptors'...formed during the gestation period.

(That is for all those who make the claim that they were that way since birth).

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM (#3461439)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

I'm neither hysterical or anything like your over active imagination may wish...shit..I'm even doing your homework FOR you...you expert, you!

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM (#3461440)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Ah, so you are in fact willing to accept the burden of proof for your own position. That is a start. Thanks.

But it is an opinion piece - an interview of an openly anti-gay (and not surprisingly devout Catholic) pyschiatrist.

No *proof* at all.

Get me something from the peer-reviewed literature, and I promise that I will read it.


04 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM (#3461443)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

TIA, Gladly.....but at this moment, time does not permit..because some musicians showed up...but I SHALL.
..and like I said, prior, I did not fully agree with the source..as you also noted.

Will be back.

GfS


04 Jan 13 - 06:59 PM (#3461455)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D

GfS... that link quotes an opinion of a contributor to the "Catholic Medical Association" (in 2003) It ends with suggestions about 'what good Catholics can do'

You got any corroborating stuff (with or without lots of red underlining) from recent, unbiased sources?


04 Jan 13 - 08:05 PM (#3461488)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Goofus, like I've been saying all along:
Evidence for homosexuality gene

Description/Abstract

A genetic analysis of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers has uncovered a region on the X chromosome that appears to contain a gene or genes for homosexuality. When analyzing the pedigrees of homosexual males, the researchers found evidence that the trait has a higher likelihood of being passed through maternal genes. This led them to search the X chromosome for genes predisposing to homosexuality. The researchers examined the X chromosomes of pairs of homosexual brothers for regions of DNA that most or all had in common. Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome. The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality. The chief researcher warns, however, that this one site cannot explain all instances of homosexuality, since there were some cases where the trait seemed to be passed paternally. And even among those brothers where there was no evidence that the trait was passed paternally, seven sets of brothers did not share the Xq28 markers. It seems likely that homosexuality arises from a variety of causes.

Author: Pool, R.
Publication Date:
1993 Jul 16

OSTI Identifier:
5957271
Resource Type: Journal Article

Journal Name: Science (Washington, D.C.); (United States); Journal Volume: 261:5119
Journal ID: ISSN 0036-8075; CODEN: SCIEAS

Subject:

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; BEHAVIOR; GENES; HUMAN X CHROMOSOME; GENETIC MAPPING; MALES; SEX; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CHROMOSOMES; HETEROCHROMOSOMES; HUMAN CHROMOSOMES; MAPPING; X CHROMOSOME

Date: 2009 Dec 17
Don Firth


04 Jan 13 - 08:47 PM (#3461506)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""I do not discriminate against Blacks, Women or Homosexuals, but I do stand against obviously stupid legislation."

It was clear from his previous statement that he was referring to criminal behaviour being rightly discriminated against.
""

Stupid in his opinion Keith, which makes it worthless as a statement of fact.

You really need to try to understand that Ake describing legislation as stupid says more about his agenda than about the legislation.

The above statement lines up very neatly with a plethora of similar statements along the lines of "I am not a .......... (choose among racist, misogynist, homophobe etc. etc.), but..........!"

Most such statements serve merely to emphasise that the speaker is precisely what he is claiming not to be.

Don T.


04 Jan 13 - 08:53 PM (#3461510)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

Having avoided taking the plunge of conventional heterosexual marriage thus far (and I'm 64 years old)....I haven't really gotten around to considering much the pros and cons of gay marriage. And I doubt that I will. I have no reason to.

As to whom one is attracted to, that's something each person figures out by themselves, going by their own instincts, and I place no judgement upon it. Not my business who you're attracted to. I doubt that it can all be explained through genes...maybe some of it can, but very likely not all of it.

It's probably partly genetic, partly cultural, partly familial, partly pschological, and so on, and so on...a VERY long and complex story! In past societies where homosexuality was deemed quite acceptable, there was a lot of it happening, and people took it for granted. It was very common, for instance, among the men in classical Greece, where men would often have both male and female lovers (or wives, in the latter case), and they were quite open about it.

It's a political football right now, which is why it's getting so much bla-bla all the time in the media. Politicians are using it to push their various agendas. It helps them keep the pot of controversy and self-righteous posturing (from either the pro or anti-gay perspective) boiling, and that's very useful when you are practicing the old "divide and conquer" game that politicians are so enamoured of.

I do sympathize with Gays who are facing discrimination. Certainly! But I feel that the politicians and media are (mostly) just cynically using the issue to push their own careers forward, and not to liberate people. It gives them a soapbox from which to holler.


04 Jan 13 - 08:58 PM (#3461512)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""He has said nothing against the gay community, merely pointing out the huge risks that MSMs run from infection.
He actually cares about them.
If STIs did not exist he would have no objection to same-sex marriage or anything else.
""

Watch out Keith.

Your sycophancy is preventing you from using your brain to any real effect.

The vast majority of STIs are found in the Hetero population, and if Ake's concern for health risks is genuine, he is strangely reticent about the health risks to that community.

No mate, Ake doesn't give a rat's arse about the health of Gay men. He'd like to see them locked away as they used to be.

Don T.


04 Jan 13 - 09:34 PM (#3461523)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

A point, Little Hawk. It's not the politicians who are pushing for gay marriage (most of them are terrified of taking a stand, particularly in favor because of their religious constituents), it's gay people themselves who are damned sick and tired of being discriminated against for something they can't help.

Not very different from being discriminated against because of the color of your skin or the shape of your eyes.

Because it has to do with sex, about which most humans have all kinds of hang-ups, fed to them mostly by religious fundamentalists and those who can't keep their noses out of other people's--businesses--for various reasons, these people are having wall-eyed fits at the idea, and resist the concept that it's a civil rights issue the same as racism.

Where it HAS been legalized or is generally accepted, there is no sign of societal breakdown or that the world is coming to an end.

It's an issue not too far removed from, say, interracial marriage. In some places, that STILL has a big "yuk" factor for some folks.

As long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights, who the hell's business is it anyway!??

Don Firth


04 Jan 13 - 10:07 PM (#3461537)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk

For sure. It's nobody's business except the partners directly involved. We never had any disagreement there in the first place, Don, so no need for the exclamation points. I didn't need any convincing about that.

I think some politicians are having an absolute field day with it, though. They salivate over the possibility of all the shit they can raise about it. They use it to get people righteously enraged at their political opponents and to apparently hold what their supporters think is the "moral high ground" and cast guilt upon all who don't take their particular side in the matter. This has worked well for both the Right and the Left, and they're not about to stop stirring the pot, because politics thrives on controversy and division.

Others, of course, are afraid to touch it. It depends on how risky they think it is in their particular case...and that may depend on what region they live in and who their most loyal supporters are.

As for Gays who are pressing for their own civil rights...fine...I sympathize with them and I have no problem about that whatsoever.


04 Jan 13 - 11:03 PM (#3461567)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Well, I followed the recent Washington State campaign pretty closely, largely because Barbara and I have a couple of friends who are gay and we know several other couples—and a member of one of these couples is a state legislator. He was involved in the campaign of course, as was another legislator he knew who was also gay. But other than these two, and a couple of fairly religious-type legislators who were opposed to the initiative, none of the local politicians wanted to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole.

I don't see this as an issue that politicians really care to turn into a football. At least, I can't name a national politician who hasn't shied away from it.

(Speaking of what a chicken thinks.)

Don Firth


05 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM (#3461584)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

LH:

"As for Gays who are pressing for their own civil rights...fine...I sympathize with them and I have no problem about that whatsoever."

So is there any logical reason to belittle those who support them?

Because (sorry) you did.


05 Jan 13 - 12:37 AM (#3461585)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Oh Fuck it.

Full disclosure.

Here is what you are up against:

My grandfather was gay (and a holy roller preacher with a hetero marriage but my grandmother knew everything).

My uncle (his son) is gay and in a long-term (37 year) monogamous relationship (now marriage).

My sister is lesbian and in a longterm (15 year) monogamous relationship.

I am totally hetero, and have never "promoted" any orientation, but...

Two out of my three daughters are lesbian and are either in monogamous relationships or not sexually active.

My niece is a non-sexually-active lesbian and flipping brilliant.

There has been no "indoctrination" in my family. The rest of us (a HUGE) family are hetero.

So fuck you to hell all of those who who say this is a "choice" or a "behavior" and compare my family to child molesters or sluts.

My daughters are more intelligent and more accomplished than you (or I) will ever be. But I will not trot out the degrees and international awards to prove it...you can just talk out your asses and make me laugh to refute this...everyone reading this knows at least one of my daughters' names and musical or scientific accomplishments - no shit, you really do. But you don't get to hear it from me. I am just sick of the bullshit.

In 13 years of reading and discussing in this pit, I know who gets it and who is an asshole.

And I get to live with my "deviant", "unhealthy", "mind-blocked", and oh horrors "liberal" family. Alas, poor me.

You bitter, ignorant, self-righteous homophobes can come at me all you want. I *know* who is happy and who is secretly scared and miserable.

But I (as Jesus would...though I cannot claim to be a Christian) love even you, and encourage you to eschew all denial and fear and loathing, and just be true...to others and yourself.

Peace and Good Night.


05 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM (#3461586)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Thanks for that, Tia.

That sums it up. Anything else on this subject is just meaningless noise.

Don Firth


05 Jan 13 - 02:14 AM (#3461594)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don T
Stupid in his opinion Keith, which makes it worthless as a statement of fact.
Clearly not intended as a statement of fact, but as no legislation specified you might be in agreement yourself.
Or are you stating that no legislation has ever been stupid?

Of course heteros get STIs but the risk of infection among MSMs is many times higher.
You have been given the reliable data showing that FACT Don.
Why do you keep taking us backwards?


05 Jan 13 - 06:43 AM (#3461629)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Of course heteros get STIs but the risk of infection among MSMs is many times higher.

And your solution for this is...?


Or is the fact you keep harping on about this more about your desire to demonise homosexuals?


05 Jan 13 - 07:09 AM (#3461633)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Akeneaton's statements about MSMs and STIs have been honest and accurate, and foolish to challenge.

I do not "keep harping on about this."
Don T raised it again and I just responded.

Ake is of the opinion that allowing same-sex marriage might encourage more into a very dangerous lifestyle.

I do not agree, but I can not prove it to be wrong.
It is a valid opinion, though open to challenge.
It is no reason to make accusations of homophobia or bigotry.
Why is the application of labels to your opponents so important to you?
Just debate the issues.


05 Jan 13 - 09:33 AM (#3461667)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

The issue is that there is a thread called gay marriage question. The only answer to a gay marriage question is "I do." There is no other answer.

So, we are left with homophobia Keith, pure and simple. You state Akenaton's data to be honest and accurate. You then say it would be foolish to challenge it. By saying what you did just there, you are either being foolish or perpetuating an awful disgusting set of lies.

Akenaton has just about enough intelligence to twist statistics, mix data from different countries, never mind different demographics (!) and draw conclusions to support his hatred of anybody who doesn't have a hernia or has more money than him. For some reason, he seems to focus this on gay people, and then only male ones. He says it promotes a dangerous lifestyle. Considering that marriage promotes monogamy, you still seem enough of an idiot to repeat his diatribe.

I don't take you seriously, so stop asking for the issues to be debated when your agenda seems to be as disreputable as his, and at least he admitted he hates gays. You wish to wrap it up in false data, mainly supporting his data. You want some data? Here you go! 1 + 1 = 5.7634.

Judging by your track record, you won't see the slight error.

Oh and Goofus. Just fuck off, there's a good chap.


05 Jan 13 - 09:47 AM (#3461675)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

The data is from impeccable sources and not open to interpretation.
I studied it myself during a discussion here two years ago.
You can produce nothing to discredit it because it is accepted fact.

You and I agree that we have no objection to gay marriage, but I am not so arrogant as to believe there is no alternative view except for homophobes.
You clearly have not bothered to even ask what are the objections to it.
(Ake is not at all representative of those who object. He is on his own.)
You have no idea what objections people have, but instead of finding out just assume mindless homophobia.

That is arrogant, ignorant prejudice Musket.


05 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM (#3461689)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge

I `ad that Sandy in my cab the other day. I picked `im up at `is little cottage in Chelsea.
`e said, "`Allo Jim, you alright then?"
I said, "Yeah Sandy, apart from a slight toothache. What can we do for you?"
`e said, "Oh Bless! Would you take me up to Shepherds Market, we`re `aving a conference to decide the `omosexual marriage question."
I said, "Blimey ,I dunno what for, I thought it `ad already been settled."
`e said, "What do yo mean?"
I said, "Surely the question is, DO YOU TAKE THIS MAN TO BE YOUR LAWFUL WEDDED `USBAND/WIFE,(Delete where required)!!"

Whaddam I Like??


05 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM (#3461733)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

S0o Don gets a wet dream, because he chases down the 'gene' number I posted..and makes a big deal over it. The gene you posted has the 5 markers(even though you were not as specific as I was...but what you posted, is common knowledge amongst those who know that stuff..so stop pretending you 'knew it all along'..or you would have posted it when I asked for the gene number. If you would have read much about what you are spouting, you would have also read that this gene has 5 markers, or an 'indication'..and is NOT the particular gene that determines anything. Yuo seem to take a little bit of info and blow it out of proportion and sensationalize it, as if to the less informed, it looks like you know jack shit about whatever bandwagon you jump on...speaking of bandwagons, stick to music..there you DO know something, but this stuff is really NOT your cup of tea, in the land of expertise..and you do more damage than you do giving help.
Fair enough?

TIA, Hello...I have to admire your 'full disclosure' post.
You and I have indeed butted heads in the past, however, my hats off to you, and I have to respect you in this matter for your honesty.
Unlike others, it is a pain in the ass to find solutions, for a lie.
I will try to shed light on the subject for you, the best I can.

First of all, you have (hopefully) read my posts on the 'receptor issue'...I don't know what you know about that, so I'll start with acquainting you with 'receptors'. This is a video that I thought was a great explanation for the 'lay person', who may not be familiar with them. It lays some of the understanding, as to why some people feel as if they 'were born that way'...and have mistakenly credited the 'genes issue' as the sole reason.
I really hope this may begin to help you to understand and/or cope, with questions you may have. It does not specifically address the homosexual issue, but DOES adequately get you acquainted with receptors and the roll they play.
I'm not sure of which segment..you'll have to watch them all, but the segment on receptors is well done, and you may find it fascinating, and enlightening....and you may begin to see the groundwork...that too many people overlook.
Regards...and happy viewing!

GfS


05 Jan 13 - 01:56 PM (#3461809)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Go on then Keith.

Spell out an alternative to equality. If you can I shall be happy to discuss it. But watch out, it may be something that promotes inequality.

In which case I might just dismiss it as disgusting bigotry.

It isn't rocket science. Opposing marriage based on the choice of gender of partner is bigotry.

You haven't collected a single statistic so stop lying. There are no medical statistics on gay marriage. None. Zilzt.

There are statistics on anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex but if you are linking that to gay marriage you have a particularly sick mind. Why the fascination with gay sex Keith? Plenty available on other web sites without you polluting Mudcat with your fixation.


05 Jan 13 - 02:36 PM (#3461830)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Goofus, you're an idiot!

Don Firth


05 Jan 13 - 04:53 PM (#3461877)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket, the debate about gay marriage has nothing to do with STIs or statistics or homophobia.
How can you pontificate about it without having any idea what the debate is even about?
Educate yourself and then come back.


05 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM (#3461891)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake's argument is that he is against gay marriage because gays don't really want to get married (not according to them) and that they're responsible for an epidemic of HIV/AIDs which (somehow!) will get worse if gay marriage is allowed.

GfS's argument is that sexual orientation is purely a matter of choice and to arbitrarily CHOOSE to be gay is "sexual perversion." And HE CLAIMS he can cure them through counseling and therapy (attempts along this line have proven to be an abysmal failure, sometimes leading to depression and suicide) .

Both of their arguments are far from the mark—and when presented with counterarguments, they, especially GfS, get insulting and abusive, amply demonstrating that they are fully aware that they're on very shaky ground.

Their arguments against gay marriage have EVERYTHING to do with homophobia.

And there are a number of pretty pathological reasons for THAT!

Don Firth


05 Jan 13 - 05:42 PM (#3461898)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Or are you stating that no legislation has ever been stupid?""

Nothing of te sort Keith. I'm stating that Ake's opinion doesn't make it stupid, when you put it alongside of his oft stated antipathy toward certain minorities.

Don T.


05 Jan 13 - 05:50 PM (#3461900)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Akeneaton's statements about MSMs and STIs have been honest and accurate, and foolish to challenge.""

If you ignore the contrary opinions of organisations like the HPA (whose publications you and Ake cherry pick like a couple of autumn squirrels).

STIs are rampant in the hetero population, but you have no problem with their marrying, or for that matter with their promiscuity.

You reserve all your horror antipathy and bile for Homosexuals.

I'd have rather more respect if you just came out and said "I can't stand the perverted so and sos". At least that would show the courage of your bigotted convictions.

Don T.

Don T.


05 Jan 13 - 05:55 PM (#3461902)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""You have no idea what objections people have, but instead of finding out just assume mindless homophobia.""

If you march in lockstep with a bigot and support all his bigotted utterances, what does that make you?

Simple question, but I expect either no answer or a slippery evasion, and in that department you never disappoint.

Don T.


05 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM (#3461908)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""here are statistics on anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex but if you are linking that to gay marriage you have a particularly sick mind.""

And not just sick! Stupid as well if you haven't noticed that anal sex is not the sole property of the homosexual community.

Heteros do it too. Quite a lot of them!

Don T.


05 Jan 13 - 06:32 PM (#3461918)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome. The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality."

Obviously the conclusion that "there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality." Is based, not on fact, but on the predisposition of the researchers (who are in all probability gay) to defend homosexual behaviour. A more reasonable conclusion would be that the practice of homosexual behaviour eventually changes the makeup of the chromosones. In the case of the remaining 7 sets of brothers, they had, in all probability, not yet engaged in enough homosexual behaviour to cause the observable changes.


05 Jan 13 - 06:41 PM (#3461922)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Heteros do it too. Quite a lot of them!
I am sure none of us knew that.
Thank you Don T.

If you march in lockstep with a bigot and support all his bigotted utterances, what does that make you?

I stated that I disagree with his views on gay marriage.
I support no bigoted utterances, but the statistics he produced were all from impeccable. reliable sources.

If you ignore the contrary opinions of organisations like the HPA (whose publications you and Ake cherry pick like a couple of autumn squirrels).
That is a simple lie Don.
The stats are unequivocal.
You say that STIs are rampant in heteros.
That is not a very scientific statement.
They are present in the hetero population but tens of times more prevalent among MSMs.
It is not fair or just, but that is how it is.


05 Jan 13 - 07:46 PM (#3461946)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Keith, I am beginning to think that they are quite mad.

Dons posts misrepresent everything we try to say, Ian spouts words like equality and discrimination in the manner of an old time evangelical preacher.....no attemped at objectivity

""Equality is the reality"".....laughable and at the same time so pathetic, the "right on" left wing liberal on the right wing fundamentalist pulpit!.....I am rather relieved that he seems to hate me so much.

I am sorry Tia about your disfunctional family, but emotive as your post may be, do you really think that it adds anything objective to the discussion?
Additionally, you may have found that it would have carried more impetus without the obscenities.

As always Little Hawk has things pretty well summed up....the whole issue is of course ramped up by politicians who know the power of the media, a fact which I am sorry to say Mr Farage may find,to his personal cost.

I do not hate homosexuals. I do not fear anyone...man beast or Deity!
Get that into your thick heads.

I work for homosexual customers, if I wished to discriminate I would do so through the withdrawal of my services.....which are in great demand in this area.

Male homosexuality appears to carry within it a propensity to very high promiscuity....due in my opinion to male sexuality without the braking system of the family structure and the nature of male homsexual practice. The word "marriage" does not cause men to become less promiscuous.
It is obviously stupid to bring forward legislation to promote sexual behaviour of MSM as safe and healthy, when within the demographic there lie such severe health problems.

Action needs to be taken immediately to stop the rise in all std infections especially hiv, amongs MSM.....to say that is a bigoted statement is cruel and disgusting.

It means that our "liberal" friends care more about their precious agenda, than the quality of life of mostly young male homosexuals.
Millions have been poured into "education" to no avail, according to CDC, homosexuals now account for the majority of the aids budget, but still they are unable or unwilling to regulate their behaviour.

The health agencies say that "other initiatives need to be instigated and brought to bear on the hiv problem in MSM".......code for a degree of compulsion.....not locking away Don.

In conclusion my stance is to irradicate the scourge of hiv/aids in our respective countries, and that wont happen if we say to our children...all is well within male homosexuality....it is just another of humanity's rich tapestry of sexual behaviour.

I also try to illustrate the hypocrisy of the political system and how it can make grown, reasonably intelligent, men and women, behave like 4th grade schoolchildren.


05 Jan 13 - 08:17 PM (#3461956)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Standard comeback is that Ake, GfS, et al are being misrepresented when their own words are thrown back at them.

Same old same old.

Don Firth


06 Jan 13 - 03:29 AM (#3462012)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don F, yesterday I highlighted an example of Ake's own words being selectively edited and thrown back.
It was done to justify labelling him.
Why do you try so hard to do that?
How does it forward the debate?

This thread was about the UK gay marriage debate.
My position was in favour, but that the deeply held convictions of opponents should be respected and given a fair hearing.
It emerged that the proponents here do not even know what the objections are, which really makes my point.

The causes of being gay are no part of the debate outside this thread.
I think that GFS is wrong, and that the accumulating evidence will eventually make his position untenable, but it is not yet proven.
Why does it make you angry?

STIs are not part of the debate outside this thread.
Ake's statements about it are factual, and the proof is in the stats.
If he were a homophobe he would be happy to see them die.
Instead he calls for interventions to save them; frequent testing and discouraging unsafe practises.
If my son was MSM, I would put exactly those pressures on him, not from homophobia but from love.


06 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM (#3462036)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Action needs to be taken immediately to stop the rise in all std infections especially hiv, amongs MSM.....to say that is a bigoted statement is cruel and disgusting.""

It is bigotted when you show no commensurate interest in stopping the rise in Chlamidia, Gonorhea and other STIs in heterosexual males and females.

Statistics are available for the steadily worsening situation both in transmission of those STIs and also the rise in HIV in the Heterosexual community, but you're not interested in that.

The HPA has been carrying out research into dealing with HIV/AIDS, and they have stated unequivocally that it has been reduced to the status of a chronic manageable condition with a near normal life expectancy.

That seems to be well on the road to what you originally stated as your aim, that HIV be taken seriously and action taken to reduce the effects.

Or was that original expression of concern for the health of the Gay community just a cover for your real agenda?

Tell us Ake, given that research has very considerably reduced the effects, precisely what action you are advocating.

Do you want them all locked up, or would castration suit you better?

Don T.


06 Jan 13 - 06:00 AM (#3462039)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

The health agencies say that "other initiatives need to be instigated and brought to bear on the hiv problem in MSM".......code for a degree of compulsion.....not locking away Don.

In conclusion my stance is to irradicate the scourge of hiv/aids in our respective countries, and that wont happen if we say to our children...all is well within male homosexuality....it is just another of humanity's rich tapestry of sexual behaviour.

Code in your somewhat less than reliable interpretation for a degree of compulsion.

Nowhere do they actually suggest that Gays be forced into celibacy. Perhaps they see Gay Marriage as a route to reducing promiscuity as hetero marriage does.

Don T.


06 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM (#3462043)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

This thread seems to me to have oddly lost its way long since. Monogamous permanent relationships for same-sex couples have been legally recognised for some years in the UK by the Civil Partnership Act of 2004. All of my several same-sex longstanding couple friends have availed themselves of it, and my late wife & I attended some pleasant parties to celebrate this. I can't see where statistics of the proclivity of persons of any particular orientation being more or less liable that others to contract certain diseases or disabilities, have any relevance to the question as to whether such relationships should now be permitted by our laws to introduce an element of religious vows into the formulation of the partnership & call it Marriage instead of Civil Partnership ~~ or even just to change the name Civil Partnership to Marriage, as with hetero couples who marry before the registrar rather than a minister of religion.

All these considerations being so vehemently debated here seem to me completely marginal to what the thread is really asking; and to be in any event way behind the fair, or locking the stable after the horse has bolted, or whatever other proverbial or idiomatic phrase for such considerings may take your fancy. There have, I repeat, been legally recognised same-sex partnerships for nearly 9 years now.

~M~


06 Jan 13 - 07:22 AM (#3462049)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

It is bigotted when you show no commensurate interest in stopping the rise in Chlamidia, Gonorhea and other STIs in heterosexual males and females.
No. The rate is many, many times less among heteros.
That is not bigoted. It is a fact that they are not "commensurate"

Statistics are available for the steadily worsening situation both in transmission of those STIs and also the rise in HIV in the Heterosexual community,

Only among other high risk groups.
In the general population the increase is much slower, so the huge gap is actually widening.


06 Jan 13 - 08:30 AM (#3462064)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Oh, well: I did my best. If they would rather go on bandying irrelevant statistics about STIs, the nature and accuracy of which they are never going to agree about, instead of trying to address the actual thread question and postulate what difference it would make to anybody except the principals concerned in the transaction, whether a Civil Partnership, after 9 years of legal recognition, was called a Marriage, or whether any religious component should be therein admitted, I have done.

And I hope it keeps fine for them.

~M~


06 Jan 13 - 08:37 AM (#3462065)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

akenaton,

My point was that I am sick of people denigrating my loving, cohesive, and HIGHLY accomplished family.

Yet your take-away was "dysfunctional".

You surely do fear and loathe homosexual, and I can only imagine what happened in your life to make you such a bitter hateful person. Sadly you will probably struggle through a miserable life and take it to your grave. A little honesty (even sprinkled with obscenities) would probably change what is left of your life immensely for the better.

After getting it all off my chest, I feel much better, and have nothing but deep pity for you.


06 Jan 13 - 09:41 AM (#3462086)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

MtheGM, I have made the same point as you about the irrelevance of STIs and stats. to this debate.
However, when someone makes an error of fact and I can help to clarify, I do.


06 Jan 13 - 10:17 AM (#3462098)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Dysfunctional?

Akenaton you disgusting specimen.

Oh. On other matters. Keith, don't go around applauding Akenaton's false and misleading statistics and then start spouting the obvious bit about gay marriage not being about STDs. Some of us have been stating that consistently rather than just when we are made to look idiots. Are you still supporting him after his latest contribution?


06 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM (#3462130)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Nicely put, Michael. I understand fully Don's desire to not let things go in this thread, which would mean leaving it looking as though Mudcat is a homophobic forum. I'm of similar mind myself, but I'm flagging in the face of all the prejudice, the thinly-veiled demonisation and the downright homophobia. The most recent post of Akenaton's is the most depressing thing I've read here in a long time. What a sad bloke he must be.


06 Jan 13 - 12:03 PM (#3462136)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"Equality is the reality"........"God is the light and the way"

Spot the difference :0)

There is no God and there is no equality under this system, even with a new way of life, there would be no such thing as "equality"; we are all different and would have different contributions to make.
Unfortunately within this particular system our value to society is weighed against our earning ability.
We are what we earn.    Go spout your equality speal to the unemployed young people who have been denied any fulfillment....their lives over before they have even begun...by this wonderful egalitarian system.


06 Jan 13 - 12:29 PM (#3462148)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Ake ~~ I feel bound to say that you seem to me to have lost any sort of cred you might ever have had [if any] in re this thread and others of a like topic, in using of Tia's interestingly described and obviously interestingly and varyingly peopled family, the word 'dysfunctional'. What on earth, unless you really are beyond any sort of intellectual or moral redemption in this particular, could you possibly have meant by such an epithet?

~M~


06 Jan 13 - 01:15 PM (#3462180)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Mmm there is no god and there is no equality.

So by saying equality is difficult to achieve we shouldn't try?

A bit like saying we can't so shouldn't fight crime or get trains to run on time. Why bother having an Internet or providing power to homes. Health doesn't work cos we all die anyway.

You'll be saying next that we can't treat people as equals if they don't want the same lovers as you.

Oh   you just did.


Anybody going to defend his stance? Or can the thread either close or start looking at the issues surrounding gay marriage for once?


06 Jan 13 - 01:36 PM (#3462191)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Akenaton's false and misleading statistics

All from impeccable sources, but put up a false one and prove me wrong if you can.

I have always regarded the STI argument as irrelevant to this debate, only responding to false claims.


06 Jan 13 - 01:58 PM (#3462199)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,grumpy

Akenaton wrote - 'Male homosexuality appears to carry within it a propensity to very high promiscuity....due in my opinion to male sexuality without the braking system of the family structure and the nature of male homosexual practice.'

1) As a male homosexual I utterly reject your assertion that homosexuality and promiscuity are intimately entwined. There are serial shaggers of every persuasion. Why single out male gays?

2) I've no ideas what you mean by a 'braking system' or 'the nature of male homosexual practice'. What is specific about my sexual practices which makes me so vulnerable to promiscuity? You don't know me and you've probably never discussed gay relationships with anybody but your imaginary friend.

I come from a very strong, loving and cohesive family background. My parents fully support my choice of sexual identity and have a very good relationship with my partner of twenty years standing.

Akenaton, if nobody's said this to you before, you're a fucking ignoramus of the highest order. I hope you enjoy sleeping in the cess-pit at night.


06 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM (#3462230)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Don F, yesterday I highlighted an example of Ake's own words being selectively edited and thrown back.
It was done to justify labelling him.
Why do you try so hard to do that?
How does it forward the debate?

This thread was about the UK gay marriage debate
.

All right, Keith, where exactly did I do that?

And furthermore, since when was this thread exclusively about the UK marriage debate? This debate has been going on for a number of years now in the United States, with a very long thread after the California Proposition 8 debacle, and it was an issue in the recent election, in which gay marriage was legalized in the State of Washington, where I live. It is NOT an exclusively UK issue!

Ake's ceaseless quoting of HIV/AIDs statistics is irrelevant within the context of same-sex marriage, yet he insists on cluttering up threads on this subject with endless quotations thereof. Along with his insistence that gay men don't WANT stable relationships, when THEY say otherwise, and proceed to prove what they say by the number of marriage ceremonies that take place in localities where it has recently become legalized. Ake contradicts himself and ignores facts.

To me, this smells a lot more of homophobia than it does of genuine concern for the people involved.

And as to GfS, he also makes flat statements about sexual orientation that are based more on historical superstition than recent genetic and brain research, which STRONGLY INDICATES that genetic components determine sexual orientation. Since he claims to be a family counselor who can "cure homosexuality," I can see why he objects to the idea that homosexuality is most probably genetic and cannot be "cured."
(He also claims to be a screen writer and composer of film scores, but I find no evidence of this on the Internet Movie DataBase.)

WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE SO INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHERS DO IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES WHEN IT—IN NO WAY—AFFECTS THEM?

Don Firth


06 Jan 13 - 03:32 PM (#3462255)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

I would agree M that Tia's family certainly sound "interesting" in an educational sense.

Tia's family are far removed from the template of family structure that is the norm in my part of the world.
Most people here live conventional lives.

I still dont see what Tia's personal family arrangements have to do with this discussion, "interesting" as they may be?

Sorry though, that you dont find my stance credible, but you cant please everyone....I shan't sleep tonight over it.


06 Jan 13 - 03:50 PM (#3462261)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Ian.....Dont put words in my mouth, what I AM saying is that the whole pro homosexual "marriage" argument is based on one thing..."equality", nothing else. Equality like faith cannot be quantified, in means different things to different people.

The fact that you ignore the massive inequalities inherent in this social and economic system and concentrate instead on the marriage rights of a tiny sexual minority.....who already have all the legal rights through Civil Union, would lead most people to think that your argument is agenda driven.

If homosexuals are so keen on the word marriage, why dont they start their own homosexual church..... a club where they can write their own rules?


06 Jan 13 - 03:51 PM (#3462263)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don F.
All right, Keith, where exactly did I do that?
Have you not ascribed certain posts to character defects (homophobe, bigot) in the poster?
Why?
Why not just challenge the post?

This thread was revived when the issue was raised by Cameron.
I know nothing about the situation in US.

I agree that STI stats are irrelevant.
Ake alone bases his objection on them, but his stats are good.
Why do you all keep challenging them so that it has taken over the thread?


06 Jan 13 - 04:26 PM (#3462277)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Because, among other things, his constant citing of statistics is--as you say--irrelevant. Yet, he keeps insisting that it is, somehow, an argument against same-sex marriage when, if one thinks at all, it is an argument for.

This whole vociferous anti-same-sex marriage thing IS rooted in homophobiaa and bigotry.

Don Firth


06 Jan 13 - 04:34 PM (#3462279)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

"Akenaton, if nobody's said this to you before, you're a fucking ignoramus of the highest order. I hope you enjoy sleeping in the cess-pit at night."

Yes many have said that, or something like it on this forum, but they usually have the balls to use their Mudcat names.

You are a coward my imaginary friend!


06 Jan 13 - 04:39 PM (#3462282)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don the bullshitter Froth: "And as to GfS, he also makes flat statements about sexual orientation that are based more on historical superstition than recent genetic and brain research, which STRONGLY INDICATES that genetic components determine sexual orientation. Since he claims to be a family counselor who can "cure homosexuality," I can see why he objects to the idea that homosexuality is most probably genetic and cannot be "cured."

Let's look at this again....

Don: "And as to GfS, he also makes flat statements about sexual orientation that are based more on historical superstition than recent genetic and brain research,...)"

FALSE !!!

Don: "...which STRONGLY INDICATES that genetic components determine sexual orientation."

'Strongly indicates'...is not a FACT...it is an INDICATION!..shit I even posted the name of the genetic marker...something YOU could NOT do!

Don: "Since he claims to be a family counselor who can "cure homosexuality,"

FALSE, AGAIN!!...I did NOT make the claim that > 'I' < could 'cure homosexuality..however, I did say that homosexuals who would want counseling, should NOT be denied therapy...(something that 'caring' ideologues seem to want to deny them!!!!!)

Don: "I can see why he objects to the idea that homosexuality is most probably genetic and cannot be "cured."

Most probably?????????????????...Is that become a 'fact, now..because of "PROBABLY"??????????????

Frotho: "WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE SO INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHERS DO IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES WHEN IT—IN NO WAY—AFFECTS THEM?"

What they do in their own do in their privacy is their business...What they try to alter in the political system, or re-defining marriage, becomes anyone's business!

Don the bullshitter: "Well, I followed the recent Washington State campaign pretty closely, largely because Barbara and I have a couple of friends who are gay and we know several other couples—and a member of one of these couples is a state legislator. He was involved in the campaign of course, as was another legislator he knew who was also gay."

See the above note on politics....and BTW, your 'friend who is a homosexual state legislator, puts you objectivity highly in question. ....any thing else you want to say, as so far as your relationship with him?????..Remember, in science and related field OBJECTIVITY is a key component!!!

Don: "But other than these two, and a couple of fairly religious-type legislators who were opposed to the initiative, none of the local politicians wanted to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole."

Fairly religious?????....'Fairly'???...what do you do with this quote?: "New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."-Revelations 3:16

Don: "I don't see this as an issue that politicians really care to turn into a football. At least, I can't name a national politician who hasn't shied away from it."

Well why don you follow the example of you political idols..you bullshit WAY TOO MUCH!

Let me ask you a question....Would you rather a program for the government to issue entitlement wheel chairs to polio victims...or caring people in the medical field to provide a retro active cure??
....now be consistent, here.

..and stop lying!

GfS


06 Jan 13 - 04:58 PM (#3462287)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Goofus, you are complete divorced from reality and apparently you can't read.

A hysterical, spittle-spraying lunatic. You can't even keep your own lies straight!

Over and OUT!

Don Firth


06 Jan 13 - 04:59 PM (#3462288)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""That is not bigoted. It is a fact that they are not "commensurate"""

You know damn well, you slippery liar, that "commensurate" referred to your complete lack of interest in any other risk than that of the group you choose as a target for your bias, and not to the degree of risk in the grouoings.

Don T.


06 Jan 13 - 05:06 PM (#3462292)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""MtheGM, I have made the same point as you about the irrelevance of STIs and stats. to this debate.
However, when someone makes an error of fact and I can help to clarify, I do.
""

One down and one to go.

At last a measure of success, with Keith at long last admitting that the pretence of concern about health risks was just that, a pretence of interest in an irrelevance to cover the real bias beneath.

TIA, Ake is only happy when he's miserable!

Don T.


06 Jan 13 - 05:13 PM (#3462297)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

We in the UK used to have a TV comedy called "The Two Ronnies."
"The Two Dons" would make a fine series.....similar to the "Teletubbies" I think.

You really are pathetic.


06 Jan 13 - 05:20 PM (#3462300)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don T.
"commensurate" referred to your complete lack of interest in any other risk than that of the group you choose as a target for your bias, and not to the degree of risk in the grouoings.

It is the degree of risk that is significant Don.
The general population has a negligible risk compared to MSMs.

pretence of concern about health risks was just that, a pretence of interest in an irrelevance to cover the real bias beneath.
No pretence Don.
I believe Ake really does care.
It is also his objection to gay marriage, but not one anyone else happens to share.


06 Jan 13 - 05:29 PM (#3462306)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Firth : "Over and OUT!"

Just your lies and misstatements ......THANK GOD!

..and your last post did NOT include anything of substance(again)..just your usual spewing and frothing of attempting to discredit.....and you HAVE been called on it REPEATEDLY...perhaps some therapy for that??..THAT IS treatable!!!

GfS


06 Jan 13 - 05:54 PM (#3462320)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

I would agree M that Tia's family certainly sound "interesting" in an educational sense.
Tia's family are far removed from the template of family structure that is the norm in my part of the world.
Most people here live conventional lives.

.,,.
What most people may or may not do do is beside the point, which is that you denounced the family in question as 'dysfunctional'. You had no grounds to use this word. I made it entirely clear that it was your use of this word to which I was taking exception; a point which your supposed response to me has evaded entirely.

~M~


06 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM (#3462329)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Akenaton says all I am interested in is equality.

This being a thread about equality. ..

He says gay people should get their own church. Why? Religious gay people already have churches? ? same as any other church goer.

In case anyone is confused. I call myself Musket on this site but he refers to me as Ian for some reason. By a coincidence it happens to be my name.

Keith in the meantime seems to disagree with Akenaton and quoting STD subjective data but bizarrely supports the data as being true. Are they fuck. If The NHS used such figures to plan care millions would be wasted that luckily is used appropriately with encouraging redukts. Especially in the sad growth area of teenage girls.


06 Jan 13 - 06:11 PM (#3462331)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Would you rather a program for the government to issue entitlement wheel chairs to polio victims...or caring people in the medical field to provide a retro active cure??

Not in any way comparable.

GoofuS, if you think you can get to me by dragging in a reference to the fact that I had polio when I was two-years-old and currently need to use a wheelchair to get around, then you are a lower form of protozoan than I thought even YOU were capable of.

I have worked my whole life, mostly as a singer of traditional folk songs and ballads and as a music teacher, but also as an engineering illustrator for the Boeing company, a radio announcer and newscaster, I clerked in a music store for a short period of time, and I worked for the Bonneville Power Administration as a technical writer. I have also written—and had published—about thirty magazine articles.

I spent six years at the University of Washington taking a whole variety of subjects, but mostly Music and English Literature. Included were courses in Philosophy, Psychology, Political Science, and Astronomy. I also spent two years at the Cornish College of the Arts, studying Music intensively.

And I PAID for it all myself.

I hauled myself all over two campuses and to and from various jobs walking on a pair of aluminum forearm crutches. I also walked out on stage on a pair of crutches, having put my guitar on stage ahead of time, sitting on a stand beside a chair.

I've been told that a few people who had heard of me were surprised to see me using crutches, because no one had considered it important enough to mention, but they thought no more about it once I started singing. After all, internationally known concert violinist Itshak Perlman also walks on stage on crutches, much as I did.

When my shoulders simply wore out some twenty-three years ago, I had to take to a wheelchair. I bought the wheelchair—and a couple of wheelchairs since then (they don't last forever)—with my own money, even though I qualify for Medicare. And Medicare does pay something for what they refer to as "durable medical equipment."

So if you're trying to imply that, because I have had polio and currently use a wheelchair to get around, I'm living off the system, then first, let it be known that I am NOT. I have always earned my own living and paid my own way.

And second—that makes you a slimier piece of offal than I even believed was possible.

And it has nothing whatever to do with this discussion, so why did you even bring it up!??

Don Firth


07 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM (#3462458)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

..As a point of reference as to someone providing symptomatic 'relief' as opposed to SOLVING the problem from the root!

Jeez, you'd think it was obvious...except to the devious.

Don't be offended..it was a thoughtful question....you know, thoughtful?

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 12:11 AM (#3462459)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

MtheGM, I too agree..TIA's post was indeed interesting...and I applaud her for her question. I'm sorta waiting for her response to the video link. I hope the pests don't divert the thread away, for this could be far more constructive than someone interjecting the political angles and agendas.
When someone calls for help, I don't think they really need or could use another campaign speech.

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM (#3462467)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket.
Keith in the meantime seems to disagree with Akenaton and quoting STD subjective data but bizarrely supports the data as being true.
The data is good and is used by NHS.
It was from HPA.
Which are you disputing?


07 Jan 13 - 02:40 AM (#3462476)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Unfortunately for liars such as Akenaton I use HPA data as part of the work I am involved in, , working for a health regulator.

Hence I stand by my stance. If anybody wishes to debate public health statistics and the epidemiology of what that entails I would happily contribute to the relevant thread.

But sadly I won't engage with distortion or misrepresentation. Reality is bad enough without abusing real life issues in order to convince people of a view that reflects the mental state of the poster rather than the situation we face.

There is still an issue and a huge one at that with STDs and complacency is not the answer. Neither is dissuading marriage. ..


07 Jan 13 - 02:57 AM (#3462479)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

He quoted HPS stats.
They are there for all to see and you clearly accept HPA as a reliable source.
So what is you objection?
Show us some false data or doctored stats.

I say that you can not, and wonder why why pretend you can.


07 Jan 13 - 03:16 AM (#3462482)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

HPA - Men who have Sex with Men (MSM)www.hpa.org.uk › ... › HIV and STIs › HIV/STIs Prevention groupsCached - Similar

23 Oct 2012 – MSM remain at greatest risk of acquiring HIV infection within the UK with no evidence of declining infections in this group. STIs in MSM 2011 ...
HPA - MSM HIV Datawww.hpa.org.uk/.../HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb.../120392...Cached - Similar

23 Oct 2012 – HIV Data for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) ... MSM HIV Data. Tables and Graphs. Accessing HIV care: Men who have sex with men 2011 ...
HPA - Largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses in MSMwww.hpa.org.uk › ... › Infections A-Z › HIV › New HIV DiagnosesCached

25 Mar 2011 – Largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses in MSM ... sex between men ( MSM) (data adjusted for undetermined risk) [see Figure].
HPA - HIV and sexually transmitted infectionswww.hpa.org.uk › Home › Publications › Infectious diseasesCached - Similar

Reports about diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of HIV and STIs (syphilis, LGV, ... Men who have ex with men (MSM) are a group at increased risk of specific ...
[PDF]
Sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men in the ...www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131685989

2 Nov 2011 – This report from the Health Protection Agency summarises and .... HIV negative MSM it carries the risk of HIV transmission (as a quarter of HIV ...
[PDF]
MSM slide set: 2011 - Health Protection Agencywww.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131687416

Late diagnoses of HIV among MSM: United Kingdom,. 2001 - 2010. 0%. 10% ... A late diagnosis increased the risk of dying within a year. 10-fold compared to ...
HPA welcomes national HIV testing week as new data show quarter ...www.hpa.org.uk › ... › National Press Releases › 2012 Press ReleasesCached

29 Nov 2012 – New diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) reached ... The black African community also remained at higher HIV risk in 2011 ...
HPA - HIV/STIs Prevention groupswww.hpa.org.uk › ... › Infections A-Z › HIV and STIsCached - Similar

There are population groups at particular risk of acquiring HIV and STIs. Here we ... MSM image, courtesy shutterstock. Men who have sex with men (MSM) ...
BBC News - Highest-ever HIV diagnoses in gay menwww.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380Cached

29 Nov 2012 – Overall, one in 20 MSM are infected with HIV. Of those diagnosed in 2011, nearly two-thirds ... BBC Health: HIV and Aids. The HPA said the figures showed there was "room for improvement" in testing people in at-risk groups.


07 Jan 13 - 04:43 AM (#3462496)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Tia.....On reflection,I think an apology to you is in order.

Dysfunctional was a bad choice of words and comes across as rather crass, perhaps slightly unconventional would be a better description.

I seem to make a habit of putting my foot in it when in discussion with you.   Sincere apologies....A


07 Jan 13 - 05:05 AM (#3462505)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion

Keith ~ You have already agreed with me that all this is irrelevant to the topic of the thread; so why go on boring us all into comas proving someone else has got the figures wrong if you agree they don't relate to the subject anyhow?

~M~


07 Jan 13 - 05:12 AM (#3462508)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""You really are pathetic.""

In your opinion, which is worth zilch in the light of your many prejudices.

You are a sad and miserable being and seem to be determined to drag everybody else down to your level.

Enjoy your distaste for your fellow man, but I for one am not inclined to join you.

You may now return to your cave and mumble into your beard about the iniquity of a world which stubbornly refuses to reflect your bigotry.

Don T.


07 Jan 13 - 08:33 AM (#3462576)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Why cite all that data Keith? I accept every last bit of it. Never said I hadn't.

I did say that the data has been twisted to substantiate prejudice and bigotry. Before trying to reason with people who, dare I say, understand data analysis, may I suggest that

a) You learn the difference between raw data and conclusions gleaned from raw data.

b) You look up the word "context" in a dictionary. It may surprise you.

c) Try to understand that accurate data can be false data when used subjectively.



Akenaton. What is "unconventional" about love? When it comes to digging your grave with your gob, you set the mark for others to follow. Well done.


07 Jan 13 - 09:52 AM (#3462617)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I did say that the data has been twisted to substantiate prejudice and bigotry

I say not.
Please give an example to prove me wrong.


07 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM (#3462634)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Do something complicated if you think you are capable.

Scroll up and wherever you see a post with the blue word Akenaton at the side of it, you will find all the twisting you like.

if you are saying Akenaton has not used HPA figures to substantiate his aversion to gay people being married, you are blind, a fool or both.

There is a third option but for now, I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt.


07 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM (#3462639)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

I have read all his posts.
No twisting.

if you are saying Akenaton has not used HPA figures to substantiate his aversion to gay people being married, you are blind, a fool or both.

I am saying that.
He produced the figures to support his view that MSM lifestyle is too dangerous to allow gay marriage.
I do not agree with his conclusion but the facts are facts.
They do not substantiate any aversion.


07 Jan 13 - 11:25 AM (#3462664)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Musket: "Akenaton. What is "unconventional" about love?"

It's about sex, Einstein.

People can love each other all they want...you don't get STDs or HIV/AIDS from it, The risk is higher when in includes sex.

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 11:29 AM (#3462666)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

"They do not substantiate any aversion"

Do you want me or anyone else for that matter to comment on that?

If MSM lifestyle is dangerous, just like man on woman for that matter, as more STDs are through heterosexual sex, then....   See? Playing with figures is best left to the grown ups.

Ok, just for you. Either you are in agreement with me or not. You just said that you do not agree with his conclusions. Yet you say he produced figures to support his view? Are you sure Nigel hasn't offered you a safe "might not lose your deposit? You are doing a credible attempt at speaking like a politician.

Once more; How can the figures support his view if, like the human race, you don't support his conclusions? If you don't agree with his conclusions, how can his view be supported?

Make your mind up. At present, you have gone from supporting homophobia to saying homophobes have the right to be heard. I doubt you will ever say Gay people should be equal in law, that would be too much. Any opportunity to have a pop at the government and to hell with who is demonised by it. Well I've got news for you. We are part of Europe and we have courts to strike down human rights violations, and the Prime Minister knows this, hence he can propose the most stupid laws, in the knowledge the first challenge will strike them down and he won't be to blame.

We need human rights laws whilst ever dangerous idiots want to make second class citizens.

Tell you what. I have figures that prove putting copper treatments in fish tanks with crustaceans can cause them harm. Strong irrefutable facts. As a result, I would like to use that fact to prevent ginger people getting served at the bar before me. That is the level of the fool you are supporting.


07 Jan 13 - 11:41 AM (#3462673)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

How can the figures support his view if, like the human race, you don't support his conclusions?

The figures are true.
MSMs are at great risk from HIV, and many times greater risk than the general population.
Ake was right about that.

I know those facts to be true but I am in favour of gay marriage.
I do not believe the danger is a reason not to allow gay marriage, he does.
A difference of opinion.
I would challenge and deate the issue with him, but I see no reason to call him names just because he has a different opinion to me.
Why do you?


07 Jan 13 - 11:42 AM (#3462675)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Musket: "Make your mind up. At present, you have gone from supporting homophobia to saying homophobes have the right to be heard."

EVERYONE SHOULD have the 'right' to be heard...it is in the 'shutting up' of either side, that stifles accurate information getting out, that leads to the truth. Perhaps some of you should LISTEN, and CONSIDER what the 'opposite side' says....instead of accusing them of ANY form of hate..just because it SOUNDS repulsive.
...and THAT goes for a lot more than just the homosexual, reproductively impaired issue.

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 12:21 PM (#3462696)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Hi Goofus!

Woof Woof Woof Woof!

And I would like to echo those sentiments. Thanks for joining in the debate. You see, I love a good laugh and I don't think Akenaton has anything to laugh at and Keith seems too confused to make a stance of his own. At least with you, the good Prof. and I can have a chuckle, can't we boy?

Woof!



Keith. I do not have to respect opinions. Full stop. Neither does anyone else. I have no respect for pogroms, for fascism, for Sheffield United, for religious hatred, for celery or for intolerance masquerading as a view. it is lack of respect and not accommodating bigotry that allows civilisation to work towards a fairer society for all.

If I had a view that everybody who supports Sheffield United should be banned from public places till they seek help, would that view be respected? Sadly not. And quite rightly too. If someone with a pub found an old "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" sign, would we have to respect their right to display it?

Respect the respectable.


07 Jan 13 - 12:44 PM (#3462706)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

..and it is up to you, to decide who should or shouldn't be heard...according to YOUR views????..I'm afraid not.....because someone with OTHER views might want to broaden your outlook....and they may, or may not be right...but then you may never know...unless you hear them!

GfS

P.S. your 'woofing' is so immature, who would want to care what you have to say. let's keep it intelligible.


07 Jan 13 - 01:34 PM (#3462730)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sanity is perfectly correct, this issue is about sexual behaviour not "love".....we all love people of both sexes whom we would never imagine having sexual relations with.

This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex......and in my opinion, the straight and accurate figures that I quote on male homosexual health, have a great bearing on the issue.
Keith disagrees but remains civil....you "liberals" should read and learn.
Whilst on the subject, you would be better informed if you took the time to read James Baldwins great novel, "Another Country", which gives a harrowing depiction of male to male sex.
Baldwin maintains that it is generally an incessant search for cold anonymous sex combined with the thrill of risk taking, more of an addiction than a sexual orientation.

At the time I read the book, I thought Baldwin(a practicing homosexual)....to be a brave and insightful human being.


07 Jan 13 - 02:18 PM (#3462750)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

". . . symptomatic 'relief' as opposed to SOLVING the problem. . . ."

GfS, same-sex orientation is not a "symptom." And it is not a "problem," except when other people—who can't mind their own business—make it so.

And all indications are that the only way same-sex orientation can be "solved," i.e., eliminated, is through genetic engineering, and that would entail a major scientific project to "solve" a problem that not everyone agrees IS a problem. And even if successful, it would not help those already living who are homosexual.

And as to homosexuality not being "normal," it exists in the animal kingdom, so although it is not a primary sort of behavior, one cannot say that it isn't natural.

I am not a practitioner thereof. I am heterosexual. I always have been, and do not recall a time when I was ever given a choice in the matter. And I have been married—to a woman of infinite resource and sagacity—for thirty-five years as of this recent December. But we have a number of gay acquaintances, including one couple—two men—who have been living together, happily and monogamously, for several years. They are often guests in our home on holidays and one of them is a member of our writers' group.

If I react strongly to prejudice and negative propaganda about people such as these, it is the same as if Barbara and I had a couple of black friends—and certain people went around denigrating them for their "blackness" and claiming that they can "cure" their "condition."

THEY don't find it a problem. Except when other people MAKE it so!

Don Firth


07 Jan 13 - 02:24 PM (#3462752)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Goofus, it is by listening to other outlooks that I decide whether to hear them or not, according, as you say, to my views. So yes, your first statement is correct, I decide who should be heard or not. I can't stop them speaking, but I can decide whether to listen or not, or whether having listened to treat them with sheer contempt or buy them a pint.

if you still think that encouraging Akenaton is a good idea, take, as a random sample, his last post, above. He cites a book, "Another country" as showing male to male sex as harrowing. Presumably similar to any book on rape that shows male on female sex to be harrowing too. He thinks that mentioning one person's experience of using gay sex as a thrilling risk taking experience, it has something to do with inflicting his warped view on those wishing for monogamous marriage. I still fail to see the link but as you and Keith say, he has the right to his soap box. Pity that any gay person reading it may feel crushed and dismayed that in the 21st century, people can still hate on the basis of stereotyping them, but there you go. He has the right to upset people it would seem. (He managed it with knobs on a bit earlier thinking about it. He even had to resort to a grovelling second insult.)

And if you want to keep it intelligible, you are the one who appears barking, not the good Prof.


07 Jan 13 - 02:56 PM (#3462763)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket.
Keith. I do not have to respect opinions. Full stop. Neither does anyone else.
Agreed.

I have no respect for pogroms, for fascism, for Sheffield United, for religious hatred, for celery or for intolerance masquerading as a view.
Me neither, nor for anyone who defends such things.(except celery)

You can not disagree with Ake about statistics.
They are true.
We can both disagree with him about same-sex marriage, but it is quite wrong to infer from his opinion that he is a bigot or a homophobe.
There are many good people who think it wrong who are neither.


07 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM (#3462766)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don, (and I'll remain 'civil' for this one)...Ask your friends if in the course of their lives, if they had ever wanted, or thought that they(either one or the other) ever considered having their own children..but thought they couldn't because of their sexual 'orientation'.
I have asked that to a fried of mine, who was homosexual(now deceased, due to AIDS), and it DID hit a nerve. We were close enough that he could confide in me, knowing I wasn't going to ostracize him.
Tears swelled in his eyes, but he thought he couldn't.

So maybe YOU don't see it as a problem..but he certainly did!

It's NOT a political problem..it's a medical/psychological issue, that politicians have accentuated, trying to model it after the civil rights issues of the '60's.

You may not believe that...but then not many people believe you, either.

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 03:45 PM (#3462788)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex."

Are you sure about that? I feel you may be missing half the picture.

"Baldwin maintains that it is generally an incessant search for cold anonymous sex combined with the thrill of risk taking, more of an addiction than a sexual orientation."

Do you not realize that committed marriage is the antithesis to all of that?


07 Jan 13 - 03:58 PM (#3462796)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

..and do you also realize that 'marriage' may not solve that problem..whether it be homosexual or hetero??

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 04:43 PM (#3462823)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Yes Jack, I realise that, but unfortunately the stats say that homosexual unions are a rarity amongst young MSM and on average last only about 1.5 yrs.

I honestly dont believe sexually active young homosexuals want committment.....probably most young heteros dont either, but around their mid twenties they wish to start a family......the braking system which does not apply to homos....and which is so hard for our "invisible friend" Ian to comprehend.

In my view...and it is only a view, the drivers of the gay "marriage" issue are not homosexuals, who have other problems to address, but centre "liberals" with a chip non their shoulders.

Whether they like to admit it or not, "family" is an important constituent in most marriages


07 Jan 13 - 05:02 PM (#3462828)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

I am pretty sure that the "drivers of gay marriage" are gays who want to marry. Liberal is not a dirty word. In this case it means people who want others to have the same rights as themselves.

Lets turn the question around. Since you say that is the danger of gay male sex, do you have any objection to female gay marriage?


07 Jan 13 - 05:10 PM (#3462833)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

As to matters of choice and children:

One of the two people I mentioned, the one who is in our writers' group, was married—to a woman—for several years. And after that time, he knew that he had made a mistake. Essentially, he "came out of the closet" to himself. The two divorce amicably—mutual agreement. He soon met the fellow he is with now and they have been happy ever since.

Granted, this was a decision. But what is at issue here is what prompted him to make the decision; his own inner yearnings, which no decision could change. He loved the woman—as a friend (and they have remained friends)—but his love for the man he joined up with was of a whole different magnitude and quality. This, he knew, was right.

As far as I know, these two do not have any desire for children.

But Barbara and I know another couple. We all go to the same church, and they were, in fact married in that church several years ago—even though, at the time, the State of Washington did not recognize same-sex marriage (which it does now, after our recent election). They wanted the public announcement, before their friends and family, that THEY consider themselves to be a married couple. They had the support of the church and its congregation, incidentally.

Since that time, they have adopted two infant boys from a Chinese orphanage. The boys have grown quite a bit since then, and the older of the two is now an acolyte in the church. They are just a couple of normal kids. They refer to their parents as "Daddy" and "Papa." And see nothing unusual in this.

Now of course there are those who will have a hissy-fit over two gay men raising two boys, with the predigested sick assumption that they only did so because they want to raise them as homosexuals, and are sexually abusing them. But there are no indications of this. The two men are NOT pedophiles, and are giving the kids a good upbringing.

And they will have a far better life than if they were left to languish in a Chinese orphanage! And, incidentally, the older of the two boys is entering adolescence and is showing a considerable interest in girls.

We also know a same-sex couple who went through a marriage ceremony at the same church who have children. Of their own! Boy, do they have children!! They hired a surrogate mother. She was artificially inseminated by one of the men, and produced a fine baby boy. Then, she was artificially inseminated by the other man and—Holy Cow!!—TRIPLETS!!

It's a real snort to see this family in church on Sundays. Two slightly harried (but happy) guys and four little crumb-crunching curtain climbers. Like herding cats!

By the way, this is NOT a "gay church." It is a main line Lutheran church. Other than the fact that it is quite liberal in its views, both politically and religiously, there is nothing unusual about it—except for the scarcity of religious and political hypocrites.

You're right, GfS, it's NOT a political problem. But it is NOT a medical/psychological issue EITHER. Sexual orientation is inate, inborn. Like eye color or skin color.

Perhaps it is akin to left-handedness. It's not a matter of choice. Most people are right-handed. But some are left-handed. And this is genetic. One also has a dominant eye and a dominant ear as well. Which ear do you automatically put the phone to? That's your dominant ear. It seems to be related to which side of the brain is dominant.

It is interesting to note in this context that early on, parents and school teachers tried to force left-handed children to use their right hands. This attempt to force a change produced psychological problems in the affected children, so later on cooler heads prevailed and no longer tried to force a change. And the incidence of psychological problems in this context disappeared.

After all, other than occasionally bumping elbows with someone at the dinner table, left-handedness isn't much of a problem.

Attempts to "cure" homosexuality have ALSO produced psychological problems. Such as a very high level of recidivism (it didn't work!), many choosing to be celibate, thereby no longer having to confront the issue of sex, a large incidence of depression—and, in a group of 202 people, six suicides.

Not a howling success!!

Most politicians have avoided this issue like the plague, because no matter which side they come down on, it's going to lose them a pile of votes they wouldn't have lost if they'd just kept their cookie-traps shut about the issue. It is gays and lesbians themselves who have brought this issue to the forefront, and it is very much like the civil rights issue of the '60s.

The matter was in the forefront of the recent campaign and election in the state in which I live, and I watched it up close. And I KNOW what is going on.

And if people don't believe what I'm saying, then THEY are the losers, because it IS the way it IS.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Jack is right. In the aforementioned church there have also been a number of marriage ceremonies between two women.

These same-sex marriages, which have taken place over the past thirty years or so, represent a small percentage of the total number of marriages in this church. It is, characteristically, a fairly young congregation, so there have been a number of people of marriageable age,


07 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM (#3462836)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Akenaton, just for an addendum to you post....you said, "..probably most young heteros dont either, but around their mid twenties they wish to start a family....."

I would venture to say that females usually have more of a drive to have children then males...the woman comes home from the doctors, and says, "Guess what, Dear...." and the guy's silent fear is 'Aw shit, don't say your pregnant'...he waits..she says, "WE'RE going to have a baby!"
His first verbal response is, (with the fear that it might not be true), "Are you sure?"...."Really??..You're positive???" ..(gulp)..."Well, that's really cool".....

Akenaton: "In my view...and it is only a view, the drivers of the gay "marriage" issue are not homosexuals, who have other problems to address, but centre "liberals" with a chip non their shoulders."

THAT is correct!..However, homosexuals do not have the pair-bonding mechanisms and cycles that hetero couples raising their own children do, and they DO sense it, therefore, the 'push' to 'marry'!!!
(..and that is a rather 'inside' insecurity that they have, whether they can articulate it to themselves or not).
..and that is a FACT!

GfS

Now, does that seem like 'hate'.....or understanding?


07 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM (#3462854)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Definitely NOT "hate" sanity and you obviously do have an understanding of the issue.


07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM (#3462865)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Thanks....I'm still chuckling!
..but what I posted is more often than not, the case.

I once knew a guy, Richard a wonderful bass player, and better friend than either of us would admit, that told me a great story...

He was working as a night auditor at a rather exclusive hotel in Hollywood, California...and there was a woman who also worked there, who had been 'eying' him for quite a while. When the hotel hired another woman for the same shift, the two women began talking about Richard, who was in the back room. He could hear bits and pieces of their conversation...

Newer woman to the other, "Do you think he's the marrying type?"

Richard, upon hearing that, emerged from the back room.and in his LOUD, New Jersey voice boomed, "Marrying type???!!! NO!! None of us are the marrying type..THAT'S YOUR JOB!!!

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM (#3462868)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros.

Additionally, although i dont believe in organised religion, millions of people do and I think it odd that these people should be asked to re-define their beliefs to accomodate a tiny sexual minority.
I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children, so I would be against re-definition to include lesbians.

As I said to Ian, what is to stop homosexuals of both sexes starting their own "gay" church, with "gay" clergy and "gay" congregation?

Problem sorted....nae bothir!

I suppose in a fraction of the time that the conventional church has existed, the "gay" pews would be bare and empty?


07 Jan 13 - 06:24 PM (#3462869)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Just WRONG. No relationship with the real world.

Don Firth


07 Jan 13 - 06:30 PM (#3462874)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

????


07 Jan 13 - 06:38 PM (#3462878)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Akenaton: "I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children..."

YES!..the nucleus of ALL societal fabric of ALL civilizations!
Did anyone here come from any other form of civilization?
NOPE!
It's just a 'trendy' self indulgence for the self absorbed, to be hung up in promoting random family structures!!
As far as second and third marriages..it's still in the pattern of trying to compensate for what went wrong in the first one...often formed while they were too young and naive.
A classic saying, "Youth is wasted on the young".

Got another little story for ya'...............

This guy, who was quite a womanizer in his younger days..(and married four times), told me this, not that long ago..."Women are the second most thing I hate......you know what the first is??...That I didn't hate them sooner!!"

BTW,(side note)..womanizers are usually those who actually hate women...though they keep fucking them....and with a little skillful probing, will admit it!

Nice yakkin' at ya'!

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 06:45 PM (#3462880)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Akenaton: "????"

He's just coming unglued...you just can't keep postulating his nonsense and keep your shit together, at the same time....eventually the cracks begin to show.

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM (#3462888)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

G'night Sanity....thanks for the smiles...A


07 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM (#3462903)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

For those of you who seem to be hell-bent on reproducing like rabbits, let me present you with a few sobering facts:
David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, estimates that the sustainable agricultural carrying capacity for the United States is about 200 million people; its population as of 2011 is over 310 million.

In 2009, the UK government's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, warned that growing populations, falling energy reserves and food shortages would create a "perfect storm" by 2030. Beddington claimed that food reserves were at a fifty-year low, and that the world would require 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.

According to a 2009 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the world will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people.

The observed figures for 2007 showed an actual increase in absolute numbers of undernourished people in the world, with 923 million undernourished in 2007, versus 832 million in 1995. The 2009 FAO estimates showed an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion.
A few years back, the government of Malaysia, becoming very aware of the overpopulation problem, tried the tactic of (believe it or not!) encouraging homosexual relationships in hopes that it would cut down on the dangerously increasing overpopulation figures—and the increasing number of food riots in that country. The program was an abject failure because heterosexuals did not want to change their sexual orientation! Nor could the "patriotic" few who tried to comply keep it up. The homosexual population kept doing what they were doing. The heterosexual population decided they didn't like their new "life style" and returned to their old ways.

People don't "DECIDE" to change their sexual orientation.

Along about 2030, I'll see you at the food riots!

Don Firth


07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM (#3462905)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros."

A. Do you have statistics to back this up?
B. You seem to be comparing Lesbians pairs in your country who can not marry to hetero couples who can. Are you?
C. Are you saying that women should not be allowed to marry because they may get divorced?


07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM (#3462907)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Save food..be a homosexual!..Is that your new rap?

Eat me!

GfS


07 Jan 13 - 08:13 PM (#3462926)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

No. You have the characteristic of MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY!

You keep blathering on about the joys of having children and seem to be saying that children are the whole point of marriage, hence marriage should be denied to same-sex couples for the simple reason that they can't reproduce.

As I pointed out in a post a short distance above, I know of more than one same-sex couple who have ADOPTED children, taking in children who, for whatever reason, their natural parent or parents could not keep or did not want.

And again I point out that 1) the idea that homosexual couples only want to adopt children so they can molest them is bigoted, stupid, and ridiculous; and 2) these adopted children are one helluva lot better off in a family situation, even if it is not a traditional family, than they would have been if left in an orphanage.

Don't get a hernia trying hold onto your prejuduces and twisting yourself out of the way of the truth.

Don Firth


08 Jan 13 - 02:11 AM (#3462988)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Froth: "And again I point out that 1) the idea that homosexual couples only want to adopt children so they can molest them is bigoted, stupid, and ridiculous; and 2) these adopted children are one helluva lot better off in a family situation, even if it is not a traditional family, than they would have been if left in an orphanage."

They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????

Never mind, I already know....
..and I already know why you can't admit that.

GfS


08 Jan 13 - 05:25 AM (#3463020)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""They are there for all to see and you clearly accept HPA as a reliable source.
So what is you objection?
Show us some false data or doctored stats.
""

HPA states clearly that HIV/AIDS has been reduced to a chronic manageable condition.
So what is your objection?
Show us some false data or doctored stats.

If Ake is so concerned with the health of Gay men (though I have never believed that he is), why is he not pleased with this progress and why does he still object to low risk Lesbian marriages on the basis of ""other considerations"", whatever that means.

I strongly suspect that if HIV/AIDS were totally eradicated tomorrow, Ake's position on Gay marriage would not change one iota. In fact, I'm bloody sure of it, just as I'm sure you would still be supporting him.

Don T.


08 Jan 13 - 05:32 AM (#3463023)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"".and THAT goes for a lot more than just the homosexual, reproductively impaired issue.""

You just can't resist those little, unjustifiable, denigratory references can you?

God help any poor sod who relies on counselling from you.

Don T.


08 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM (#3463030)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex......and in my opinion, the straight and accurate figures that I quote on male homosexual health, have a great bearing on the issue.""

Your premise is absolutely false and from false premises anything follows, in this case bigotry follows.

Marriage, either hetero or homosexual, is not primarily about sex. It is about loving and committed relationships.

It is only comparatively recently that society stopped hounding homosexuals and jailing them.

Of course, prior to that time it was about brief meetings with nothing but sex involved.

Fortunately, we are more enlightened these days(well, most of us are), which has opened the way for long lasting and committed relationships.

You constantly repeat your tired mantra that ""Homosexuals are inherently promiscuous"", without a morsel of evidence, yet steadfastly oppose anything which would tend to reduce that supposed promiscuity.

The effects of the disease, thanks to medical research, have been vastly reduced, to what the HPA condiders manageable, yet you persist in your claims that it is a worsening plague.

Your whole demeanour is that of a committed homophobe, who will never accept any degree of equality for those whose activities (though neither your business, nor affecting you in any way) you deplore.

Don T.


08 Jan 13 - 06:01 AM (#3463035)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Baldwin wrote "Another Country" in 1962, while decriminalisation of homosexuality didn't occur until July 1967.

So Baldwin was describing the situation while Gay men were forced to pursue furtive liaisons in toilets and back alleys, and any long lasting relationship inevitably led to discovery and jail.

Nice try Ake, but no coconut!

Don T.


08 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM (#3463037)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????""

Because, you dozy twit, their biological parents are not, by reason of either accident or design, available to them.

Christ, what a bloody know nothing twerp.

Don T.


08 Jan 13 - 07:13 AM (#3463055)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford

Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs.
He actually sates that is his only concern.

HPA states clearly that HIV/AIDS has been reduced to a chronic manageable condition.

HPA also states, "HIV continues to be one of the most important communicable diseases in the UK. It is an infection associated with serious morbidity, high costs of treatment and care, significant mortality and high number of potential years of life lost. Each year, many thousands of individuals are diagnosed with HIV for the first time. The infection is still frequently regarded as stigmatising and has a prolonged 'silent' period during which it often remains undiagnosed. "

There are about 500 AIDS deaths every year in UK.


08 Jan 13 - 08:40 AM (#3463096)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Dumb T: """They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????""

Because, you dozy twit, their biological parents are not, by reason of either accident or design, available to them.

Christ, what a bloody know nothing twerp."


Don't you think that loving, caring parents who bore the children should be promoted?????...and responsible??? or did you take a lesson from the other Don, and parse out a phrase out of context?

Back to you!..You're the know nothing twerp for interpreting that so stupidly.

GfS


08 Jan 13 - 01:48 PM (#3463207)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Pointless, trying to enlighten someone with no more intelligence than a kumquat.

Don Firth


08 Jan 13 - 02:55 PM (#3463228)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie

Being a Liberal--and proudly so--I may change my opinion on an issue in the face of new facts or compelling argument. And so I do that in this thread. I have decided to become homosexual. Here are my reasons:

I can revel in the "friendship" people show me on the Internet, on the street, from "ex-gay" counselors, within a whole shitload of court decisions and legislation, and, of course on Mudcat.
I can have sex without worrying about pregnancy.
I can have sex and enjoy the risk of getting HIV.
I can enjoy special treatment when I apply for a job, because most employers prefer to hire gays.
I can enjoy special treatment if I go to prison.
I can enjoy feeling universally loved wherever I go, because everyone is so friendly to people who "choose" to love someone of their own gender.
And so much more...

I have "decided" at the age of 30(++) that I will make this change in my life, because to not do so would suggest that I was unable to make correct choices.

Saul


08 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM (#3463229)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor

"Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs.
He actually sates that is his only concern."

Nice try KAoH, But our attention spans are not that short. STIs are not a factor for Lesbians, but Akenaton opposes their marriage because it might lead to divorce or confusion among main stream "Christians."


08 Jan 13 - 04:00 PM (#3463272)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????

Never mind, I already know....
..and I already know why you can't admit that."


Whatever you're drooling about is a mystery to me, GoofuS. What parents are boring which kids? And what is it that you think you know? (You? Think? Hah!!). And what can't I admit? And why?

Don Firth


08 Jan 13 - 04:37 PM (#3463285)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

If children are orphaned while too young to fend for themselves, they should be killed and buried with their parents. Much better for them than to be adopted by defective reproductively impaired so-called human beings.

Don Firth, do you have children; if not, it is obvious why you would side with other reproductively impaired people over real parents.


08 Jan 13 - 05:23 PM (#3463310)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

No, froggy, all systems go.

Yup! One son.

Don Firth


08 Jan 13 - 10:25 PM (#3463428)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well...tell him the rest.....he asked an honest question with an explanation of trying to understand your position...at least give him the courtesy of giving him the rest of it, so he can make an honest assessment of why you hold your position.
Fair enough?

GfS


09 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM (#3463450)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

What rest, GoofuS?

What, exactly, are you referring to?

(And don't talk to me about courtesy. Since you're the rudest person on Mudcat, you're in no position to talk about "courtesy.")

Don Firth


09 Jan 13 - 01:59 AM (#3463454)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

See? I told you it would be fun when Goofus joined in again!

This thread needed lightening up and Goofus manages that with his nonsensical waffle and bullshit.

The good professor and I are having a good chuckle aren't we boy?

Woof!


09 Jan 13 - 08:29 AM (#3463533)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Actually I had heard about your son, but forgot; I know now where gfs is going. He is back to how you should have locked your son's mother in the cellar in order to keep her from separating you from your son during his growing years. Obviously what you haven't mentioned is that your son is gay; that has to be inevitable, since you "abandoned him, and he wasn't raised by his two natural parents.


09 Jan 13 - 11:34 AM (#3463603)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Now THAT'S a jump!
No wonder you are so detached from reality...you make up your own!

GfS


09 Jan 13 - 11:56 AM (#3463610)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs.
He actually sates that is his only concern.
""

And when asked what his attitude would be to Lesbian marriages (lesbians being a low health risk group), he replied that there are "other considerations".

So my statement would seem to have some basis in fact and it is likely that there will always be ""other considerations"" offering an excuse for discrimination.

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 12:00 PM (#3463612)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I noticed in the paper today that UKIP have sacked their youth leader for supporting gay marriage.

I suppose that is positive on two fronts.

1. Just in case anybody ever thought they were a political party we can rest assured they are not open to reality after all.

2. Younger people can't see the fuss in general. Not even those previously swayed by a closet racist gang masquerading as a political party.

Still, so long as we know why some people support bigotry. They are told to it seems. Is that better or worse than a bigot by choice?


09 Jan 13 - 12:02 PM (#3463613)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""There are about 500 AIDS deaths every year in UK.""

And how many deaths among the hetero population of Africa, where some 40% are HIV positive.

I don't hear Ake expressing any concern, or objections to them marrying.

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 12:09 PM (#3463617)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Back to you!..You're the know nothing twerp for interpreting that so stupidly.""

Twit!

There are two reasons why children are up for adoption.

1. The parents are deceased.
2. The parents don't want them.

In the first case, even you, with your airy fairy spirituality, would be hard put to achieve a result.

In the second case, a loving, caring, relationship is, by definition extremely unlikely.

I'd rather see a child parented by two gays, male or female, who would love him/her, thanm forced upon biological parents who don't want to know.

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 01:59 PM (#3463649)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

You STILL don't 'get it'..and YOU'RE still a moronic twerp!
Of course there are legitimate reasons that children go up for adoption, one, of course being death of the parents...though that is a miniscule reason, by the numbers..the other is that the parents don't want them....don't you think that parents giving up their children because they are selfish pieces of shit, and 'don't want them' should NOT be promoted, and that some effort(at least) should be given to promote parents having children to get their act together...and not make 'adoption'(which is a good thing, but also often abused), just a convenient trash can for unwanted kids???
Yes, those who adopt, are far better, (in theory) than those who just abandon their kids with no thought, other than how they are going to 'make it' at their next self indulgence(and avoiding child support, of course)...whether it be their careers, schooling, another lover, an addiction or just being a fucking flake.
I have a hard time finding 'respect' for those parents who just blow off their kids for selfish bullshit...and you know what is really tragic..and speaks to how fucked up our society has become??...there are just too many of them!!

Now if you stayed with your kids and raised them, I'm sure you can agree with that...then again, if you were an asshole, selfish pig and correctly thought you were a worthless human to even want to attempt at raising your own kids....you will probably be inclined to 'defend' abandoning them...for ANY reason!
Once you have kids, life's road is layed out for you..either as a mother or father...and just giving up on your kids, and blowing it off, is a DEFINITE sign of a worthless piece of pig vomit.
I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!

GfS

P.S. Defenders???? (..Like they have a good enough reason)


09 Jan 13 - 02:03 PM (#3463651)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

DonT: "In the second case, a loving, caring, relationship is, by definition extremely unlikely."

They should have thought of that before she spread her legs, or he bullshitted her into fucking her.....but, instead of taking a stance on that..let's promote readily available trash cans for the 'inconvenience' as the result of their irresponsibility!!

GfS


09 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM (#3463663)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

That's pretty much it, frogprince.

But my son did not grow up to be gay. He's a flaming heterosexual, as I am.

He did grow up in a real family. His mother married (be it know that I offered marriage, but her circumstances were such that she refused, so it wasn't a matter of me being unwilling to do the honorable thing, as Goofus would have you believe), and my son had a father, mother, and siblings. Then, finally, his mother told him, when he was twenty-one, who his real father was, and he wanted to see me. But he got shipped off to college in Ottawa where he picked up a degree in Philosophy. When he got back to Vancouver and was living on his own, he phoned me.

We had a long chat on the phone and he came down (south) to Seattle and stayed with us for a time. Barbara said that when she picked him up at the train station, she had no problem recognizing that tall, young man as my son. The resemblance is rather striking.

Other than teaching, you can't do much with a degree in Philosophy, so when Hollywood started making movies in Canada (because it was less expensive to film there than in Hollywood, for some strange reason), he worked as a grip on several movies. Concurrently, he has written a screenplay about the lost Franklin expedition in Canada. Hasn't done anything with it yet, but I'm encouraging him to do so. Not only historical, but highly entertaining.

Far from being gay, when he was at the university in Ottawa, he met a bright young woman there, and after he (his mother named him "Don" for some strange reason!) and I spent some time together, he returned to Ottawa, and he and Shannon are working together on ecological issues under contract to the Government of Canada.

The two of them will be moving out to Victoria, B.C. within the next few months to live there and set up their business operation there. Partly, he said, because they are tired of Ottawa winters, and to be where we can visit frequently (a pleasant ferry ride between Victoria and Seattle).

The move won't disrupt their business because they telecommute, so it doesn't really matter to the Canadian government where they work from. In fact, Don and Shannon spent two weeks in Hawaii a couple of years ago, and since the work got done, the Canadian gummint didn't even know they weren't in Ottawa.

Barbara and I are looking forward to seeing a lot of them in a few months.

And no, Goofus, my son is NOT gay.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Goofus, since YOU brought it up, what the hell does THIS have to do with the subject of this thread?

Or has your position become so untenable that you're flailing around trying to distract people and divert them from the fact that you're way out of the realms of reality on this matter?

Well, perhaps it has THIS to do with the subject:    I theorize that it is quite possible that your homophobia is brought on by fear. You said, in the Prop 8 thread (and if you deny it, I will link to the post so that everyone here can read it for themselves) that your father, after siring several children including you, "decided" he wanted to be gay, and deserted the family to grow up on their own when he ran off with another man.

So if same-sex orientation is genetic, this could mean that YOU are carrying the gene—and you're fighting like crazy to stay in the closet to yourself!

Hence, your frantic insistence that homosexuality is NOT genetic, that it's a matter of choice. And you're doing your damnedest to chose NOT to be gay.

And you're scared!


09 Jan 13 - 03:06 PM (#3463676)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Do you folks ever read what you write?

Don..read through your post and count the number of times you deliberately insult sanity....and you are not the worst offender.

there really is little point in trying to discuss issues if all this personal stuff is going on.

As Keith says why dont you just confine yourself to addressing the points made.

One GOOD thing about these threads is that anyone reading them can get a view of both sides of the argument. I'm pleased about that, because the pro's have only one argument "equality" the great myth, whereas the anti's have several, secular and religious, societal
and health related.

Someone above said that Baldwin's depiction of male homosexuality could be discounted, as homosexuality has become more accepted by society and can be practiced more openly......well this openess and acceptibility has produce worse than ever health figures in all STDs especially hiv; so it seems that "cold anonymous risky sex" is still endemic to male homosexual practice.
"More an addiction than an orientation"


09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM (#3463747)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!""

Quite right Goofie!

As the father of two much loved children and the five grandchildren with which they have brightened my existence, I too have a complete lack of respect for that type of worthless human.

Almost as much lack of respect as I have for a dumb shit who suggests that their kids would have a great life if their errant parents were coerced into coping with the responsibility they ran away from in the first place.

You can promote all you bloody like, providing you are willing pick up the pieces when those kids come back and tell you what particular hell on earth you condemned them to.

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 06:44 PM (#3463753)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""As Keith says why dont you just confine yourself to addressing the points made.""

You mean keep to the issues as did the perpetrator of the following:

""If the complete absence of your signs, and the complete absence of a single person who knows where one is to be found is not sufficient evidence, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?

You can post out of date links and call it evidence, BUT THERE ARE NO FUCKING SIGNS HERE YOU TWAT!
""

Now who could that have been?

OH YES! Now I remember.........IT WAS KEITH!

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 06:50 PM (#3463756)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Someone above said that Baldwin's depiction of male homosexuality could be discounted, as homosexuality has become more accepted by society and can be practiced more openly......well this openess and acceptibility has produce worse than ever health figures in all STDs especially hiv; so it seems that "cold anonymous risky sex" is still endemic to male homosexual practice.
"More an addiction than an orientation"
""

If you are going to quote me then do so honestly, assuming that you can remember the meaning of the word.

""Baldwin wrote "Another Country" in 1962, while decriminalisation of homosexuality didn't occur until July 1967.

So Baldwin was describing the situation while Gay men were forced to pursue furtive liaisons in toilets and back alleys, and any long lasting relationship inevitably led to discovery and jail.

Nice try Ake, but no coconut!

Don T.
""

Now the whole forum can see just how deviously you try to change the meanings of posts to which you have NO ANSWER!

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM (#3463765)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST

Ake, you will notice (or perhaps YOU won't) that GoofuS has been insulting and denigrating me from the start, and he went so far as to dig into old threads and drag up a somewhat painful incident from my past in order to wave it around and claim that I shirked my duty as a father. That is a lie! He doesn't know the full circumstances and he attempted to put the worst possible interpretation on it.

It is extremely unfortunate when people feel impelled to do this (as an alternative to arguing FACTS), but GoofuS made allegations about me in an effort to insult me, and to attempt to undercut my credibility.

And I am not going to let that sort of thing pass!!

Don Firth


09 Jan 13 - 07:01 PM (#3463768)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Do feel free though, to try to explain just how you extrapolated from evidence printed in 1962, to reach the conclusion that because Gays were forced underground then, they will not have changed their attitude toward long term commitment NOW, when their relationships are legal.

I am assuming that, if you had any hard evidence of current rampant promiscuity, you wouldn't have relied on fifty year old anecdotal evidence from one author, but instead would have produced up to date data.

Very shoddy debating from one who prides himself on being logical.

Don T.


09 Jan 13 - 07:10 PM (#3463773)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry Jack, I missed your earlier posts.

Let me reiterate. I am against homosexual "marriage"....i am not alone in this strange opinion, in my area a very large majority would support my opinion. In my country, the biggest survey(consultation) resulted in 30+% for....60+% against. The survey(consultation) was conducted by the Scottish govt.

My chief reason for opposition is the health statistics pertaining to male homosexuality and I believe that the proposed legislation amounts to the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy.
I do not believe that male to male sex is safe and healthy and should not be promoted as such. Homosexual "marriage" or civil union, where they have been instigated have had no appreciative affect on infection rates.
I am also against homosexual "marriage", because I believe that heterosexual marriage is in general much the better template to raise children and form an extended family structure.....homosexual unions are completely different in that respect...the short duration of these unions on average and the lack of children would make the stability required, very hard to achieve.

So I would be against homosexual marriage for both genders.


09 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM (#3463775)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Don...I was not "quoting"you, I'm not nearly angry enough for that...neither am i able to do all the exclamation marks, black text, or puffs of steam required :0)
I was simply paraphrasing your words so that your meaning might be more clear to our avid readers.

If I have you all wrong, feel free to put me to rights.


09 Jan 13 - 07:28 PM (#3463776)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Let me reiterate. I am against homosexual "marriage"....i am not alone in this strange opinion, in my area a very large majority would support my opinion. In my country, the biggest survey(consultation) resulted in 30+% for....60+% against. The survey(consultation) was conducted by the Scottish govt.

Yes, LET you reiterate. You think, like most other morons, that repeated reiteration will somehow make a lie more true. I refuted this days and days ago, yet you think, by raising it again days later, we will have forgotten. Well I for one have not forgotten. The results of your precious Scottish "consultation" included a ton of "votes" gleaned from petitions which were organised for the sole purpose of skewing the result and from a mass campaign of standardised postcard voting, both of them tactics organised by the "anti" side only. Remove these from consideration and you get precisely the same result as you get from HONEST polls carried out from the rest of the UK, which show, broadly, that there is an overwhelming majority of around two to one in favour of gay marriage. Doubtless you will now ignore this inconvenience, wait for another week or so and peddle the same lie again. Well good for you. I'm waiting, moron.


09 Jan 13 - 07:40 PM (#3463780)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Sorry GUEST(Don)? I have no knowlege of the subject to which you refer.
Would it not be better just to stop all the nasty stuff regardless of who started it?
Name calling is very unseemly for grown ups and gives a bad impression of anyone who indulges in it.
Its getting worse on this thread....now most of the posts just consist of a heap of abuse.Its hardly worth responding at all.


09 Jan 13 - 07:51 PM (#3463783)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Well a couple of us certainly think it's worth responding to you when you deliberately perpetrate lies. Not only that, you insult us by perpetrating the same lies that we have already roundly refuted and which you think we might have forgotten about. If you don't want to be called names, don't insult us with lies, please.


09 Jan 13 - 07:54 PM (#3463784)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Moron???
Typical example Don.

The Scottish consultation contained representations from interested groups, which included religious groups, LGTB groups civil/human rights groups etc.
It is the most representative survey of opinion that we have had so far.
Scotland has historically been a rather socially conservative nation, so I would presume that a referrendum on the issue would produce an even larger majority against.
Steven is again indulging in wishful thinking.


09 Jan 13 - 07:59 PM (#3463786)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

No, Ake, it would not.

GoofuS is telling lies about me and I am explaining, briefly, what the truth is, not just to refute GoofuS, but in my own defense.

He accused me in open thread of irresponsibly abandoning my son in order to discredit me as a human being. I set the record straight.

Would you not do the same?

GoofuS delights in hitting below the belt. In more ways than one.

Don Firth


09 Jan 13 - 08:03 PM (#3463787)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

It is not representative at all, liar. It's fine to organise postcard voting. It's fine to organise mass petitions. I've been involved in both myself many times. Nothing wrong with it at all. But it is not fine to extrapolate from the results that two-thirds of Scotland is opposed to gay marriage. That is simply untrue. The only fair guide we could have for finding out is a neutral, unforced poll, innocent of leading questions, of a large and representative sample of the Scottish people. That has not been done. A poor second would be the result of your precious "survey", once it's been shorn of its pressure-group votes. And that gives a result consistent with the rest of the UK, two to one in favour of gay marriage. I'm really sorry that you find facts so inconvenient. The rest of us try to cope with them as best we can.


09 Jan 13 - 09:58 PM (#3463827)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Frothmeister: "Well, perhaps it has THIS to do with the subject:    I theorize that it is quite possible that your homophobia is brought on by fear. You said, in the Prop 8 thread (and if you deny it, I will link to the post so that everyone here can read it for themselves) that your father, after siring several children including you, "decided" he wanted to be gay, and deserted the family to grow up on their own when he ran off with another man."


....and don't forget to link them to the posts that I said that I did NOT author the post you are talking about.
My father was not a homosexual, never was, and didn't run off to be one. My father died in 1975 at the age of sixty. My mother never re-married.
You can post all you want. I did not write or submit that post....and SEVERAL people back then were using my name to post nonsense..and got called on it. I believe the post in question, as Joe said, was submitted from my computer, and IF that was true, I did not write it, nor submit it.(Possibly one of the musicians who come here who wanted to play, and thought I was spending too much time debating idiots!).

Don T.: "You can promote all you bloody like, providing you are willing pick up the pieces when those kids come back and tell you what particular hell on earth you condemned them to."

When my son was in his junior and senior year in high school, we took in a student whose father was diagnosed with MS, damaged from agent orange. We visited the dad, with/without the son, till his death. Ben, the son, was in his mid senior year when his dad died.

My daughter, as well has taken two kids (brother and sister) whose mother was an unfit, abusive alcoholic, and she gained custody of them legally. The daughter, a BEAUTIFUL 13-14 year old is expected to be totally blind by the time she is 18-19.
..and on this one you and I are agreed..though it is somewhat of a thread drift..but not that much.

..and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!

Take it easy,

GfS


09 Jan 13 - 11:09 PM (#3463839)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

When I called you on that in the Prop 8 thread, you accused me of posting under your name.

Apparently you were (are) unaware that everyone's computer has an IP number, and it's unique to your computer. Like "caller ID."

When you made that accusation, I checked with the Mudelves and was informed that that particular post came from YOUR computer, NOT MINE.

We've had this conversation before.

GoofuS, you seem to be incapable of telling the truth.

Don Firth


10 Jan 13 - 12:31 AM (#3463849)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

I already told you that..didn't you read my last post???? I did NOT author that post, though it may or may not have come from my computer....and if you remember, there were several posts, with my name, that were not from me..or my computer...and Joe took them off. I think you are more interested in sensationalizing a bullshit fraudulent post, than you are saying ANYTHING truthful! (Same M.O.)
What's the matter?..the subject of fathers raising their own children pisses you off???

GfS


10 Jan 13 - 12:57 AM (#3463853)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Well, you go ahead and stick with that story, GoofuS.

Don Firth


10 Jan 13 - 01:19 AM (#3463855)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Hey dingle-berry, you just posted this: "When I called you on that in the Prop 8 thread, you accused me of posting under your name."

Now, if you remember I also asked the 'Mud-elves' to check it..would I have accused you...If I posted it???

You make NO sense, and will stop at nothing to try to accuse somebody of bullshit, if you thought it would make your narcissistic self look good.
I don't care..I didn't post it..and that is that!

It's sure is 'peculiar' that you insist my Dad was a homosexual...and you were really quick, to say you were NOT a homosexual, and you had a son.....as if, down deep inside you, you HAD to make that clear, that neither you or your son were homos....What's the matter?....You'd be embarrassed....for being 'normal'??????
Even you don't believe your own press....I don't!...and it shows through the cracks. You don't give a damn about homosexual 'rights'..just so long as you have soapbox to look 'astutely noble' upon!
Get real!

GfS


10 Jan 13 - 08:24 AM (#3463907)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Don...I was not "quoting"you, I'm not nearly angry enough for that...neither am i able to do all the exclamation marks, black text, or puffs of steam required :0)
I was simply paraphrasing your words so that your meaning might be more clear to our avid readers.

If I have you all wrong, feel free to put me to rights.
""

I just did!!

My meaning was perfectly clear and your twisting of it didn't improve its clarity one bit.

Don T.


10 Jan 13 - 08:36 AM (#3463914)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"".and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!""

And on that we are in total agreement, so why would you suggest that such useless trash be coerced or persuaded to live up to their responsibilities and bring up the kids they obviously don't want.

Are you really suggesting that such action would be in the best interests of the children and that resentful biological parents would be better thaan loving and caring adopters?

Don T.


10 Jan 13 - 11:15 AM (#3463975)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Hopefully I am a candidate for the one who insults Goofus the most. Partly because I think he is barking mad and partly because he has just about enough intelligence to abuse people by making them read what he thinks is a learned opinion of their lives.

The good professor has him weighed up though haven't you boy?

Woof! Woof!

Akenaton on the other hand doesn't want it to be legal in case it becomes compulsory. Considering gay marriage doesn't affect him or me for that matter, our views matter not one jot.

The only people in a democracy who have to consider the question are either two men or two women in love who wish to express their relationship in the same way as everybody else.

Nobody cares about your subjective drivel masquerading as figures. Nobody cares that you shroud your bigotry in false shades of concern.


10 Jan 13 - 01:09 PM (#3464044)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Steven...you can refute and squirm as much as you like, the survey{consultation) was conducted and the result presented 30/ 60 against.

Now if you want to dissect that result to suit your agenda that is fine by me, but the result of the biggest survey on the subject goes in the book.

BTW please show me what sort of study came up with the 2 to 1 in favour that you quoted.


10 Jan 13 - 02:53 PM (#3464102)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

I've already showed you one, a Guardian ICM poll. Yes, in terms of absolute numbers responding, counting all the signatures on anti petitions and all the postcards in the anti postcard campaign, you got a majority. I'm not arguing with the tactics of the anti people. Good for them. But if you really want to know with any degree of accuracy the true proportions for and against in the whole population, you don't do it that way. You poll a large enough representative sample of the population, not just sit there encouraging your bedfellows to roll up. God knows why I have to explain this to you.


10 Jan 13 - 03:00 PM (#3464106)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

The fact is that, as the world (we hope) grows more civilized and the human race matures, things like racial prejudice and homophobia will gradually diminish and disappear into the mists of antiquity, as has widespread slavery and such atrocities as burning "heretics" at the stake. Same-sex marriage will inevitably come, in the same way that interracial marriage is now no longer illegal (or taboo, at least in the more enlightened areas of the world).

There are people on this thread (and it's easy to tell who they are) who would lock us into a "social feudal system" because of their own ignorance, prejudice, and fear.

In time, they, too, will pass into the mists of antiquity.

=======

GoofuS wrote the post on the Prop 8 thread about his father "deciding" to leave the family and take a male lover in an effort to "prove" that he knew from personal experience that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Whether his story Is actually true or not is moot. Then, too late, he realized what he'd left himself open to some interesting speculation as to why he was so adamantly opposed to ascribing sexual orientation to anything genetic, despite the findings of recent research. And when he was confronted with it, he realized he'd left himself open to all kinds of interesting further speculation about why he was so hysterical about it.

Forthwith, he launched into a tap-dance that would have amazed Fred Astaire, in order to cover his tactical boo-boo.

We've just seen a replay.

=======

This thread has long since passed its "sell-by" date, so methinks I'll bail out and devote myself to more productive endeavors.

As far as GoofuS and Ake, and maybe a couple of others are concerned, I leave you with a quote from the Bible:
Proverbs 14:7 –
Go from the presence of a fool, for you will not discern words of knowledge from him.
Don Firth


10 Jan 13 - 03:07 PM (#3464109)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Translation of the above Proverbs quote:

"Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot!"

Don Firth


10 Jan 13 - 03:57 PM (#3464137)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Don, I'm glad, for one reason, that your son isn't gay. In case anyone didn't realize, I threw in that "assumption" to mess with gfs's theorizing. I cringed a bit afterward, thinking, "Oops; what if it should happen that Don's son is gay? gfs will jump up and down for joy, crowing that I provided support for him."


10 Jan 13 - 04:24 PM (#3464149)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Yeah, I got what you intended, froggy, and I, too, wondered if GoofuS, in his on-going tap-dance, might try to take that tack. But no sweat.

My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one, feeling that he had a right to know. And he and Shannon have been living together for some years now, even own a house in Ottawa, which they're selling so they can move out here, closer.

So if Don is gay, he's got a weird way of showing it! Shannon is a real looker, and a very bright young woman!

Tough luck, Goofus!

Don Firth


10 Jan 13 - 07:33 PM (#3464252)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don: Firth: "My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one,..."

Aren't you proud of yourself??..Were you bragging??..or complaining??

GfS


10 Jan 13 - 07:45 PM (#3464261)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Don F is absolutely correct.

Goofus did indeed use his father's (according to him) defection to the other team to claim homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

Any effort by him to claim that he was not the author of that post should be treated with extreme disbelief, until Joe Offer confirms more than one poster on his IP address.

Sorry Goofus, your slip is showing.

Don T.


10 Jan 13 - 08:40 PM (#3464295)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

This thread has, if nothing else, shown that there are plenty of members of this forum who will tirelessly oppose prejudice, bigotry and hatred of "the other." I agree with Don that time spent opposing the very few horridly-intolerant and narrow-minded people who propagate those kinds of sentiments is not time wasted, as to allow them to post their poison unchallenged would, in the long run, serve to misrepresent the forum.

I'd really love this to be the last ever post on this thread, and not because I enjoy having the last word. Because I've bloody had enough.


11 Jan 13 - 02:19 AM (#3464391)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

I already said that the post, apparently came from my computer..but the post wasn't from me...nor was my father ever a homosexual. He had 6 children died, still faithful to his wife(my mother), who never remarried, and is alive today.
Now if some of you WANT to believe otherwise, knock yourselves out...it won't be the first time you've believed nonsense!
You SAY you want to believe THAT post, that was NOT authored by me, but won't believe THIS one...which IS...go figure!
Some people believe what they WANT...they are either 'religious' or 'political' hacks....and...if my father was a homosexual, don't you think I'd be championing homosexuality???..and saying how great it was..because he raised 6 kids??....but the fact is, he never was, till the day he died.

GfS


11 Jan 13 - 02:34 AM (#3464398)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Goofus you clown.. Steve was trying to end this awful thread and for a while it looked as if others thought that a good idea too.

It appears that bigotry is so entrenched with some that they genuinely cannot see how their odious views affect the lives of others.   Liam Fox was on the news today saying how much he opposed it and then tried saying that as a doctor he understood the issues.   How the hell can he say that? Because as a back bench politician and a disgraced ex minister he has the opportunity to wield his vote. Crazy crazy world.


21 Jan 13 - 12:57 PM (#3469506)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad

"For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." — President Barack Obama, from his second inaugural address


21 Jan 13 - 01:38 PM (#3469518)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Wonder if he had anything to say about the brothers who were murdered in Algeria?....or those of us who supported the insurrection in Libya which provided the killers with weapons and power.


21 Jan 13 - 01:46 PM (#3469522)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

You surely dont buy that shit about everyone being born equal do you?

The huge majority are born into extreme poverty, a tiny minority into
obscene priviledge.From that point the laws are twisted and bent to make sure the satus quo ...and the system remain in place.


21 Jan 13 - 02:50 PM (#3469555)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

With the greatest of respect (see, I said it and a thunderbolt didn't strike me down. I must be getting soft. )

Try noting the difference between equal and equal opportunity. Might help remove a few blinkers and raise the mist. ..


21 Jan 13 - 03:16 PM (#3469564)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Akenaton will never understand the difference between "EQUAL" and "EQUAL UNDER THE LAW", which was the oft misunderstood message of the United States Declaration of Independence.

After all, he IS A PHARAOH, and therefore more equal than anyone else.

Don T.


21 Jan 13 - 03:54 PM (#3469579)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Jesus, how exquisitely friggin' intelligent it was for some pillock to resurrect this sick thread.


22 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM (#3469786)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Why??..Are you afraid we might start talking about a man and a woman, conceiving their own child and raising it, as a family..and homosexuals can't do that....but they can do a pretty good imitation.

GfS


22 Jan 13 - 04:48 AM (#3469820)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Most social workers will relate to the number of heterosexual couples who do a pretty poor imitation.

Any more own goals Goofus? They are becoming too easy, you stupid prat.


22 Jan 13 - 12:07 PM (#3469993)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Then again, there are people like Mother Theresa who, by their own behavioural decision, are also reproductively impaired. The so-called-liberal idiots here probably think people like that should have equal right, too.


22 Jan 13 - 12:47 PM (#3470004)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri

Dean, I'm not sure just who you're trying to piss off.
Or what you're trying to say.
If a mother superior or a nun wants to get married to another person, she should be able to. She probably won't remain a nun, but that's the church's decision, the the government's.


22 Jan 13 - 01:13 PM (#3470016)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Jeri, Just messing around with another angle of reducing some of the arguments that come up here to absurdity. A couple of our fonts of wisdom here have repeatedly asserted that it's obvious that homosexuality is unnatural because a homosexual couple can't reproduce, at least in the "natural" manner. There has to be at least some implication there that those who don't reproduce aren't quite as fully human as those who do.


22 Jan 13 - 01:22 PM (#3470020)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri

OK, got it.

Big fish, small bicycle. (Or: an awful lot of busy-bodying and bitching from a very, VERY small number of people.)


22 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM (#3470081)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Musket: "Any more own goals Goofus? They are becoming too easy, you stupid prat."

So, I'm a 'stupid prat' because I point out that a queen can't conceive a child??...and that 'it's' maternal instincts just don't match up to that of a loving mother??...and father????..
Who's being the 'stupid prat'?

....who cannot refute:

"Why??..Are you afraid we might start talking about a man and a woman, conceiving their own child and raising it, as a family..and homosexuals can't do that....but they can do a pretty good imitation."

...and all you can do is call me a stupid, immature, name????

Get real!

GfS


22 Jan 13 - 04:22 PM (#3470089)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter

Someone commented on TV yesterday that Obama's inaugural mention of "our gay brothers and sisters" and their human right to feel love for anybody they want, and have family arrangements with equal protection under the law, was of "world-historical importance."

It's hard to disagree: the democratically elected leader of the most powerful nation on earth, the first nation-state to claim that "all men are created equal," said it straight out, at his inauguration, on Martin Luther King's birthday, with the whole world watching.

To the extent that History ever speaks, History has spoken, much as it spoke long ago about racial and gender equality under the law. I have no problem with it.

If busybodies (good term) want to turn it into some kind of bitter theoretical dispute about the nature of man and God, and whether Obama is really a citizen, the Constitution protects them too. However, it doesn't require the rest of us to play along.


22 Jan 13 - 06:25 PM (#3470148)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

Well said, Lighter.


23 Jan 13 - 02:21 AM (#3470239)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well said...even if it's all bullshit...."our gay brothers and sisters" and their human right to feel love for anybody they want,..."

nobody is saying anything about who or what they have a 'right' to 'feel love' for. This isn't about 'love'..it's about sex. Same SEX 'marriages'.
(Obama has a way of twisting a phrase and the meaning..always has).
This is about equality of two same sex people...having the same circuitry of pair-bonding as two of the 'opposite' sex, and children and families, and how this would be a DIFFERENT institution, as to the properties, than two same-sex bed buddies, who want to CALL themselves 'married', pretending to think that merely imitating emotions and affections, is the same pair-bonding that goes on when two people bring children into the world. Now I know that there are marriages between two heteros that bringing children into the world is not part of their program.....and these are nine times out of nine, second, third fourth and so on 'marriages'..of people trying to compensate for their first one fucking up....(just think of most of your friends and acquaintances)....but originally, it was not so.
Impregnating your mate, and all the things she goes through in her pregnancy is a LOT different than, "Gosh Bruce, let's go out and amuse ourselves by getting a kid...then we can really look like a family".
You want to talk about 'rights'?...how about the rights of the children, and all the crap they'd have to put up with..knowing that instead of a mom and a dad, they got Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole....Oh, WE can ignore it...so much we can even convince ourselves that the kids don't mind, or think it bothers them, when their friends look at them weird.....Oh, I guess if WE can shrug it off, then it must be OK..(selfish people think that way)..Or if they long for a mother's nurturing, and what they get is Bubba making the best at not being TOO inconvenienced by them.
....and that goes for heteros as well.
Do you actually think that nurturing mothers and fathers have the same relationship with their children as homosexuals do with 'theirs'? Do you think that the space between her newborn and the mother holding the baby is the same, Bruce and Darryl, deciding it's time for Egbert to go to bed now?
Do you think the weeks and months that a woman is pregnant, feeling the child grow within her..the anticipation, discomforts, hopes contribute maybe just a teensy-weensy bit of a DIFFERENT dynamic and bonding, than 'Auckie' and 'Lesbia' fulfilling their 'image' to accommodate 'respectability' for their sexual preferences and behaviors???..You think that is the SAME????
Nope!....different dynamics....different bonding....different instincts....different 'motives'.
It's just plain different!

GfS


23 Jan 13 - 03:04 AM (#3470246)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim

GfS wrote,"...how about the rights of the children, and all the crap they'd have to put up with..knowing that instead of a mom and a dad, they got Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..."
Who will be dishing out the crap that these kids have to put up with? It won't be my kids nor the kids raised by most parents these days. Granted, there are still kids being raised in intolerant households, but they are becoming fewer and fewer. I certainly don't think that they will be free of bigots throughout their lives, but I do think things are far better than they were when I was a kid.

GfS also wrote, "Do you actually think that nurturing mothers and fathers have the same relationship with their children as homosexuals do with 'theirs'? Do you think that the space between her newborn and the mother holding the baby is the same, Bruce and Darryl, deciding it's time for Egbert to go to bed now?
Do you think the weeks and months that a woman is pregnant, feeling the child grow within her..the anticipation, discomforts, hopes contribute maybe just a teensy-weensy bit of a DIFFERENT dynamic and bonding, than 'Auckie' and 'Lesbia' fulfilling their 'image' to accommodate 'respectability' for their sexual preferences and behaviors???..You think that is the SAME????
Nope!....different dynamics....different bonding....different instincts....different 'motives'.
It's just plain different!"

Do you actually think that you and your partner have the same relationship with your children as I do with mine? Do you think that you have the same relationship with your children as your co-workers, as the cop on the corner, as the grocery store clerk...? Each family has its own relationship with their kids and just because they are different, doesn't mean they are better or worse. I can tell by reading your posts that your relationship with your kids will be nothing like my relationship with my kids. As a single father, I never went through the pregnancy nor did I feel the children growing inside of me, but I did feel "the anticipation, discomforts (not the discomforts of pregnancy, but discomforts just the same)and hopes" as will a same sex couple.

GfS also said, "This isn't about 'love'..it's about sex. Same SEX 'marriages'."
It's all about love. The term "same sex" isn't about the sexual act, it's about the gender of the partners. Your marriage and mine doesn't suffer when two people of the same sex marry. Why does it bother you so much? In fact, why is it any of your business?


23 Jan 13 - 06:13 AM (#3470298)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""This isn't about 'love'..it's about sex. Same SEX 'marriages'.""

If you are stupid enough to believe that the concept of marriage (a lifelong commitment to another human being) is based purely on sex, then I pity you for your lack of normal human feelings.

If you are saying that it is only so for gay couples, not only are you doubly stupid, but the depth of your prejudice is disgusting in the extreme.

You are not worth the energy ezpended in debating further with you.

Don T.


23 Jan 13 - 06:21 AM (#3470302)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Each family has its own relationship with their kids and just because they are different, doesn't mean they are better or worse.""

Absolutely true!

I sincerely hope that GfS has no children to whom he can pass on his miserably prejudiced views.

If he has, unfortunately, they will probably live their lives with the same twisted and bigotted attitudes.

That, to me, is far worse than they would fare if they grew up in a loving home with gay parents.

Don T.


23 Jan 13 - 08:34 AM (#3470363)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter

If it were just about the "sex," why would they even *want* to get married?

But that's a different stupid question.


23 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM (#3470408)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

"...merely imitating emotions and affections..."
"Auckie"
"Lesbia"
etc.

You are an offensive asshole.
No way are you a counselor.
It is just another one of the things and people you have pretended to be.


23 Jan 13 - 12:59 PM (#3470444)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

I think I can see enough testimony here for my learned diagnosis of prat.

Never thought I could be so insightful. Mind you, best not get too cocky. Its only Goofus and such a diagnosis isnt rocket science.

I saw a few days ago where a couple in their late '80s got married last week. If it is all about sex then I want a pint of what he drinks...


23 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM (#3470478)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

You ALL MISSED IT!!
EVERY living thing on this planet has TWO basic instincts..the will to survive and reproduce....now if you don't have one (for one reason or the other), what else might you be missing...that is essential that offspring from the same species, would NEED, and NEED to be re-enforced?!?!
Do you think that is 'love'???..NO..it is some self centered, self absorbed, sexually active 'adults', who think it would fill their image, as a 'family'..to accommodate their sexual behavior!!!
Would you want your children raised WITHOUT the will to survive re-enforced in them???..Why would you not want to provide the other one(reproduce) in them too????...or raised them with impaired damaged goods???!!??
Though it is the politically 'trendy lifestyle d'jour', it isn't the best we can do for our children....but then, why would you care???????? ...its all about political agendas, at the price of doing the best we can.

GfS

P.S. ..and TIA: "You are an offensive asshole."...Sometimes one has to appear to be that in order for people to THINK past their brain-locked mindsets!"

"No way are you a counselor".....How much would you like to wager?
Actually, when I do..I'm real fucking good at it!

"It is just another one of the things and people you have pretended to be."

Haven't pretended to be anything. Everything I've said one here, as to my background is indeed true....I might be out of the norm...but like I used to tell my kids, growing up, "If you want to be different, be excellent!"

...and one thing for SURE...you may not like everything I've said...but at least it has caused people to THINK!...and in time, the things I've said WILL BEAR OUT!....(its just that political propaganda takes time to wear out, and manifest their falsities!


23 Jan 13 - 03:17 PM (#3470486)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Really fucking good at it.

Never knew there was a market for quacks.

Some people are very fucking good at wanking. Their pleasure makes them every bit a wanker as someone who tries and fails to get it up.

Isn't that right Professor?

Woof!


23 Jan 13 - 03:38 PM (#3470492)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I know personally a number of same-sex couples who have children, some adopted, some though artificial insemination with a surrogate mother. These families are normal in every way, with the exception of the fact that the parents are the same gender. The children have plenty of contact with both genders through aunts or uncles or friends and they are just normal kids with no particular psychological problems. A few of the kids are fully aware that their families are a bit unusual by the "standards" of some, but they pay little attention, identify it as the prejudice it is, and shrug it off.

GfS more than illustrates his lack of knowledge and understanding.

After reading his litany of misperceptions and misconceptions about life in general and this issue in particular, I have changed my mind about GfS. His pompous and incoherently presented arguments (if, indeed, they can even be elevated to the status of "arguments" instead of simply hate-filled and bigoted rants), have caused me to change my mind about him.

I feel sorry for him. Anyone that mentally impaired is an object of pity

His petty and prejudice rages have angered and disgusted me since he first showed up on this forum. How can a human being—especially one who claims to be a family counselor—be so rigidly judgmental? God help his clients if he actually is!

As Dante said of those whose petty minds and rigid attitudes have condemned them to the lowest rungs of Hell:

"Let us look but once, then pass on."

Don Firth


23 Jan 13 - 03:46 PM (#3470496)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

It occurs to me that from what I have personally seen of same-sex families and their children, if there ARE people about who are likely to be the ones to cause these children to have psychological problems, it is people with attitudes and prejudices like GfS!

Don Firth


23 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM (#3470501)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

GfnS... "...merely imitating emotions and affections..."

I stopped reading right there. Can't read any more of this thread for a while, if at all. I find such statements not only narrow minded but so very saddening. Intolerance is bred from ignorance and that statement... well, it does not get any more ignorant or intolerant than that. The lack of compassion astonishes me. I cannot fathom how someone who would say such a things could care even in the least for anyone else or feel any emotions at all, save hate.

Sad shit.


23 Jan 13 - 05:09 PM (#3470519)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S

After over 1100 posts don't y'all think that no one is going to change their mind here? And that maybe you're all just running in circles? Why not just agree to disagree? Does someone really think they can "win" this thing?


23 Jan 13 - 05:19 PM (#3470523)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Are you speaking from the experience of raising your own child, Don, or is it all theoretic, based from talking points???

I'll bet none of you know a homosexual couple who have stayed together longer than your married counterparts...ya' think that is good for children?

gnu: "Can't read any more of this thread for a while, if at all.

Get you head outta your asses!

GfS


23 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM (#3470545)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

You lose that bet instantly.

Clearly you have a very short memory.

The saddest bit of post was when you said that you have kids.

I pity them even more than I pity you, and I surely do pity you.


23 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM (#3470553)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

I do have kids...and grand kids...you must have cross referenced to someone else's post.

GfS


23 Jan 13 - 06:54 PM (#3470566)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Are you speaking from the experience of raising your own child, Don, or is it all theoretic, based from talking points???

Two children and five grandchildren without any discernible prejudice, thanks to the care lavished on their upbringing, and a refusal to accept any intolerance or bigotry in their attitudes.

Why, they wouldn't even be prejudiced against ignorant unfeeling dickheads like you.

BUT I AM! So take your bigotry, roll it into a cylinder and SHOVE IT!

I also have some very good gay friends with children who are as well adjusted as any I've ever seen.

Don T.


23 Jan 13 - 07:07 PM (#3470572)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

My own son is mentally and physically healthy, very intelligent, quite thoughtful, and well-informed. His upbringing was NOT at all unusual, and I will not discuss him with GfS because no matter what I say, GfS will twist it into something smutty and degrading. That does not reflect anything about my son and I, but it most certainly displays the degree of rot and corruption in GfS's own wizened soul.

Don Firth


23 Jan 13 - 07:20 PM (#3470580)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

Ignore him, chaps. Let this die.


23 Jan 13 - 07:34 PM (#3470586)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Your on, Steve. The odor of bigotry and prejudice--and fear of "the other"--is getting overpowering around here. I'm gone!

The future is coming. Those who don't either get with the program or get out the way will be left like litter in the gutters.

See ya on another thread, another subject.

Don Firth


23 Jan 13 - 07:45 PM (#3470591)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

DonT, I was addressing the other Don..not you..I know you have different feelings about fatherhood, than the 'other Don'.

....and with all the blustering..NOBODY has answered or addressed, with any credibility, the questions I asked.
Typical!!

GfS


23 Jan 13 - 08:10 PM (#3470598)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

"Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..."

Hey gfs? Why don't you just say Fudge packer and Carpet muncher, like other people who feel that way about them?


23 Jan 13 - 10:52 PM (#3470637)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Please pose the question to Cecil and lansing. They will answer it for you.


24 Jan 13 - 02:49 PM (#3470848)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don't know them.....
Hang in there, TIA....this isn't over, yet...and may very much surprise you!

GfS


24 Jan 13 - 09:04 PM (#3471026)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Don T.....I understand very what equality under the law means.

In the UK last week the govt announced that, as we were all in this financial mess together, child allowance to high earners should be cut.
The next day it was revealed that if these high earners payed more into their pension funds and brought their take home earnings under £50 thousand pounds per annum....they could continue to claim child benefit.
The law says that all citizens should be treated equally regarding benefit rights, but low earners require all of their take home earnings to live and are unable to manipulate the system as high earners do.

This is one example of "equality under the law"

Instead of wasting time and energy on the "marriage" rights of homosexuals, most of whom do not wish to be married in any case, perhaps we should be scrutinising the real inequalities which are becoming more and more obvious under the present system.


25 Jan 13 - 12:58 AM (#3471066)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim

GfS said, "I'll bet none of you know a homosexual couple who have stayed together longer than your married counterparts...ya' think that is good for children?"

Same sex partners have not been able to get married for very long, but that doesn't mean there are not committed same sex couples.
My wife grew up in the village of Cannington in southern Ontario. There was a couple in that village, Timothy Findley and Bill Whitehead, who had been together since 1962. They stayed together until Findley died in 2002. - 40 years.
Here are some more examples: Committed Same Sex Couples


You criticised others for not answering your questions while you ignored mine.
Your marriage and mine doesn't suffer when two people of the same sex marry.
Why does it bother you so much?
In fact, why is it any of your business?


25 Jan 13 - 01:42 AM (#3471074)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Thanks, PHJim. That refutes both akenaton and GfS.

And that ends that. No more to be said.

Don Firth


25 Jan 13 - 01:51 AM (#3471076)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

You wish!..There is a lot to be said..and it may clear up missed perceptions,..and how we get from 'point A' to 'point B'....forthcoming.....

GfS


25 Jan 13 - 02:50 AM (#3471084)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Dunno what the government's drive to encourage people to invest in pensions has to do with it? Perhaps the old fool has run out of ideas on the subject in hand.

Just think Akenaton, a couple of weeks time after the vote in Westminster, democracy as well as morality will be on the side of the angels. Who do you have left batting for your side?


25 Jan 13 - 03:49 AM (#3471090)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

Surely i dont need to explain how laws are manipulated

All you have is an "equality" agenda in place of an argument, in a system where anything real equality does not exist.

All the arguments and figures which underpin my view still stand.
I have read nothing here which brings them into question.

You are a "busted flush" Ian.

Guest PHjim.....I know almost everyone in my area. Over the past few years I have worked for three male homosexual couples.....they have all now separated one member moving on to a new partner. This in itself proves absolutely nothing.

Proper studies have been done which show that in general same sex unions or "marriages" last only a fraction of time hetero ones do.

If you are unable to access these studies, say so and I shall print them for you.

Don firth has been making your point for years.....he knows three homosexual couples who have been together for a number of years, but looking at an issue like this in a subjective manner is meaningless.


25 Jan 13 - 04:36 AM (#3471105)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

Akenaton. STOP! Hold on...

Go back to your very last comment above, after the comma. You said "looking at an issue like this in a subjective manner is meaningless."

Agreed. Spot on. Good shot. Absolutely. Bang on. Appreciative nod in your general direction.

Now, find out who has been posting in the name of Akenaton above and try telling him that will you?


25 Jan 13 - 10:00 AM (#3471219)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Yup. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Statistical significance is required.

So let's ask the god of statistics...Nate Silver:

"Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates. Eleven of the 24 states (46 percent) to have altered their constitutions by 1/1/08 to ban gay marriage experienced an overall decline in their divorce rates, but 13 of the 19 which hadn't did (68 percent)."

Go look at the charts.

click


25 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM (#3471227)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter

Since it's difficult even to imagine why *banning* same-sex marriage would result in a rise in divorce rates, or why allowing it would result in a decrease, it seems that the safest tentative conclusion is that there is no statistically significant causal connection between gay marriage and heterosexual divorce.

In less precise, everyday terms: there's no rational reason to believe that marriage equality has any significant effect on anybody else's likelihood of divorce.

Gay marriage, yes or no, is not responsible for either set of figures. They result from other factors.


25 Jan 13 - 12:24 PM (#3471283)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Exactly Lighter. Correlation does not imply causation. Instead, correlated phenomena may be linked to some other factor (in this case level of education perhaps?) that could be considered as a causative factor.

Nate Silver acknowledges this, and closes with:

"At the very least, I would be surprised if there were any statistical evidence that interpreting the right of marriage to apply to same-sex couples would be injurious to heterosexual couples in any material way."


25 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM (#3471355)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Akenaton, I know three gay married couples and two lesbian married couples personally. I am acquainted with several more such couples who have also been in long-term relationships, some having recently made their relationship official, since it is now legal in Washington State.

Let's DO try to stick to the truth, shall we?

Don Firth


25 Jan 13 - 03:27 PM (#3471363)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

And also, ake, there is the matter of PHJim's post at 25 Jan 13 - 12:58 a.m. with it's link.

How do you explain that away?

They are in stable relationships, they are "monogamous," they are not spreading a plague, as you keep claiming, and other than their sexual orientation, they are just like anyone other couples--including the fact that some of the couples have children.

They are not harrassing you. Why are you harrassing them?

Don Firth
--


25 Jan 13 - 04:29 PM (#3471392)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim

I am still curious as to why it seems to bother straight folks if gay folks want to get married.
I also am curious as to why they think it's any of their business.


25 Jan 13 - 04:54 PM (#3471401)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)

Its Burns Night 25 January

so remember "where ere ye be let yer wind gang free" And in BS term be careful not to touch cloth


"O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An foolish notion:"


25 Jan 13 - 07:18 PM (#3471436)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA

Louse!


25 Jan 13 - 08:02 PM (#3471458)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

The point I was making Ian, is that if I was to infer that because I know three homosexual couples who have separated relatively quickly, this means that homosexual "marriage"/union is generally of short duration, I would be quite wrong......just as Don Firth is quite wrong to say, that because he knows several couples whos "marriage"/union has lasted a moderate length of time, homosexual "marriage"/ union is generally as long lasting as hetero marriage.

On the other hand, if a study of several thousand hetero/ and homo couples comes up with average duration times of approx 2 yrs for homos and 10 yrs for heteros, then I think those figures would be reasonable.

PH Jim......Who said Homosexual "marriage" had an effect on Heterosexual divorce rates????


25 Jan 13 - 09:33 PM (#3471483)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"……just as Don Firth is quite wrong to say, that because he knows several couples whos "marriage"/union has lasted a moderate length of time, homosexual "marriage"/ union is generally as long lasting as hetero marriage."

I did not say that, ake. Please do me the courtesy of not misconstruing or misrepresenting what I have said.

Since same-sex marriage has not been legal until very recently and only in a few states, one cannot say for sure one way or the other. BUT even without legal marriage, hitherto denied to them, the couples I mentioned, and the couples in PH Jim's link, have shown every sign of maintaining their monogamous relationships and of having melded their lives in the same manner as heterosexual couples.

Even when same-sex marriage was not legal, the relationships existed over many years, and continue to exist.

Let me put it to you this way:   going through a marriage ceremony, especially a church ceremony (which some liberal churches now perform) complete with friends and relatives in attendance (not to mention the expense involved in such a ceremony) is a public declaration that such a relationship exists. I have attended three such ceremonies that took place a couple of decades ago (recognized by the church and the attendees, whether the law acknowledged it or not) and they are still together and doing well. And I know of other such ceremonies which I didn't attend, and the same situation prevails.

It's obvious that you're objection that "gay men spread HIV/AIDs" in THIS circumstance does not apply. And, indeed, they should be encouraged, not opposed—IF one is truly concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDs.

So—what is your objection? How does it, in any way, affect you?

Don Firth


26 Jan 13 - 06:25 AM (#3471601)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton

My objection is, that in the main male homosexuals do not appear to have an interest in long term relationships or monogamy, examplified by the low take up rates of civil union, or homosexual "marriage" where available and the short duration of these unions/"marriages" in general terms.

It seems to be accepted even here, that studies and health figures show that male to male sex carries huge rates of promiscuity endemic to that type of sexual behaviour.
As I have remarked before the comparison of male homosexuality and monogamy, looks very much like the one between chalk and cheese.

Gay "marriage" legislation......smokescreen.


26 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM (#3471608)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)

Ty TIA u are a scholar

AKE says
"On the other hand, if a study of several thousand hetero/ and homo couples comes up with average duration times of approx 2 yrs for homos and 10 yrs for heteros, then I think those figures would be reasonable."

Note the word "if" That is conjecture and clearly usubstantiated guesswork and invented to try to try to justify your case. May I quote Shakespeare and say "Pish"
How can u possibly quote aids stats in isolation as an objection then resort to conjecture. The more u try to justify your dubious argument the bigger you dig the "hole of desperation" that your argument has fallen into and your credibility as an honest debater declines to all time low.
Read the case put by the churches in Scotland in the Scotland for Marriage campaign who are much more worried about how much it MAY cost them an legal fees and BAD PUBLICITY when denying the same rights to all. It was in a mailshot to every household in Scotland by the joint religious pressure groups. Not a word in it about the health risk and im sure if it was a legitimate argument they wouldnt have thought twice about using it.


26 Jan 13 - 07:21 AM (#3471611)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)

Religious Groups 10 reasons Marriage for Scotland Campaign


26 Jan 13 - 05:41 PM (#3471806)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Ake, I don't know how things are in the UK regarding the legality of same-sex marriage or civil (legally recognized) partnerships [these two are NOT the same, incidentally], but I do know that people at one time were imprisoned for "perversion." I presume that the UK has become more civilized in recent decades.

In the United States, until recently there were no same-sex civil unions, and most certainly not marriages. Within recent years, some states are recognizing civil unions, but still not marriages—with the exception of a very few states, including, in the recent election, my home state of Washington.

There is a substantial percentage of same-sex couples who have been living together for years—decades—and are, in all intents and purposes, married. EXCEPT that, despite the fact that these people would like to declare their relationship official, only a few states have, so far, allowed them to do so.

This is not just a social thing. There are rules, laws, and privileges involved which apply only to married couples (but not to civil partnerships), regarding such things as property rights, inheritance laws, next-of-kin visitation rights in hospitals, and a myriad other things that are not open to same-sex couples who ARE in FACT, if not de jure, married.

Granting these people the same legal rights IS a civil rights issue.

Considering that the divorce rate in the United States (I don't know about the UK) hovers at about 50%, the fact that some same-sex couples don't necessarily stay together all their lives hardly signifies.

Ake, why does it matter so much to you? How does it actually effect you in any way?

And DON'T continue to beat your hum-drum about "gay men spread disease" because one the one hand, encouraging stable relationships should reduce the spread rather that increase it, as you seem to be trying to imply. That argument doesn't wash!!

After all, heterosexuals did a pretty efficient job of spreading the so-called "French disease" (syphilis) all over Europe in the Sixteenth Century.

Don Firth

P. S. Kenny B., it was several religious groups, including the Mormon Church, who poured money into California to fund Proposition 8, which rescinded California's new same-sex marriage law. Washington State just passed a same-sex marriage law, and I'm sure it won't be long before the "Inquisition" gathers its forces and charges in with flaming swords.


26 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM (#3471818)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

No good plying Ake with logic!

If God himself removed HIV from the whole population, Ake would still object to Gays having equal rights to have their unions blessed.

He has a long line of ""other considerations", awaiting the development of a 100% effective vaccine.

His objection boils down to an objection to Gays, not to anything they might do, or want.

Don T.


26 Jan 13 - 07:03 PM (#3471845)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)

I wonder who will carry the banner of Toqemada here .... no prizes for guessing

As far as i am concerned we are what is called in Scotland as "a' Jock Tamsons bairns" and should be treated as such.
To misquote stats out of context as Musket says shows a lack of analytical skills. Guess who?
If you have a look at the "Scotland for Marriage Campaign" and have read or listened to the learned churchmen involved one of the tenets of their 10 points of argument is understandable they, dont want to marry people who dont conform to their interpretation of marriage, and dont want to be sued for not complying and involved in legal/damages costs.
The whole issue is very political, they are walking a tightrope between the liberals and hardliners and want to come out smelling of roses no matter the outcome.
The object of local polititions in all states and countries involved IN MY OPINION is to do the same and allow the religious groups to have a concientious objection allowed in law but allow marriage to be a right for all who publically want their status to be acknowledged and respected.
No doubt there will be wheeling and dealing in the meantime to achieve a result that satisfies borh sides of the argument.I have tried to keep my response as close to the title of the thread as posssible and not introduce "Red Herrings"
I find the thread a good socialogical excercise in the sense that all the colours of the rainbow are in view whether they are our favourite colour on not.
Have a good day :<) and in musical terms "All gods children have place in the choir"


27 Jan 13 - 08:37 PM (#3472253)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim

Even if it were true that very few same sex couples are interested in long term, committed relationships, why should that prevent those who ARE interested in such a relationship from getting married? Granted, some will stray and become untrue to their partners, kinda like some straight couples, some will fall out of love, kinda like some straight couples, but some will remain faithful to the end, kinda like some straight couples.
If the high risk of failure is a reason for preventing marriage, then let's say that divorcees should not be able to marry. They've already proven that they aren't a good risk for a successful marriage.

Ake, I didn't mean to imply that anyone had said that same sex marriages would increase the divorce rate among opposite sex marriages, but many people have said that allowing same sex marriages would ruin the institution of marriage itself. I said that since it became legal for same sex couples to marry in Canada it has had no negative effect on my marriage nor on any marriage that I know of, therefore how can it be ruining the institution of marriage.

It still baffles me why you or anyone else objects to same sex marriage. How does it affect you? The only way it has affected me is to get me an extra couple of wedding gigs that wouldn't have otherwise had.


11 Feb 13 - 05:28 AM (#3478185)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Well I hope enough time has gone by, for all the phony wannabe pretenders of giving a shit about anything but how their stupid misinformed opinions are playing to the audience, and 'platituding' each other on the back, for agreeing to delusions based on no science whatsoever, but political horseshit, to set a few things straight!

Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..what great names!...but before I tell ya' how they came into being, I gotta' say that the only TRUE indignation, disappointment, and honest response came from TIA...but not for the reasons some of those described in paragraph one, would want to believe!!

TIA's reasons were/are personal..your others are bullshit. TIA has real concerns..as opposed to some of you, who seem to cringe and want completely out of the subject..AND responsibility of being the natural parents of your own children!...and it is those hypocrites who type the LOUDEST..and are the most vociferous!

Don (Firth) seemingly takes great pride in the alleged fact that his son turned out so 'normal'...pretty good, considering the woman that raised him wanted nothing to do with Don, nor him around the kid!...Ya' must have done something..or represented something pretty fucked up to warrant that!

Don T...mentions...Wait..here it is....:

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 08:36 AM

"(GfS)"...and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!""

Don T: "And on that we are in total agreement, so why would you suggest that such useless trash be coerced or persuaded to live up to their responsibilities and bring up the kids they obviously don't want."

So..we are in agreement with that...Let me ask you something, Don, with no underlying 'barbs' attached....after I read your post about how you felt about your kids, and you look back on it..what has brought you greater joy, happiness and satisfaction...seeing your kids grow up and fly straight, (as you indicated), or having the best sex you ever(really) had??.......
...thing is, you were able to have them both!...and THAT separates your experience from fantasizing about experiencing either one!..Ya' think that that MIGHT affect SOMETHING about your life's experience, from those who pretend?....or choose sex over having their own???...and value that more???........Maybe YOU can explain the difference to them...perhaps in a sensitive way to let them know what a sacred thing that that is to you....as it is with most honorable men!

...and to TIA....as you have read, in some of my previous posts, I've maintained that I've talked about receptors setting up the response mechanisms of nervous and emotional systems of the fetus, during pregnancy....that the child's sharing of those systems, with the mother affects how they are set up....and you posted several things about the father, who seemed to be 'less than wonderful' to the mother....ya' think how the mother felt about the father MAY have had just a 'little something' to do with the orientation of how that baby was programmed with...being as the nervous and emotional systems are one with, and being developed in the formative stages of gestation????? Think of the mental and emotional 'climate' the child was in...especially in light of the fact of what the mother was going through!!!..Ya' think that may have had just a 'little' bearing on the matter??

....as far as 'Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole....those are genderless, (but with sexual innuendo) names that was used by a homosexual writer friend of ours, who was describing another homosexual couple that he was telling us about!
We howled.

A. I don't 'hate' homosexuals
B. Have had working relationships with some who were brilliantly
   talented.
C. They ARE reproductively impaired..I know it..they know it...and
   it a place in them of 'sadness', when they honestly confront that..
D. ....but they are NOT hopelessly stuck there.

MANY (most) have deep seeded resentments and emotional hurts, some justified, some they just held on to....and with those hurt sensitivities, one might think that to correct that, to the next generation...and to KNOW how important that it is, because how it impacted their own lives...well, there's the clue.....perhaps resolving to pass that to their own, and loving them in a way, as not to hurt..and to correct (not over compensating)...and still bear or father their own....only one way to do that!....unless they adopt..and teach their kids to 'overlook' that they have two mommies or two daddies....without the real impact of life coming through the filter of a real male and a real female...with all their differences and polarizations..........................it's not unhealthy.

I find that understanding the mother's mindset of her pregnancy...including resentments, disappointments, frustrations with the man who impregnated her, and the amount of focus and 'UN-forgiveness' should open up an opportunity for empathy and compassion to that woman.....as long as she could admit it.....just like her offspring...

GfS


11 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM (#3478287)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Another deep steaming pile of Far from Sanity horseshit.

It appals me to think that you call yourself a counsellor and yet are devoid of the smallest vestige of empathy.

You don't see human beings different than yourself, you see ""reproductively impaired"" cases to be converted by you into whole humans who fit your self generated and unsupported suppositions about what their sexual orientation ought to be.

I see human beings who establish relationships in a different way than I do, but are just as loving and caring as myself or anyone I know, and a damn sight more so than you.

I see other human beings of the same orientation as myself, who are careless, thoughtless, irresponsible and as incapable of empathetic interaction with others as yourself.

I have no problem in recognising that children need a caring, loving background in which to grow, or that both hetero and homosexual couples can and will supply that.

I have no problem in recognising either, that in both hetero and homosexual couples, there are those who not only cannot supply such a background, but should be actively prevented from nurturing children.

You babble on about making neglectful and abusive parents "live up to their responsibilities".

I pray God that nobody takes any notice of your inane suggestions, because you are a danger to children.

Think very carefully before you again ascribe to me the smallest measure of agreement with your so called ideals, because I assure there is none, zip, zero, zilch. Got it?

The proof of the pudding will come when Gay couples end up with exactly the same proportion of heterosexual to Gay kids as do Straight couples.

IMO that is exactly what will happen.

Don T.


11 Feb 13 - 01:53 PM (#3478306)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Once again, gfs, you have managed to string together a grammatical garble such that anyone can only make a best guess as to your actual intention. My best guess is that you are again holding forth that gay men can be cured of their orientation, so that they can marry and father children. My second-best guess is that you are suggesting that, despite their orientation, it would be best for all concerned for them to marry women and father children.

You continually discount a genetic basis for homosexulity as an unscientific notion promoted because of an agenda. But instead you postulate changed or confused orientation caused by stresses experienced by the mother during gestation. Granted this much, that serious emotional stress during pregnancy can't be healthy or the developing child. But why would the mother's stressful relationship with a male dispose the child to avoid relationships with women and seek relationships with males instead. Frankly, it all sounds about as "scientific" as saying "mom was frightened by a snake so I'm afraid of the garden hose". That's not quite right either. It's more like saying "mom was frightened by a snake, so I'm afraid of gopher holes".


11 Feb 13 - 02:10 PM (#3478318)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"Don (Firth) seemingly takes great pride in the alleged fact that his son turned out so 'normal'...pretty good, considering the woman that raised him wanted nothing to do with Don, nor him around the kid!...Ya' must have done something..or represented something pretty fucked up to warrant that!"

LIAR!!

Goofball has no way of knowing the circumstances. He's making it up, and I'm certainly not going to try to explain anything to him because, first, it's none of his business, and second, he'll only try to twist it into something tawdry, which it was NOT.

And the fact that he's resurrected this thread, which has been beaten to death, is a clear indication of how stupidly desparate he is for attention.

Ignore the village idiot and let this asinine thread die.

Don Firth


11 Feb 13 - 04:23 PM (#3478373)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Now that I brought up empathy and compassion look who's trying to interject in in their postings!...How come you never thought of it before??..but this time you twist it around..as if you even related to it!

Don, Remember when you posted this?: And your question regarding my son, "Any regrets, or wishes that something might have been done or handled differently, back then???" On the one hand, I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place. On the other, considering the fine man that is the product of this union back then, I am most glad that it did happen. And although I would have liked to have participated in his growing up, his mother (and eventually, step-father) did a more than fine job, and I doubt that I could have done any better. He, his partner, Barbara, and I have a very loving family relationship."

Why were you picking up chicks in a bar to fuck then?...as long as someone else, who might have actually loved her, raised the child that you knocked her up with! (Do I have to refresh your memory?)
"I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place."???..and then you want to lecture us on the wonderful benefits of parenting??..and how to do it??...and ennoble people procreating, and walking away??...as long as someone else will pick up YOUR slack???

Then you post: "Barbara was married before, briefly when she was in her early twenties, but it didn't work out. No children. I, on the other hand had not been married before, but I do have a son. From a relationship that took place in the 1960s. Due to various circumstances, marriage with my son's mother was impossible."

"..marriage with my son's mother was impossible."???????

But fucking her was OK??????!!!???
Methinks you think with your 'smaller brain'...too bad you see NO correlation with the two acts.....and then you CANNOT see that parenting your own child and loving him/her from conception is the same...and part of the same. Did you EVER even think of what emotional wheels were initiated in the "woman that you never wanted to be involved with" ..and care about that????...So much for YOUR compassion and empathy!!!

You stated that you wanted to go to college instead..for your 'career'....what for???..for providing for your child?????..or just for YOUR self-centered...'new conquests'??

You also stated that, the "I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place", would not even allow you to be around...and in fact moved away from you....are we supposed to applaud you and your kind, caring, sensitive, responsible ways?????

You've been bullshitting people long enough, just to get your way..problem is, some adults (even on here) aren't as gullible as the easy women you preyed on...and ain't buyin' your line of crap!...and then you get all pissed off and act so indignant...and can't fathom 'why?'..and call us/them 'bigots and homophobes'...what a line of covering your own stupid ass!...or was picking her up and knocking her up an act of 'wisdom'???

So don't even begin to tell me squat, about the wonders of sexual acts over the gift of being a loving, responsible parent..you don't know what the fuck it is!!..NO EXPERIENCE!!!!....just quasi-theoretical excuse making!

Ironic that you also posted this tidbit, "For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex."

So true..but you've given NO indication that you know what it is!!

....and you posted; "..Frankly, your posts are so convoluted that I find I can't divine what the hell it is that you are trying to imply about me. Are you still rattling on about my allegedly being guilt-ridden over the fact that my son was raised by another man? Well, first of all, I had no choice in the matter. And second, there is nothing to be guilty about."

No wonder he turned out alright....he was raised by a man, and a woman that were capable of loving him!!!..makes a difference!

...and Don posts: "Don: Firth: "My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one,..."

...ever occur to you that it was a 'real family' because you were not around?



Note this one, from 'Don T'....: "From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM

"(GfS)I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!""

(Don T)Quite right Goofie!

As the father of two much loved children and the five grandchildren with which they have brightened my existence, I too have a complete lack of respect for that type of worthless human."

Amazing how politics don not reflect the BEST humans can do...just accommodations for the decadent!....and then they mask it with 'civil rights'(?)

Don T...I applaud you for loving your kids, the way you came across.
Would you trade it for any other experience?....If not, explain it to all the other promiscuous destructive morons who think otherwise...either hetero or homo!
Firth wouldn't grasp it at all.....no point of reference!

GfS


11 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM (#3478382)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I was not "picking up chicks in bars," you imbecile. Don't judge me by YOUR slimy standards of behavior.

You know nothing of the people or the circumstances, so just take a long walk off a short pier.

Over and out!

Don Firth


11 Feb 13 - 07:01 PM (#3478441)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Obviously, gfs, the only way in your life you could ever get fucked was to find an ugly, unwanted, desperate woman and marry her.

And no, I have no reason to think that is actually true; but it's no less a construction from sick imagination than what you, the almighty counsellor and fount of compassion and virtue are quite willing to spew in someone else's face in all seriousness.


11 Feb 13 - 07:26 PM (#3478446)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

NEW WORD!

Assstroll!


11 Feb 13 - 07:30 PM (#3478447)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu

The extra "s" is to pay tribute to that guy who lacks S anity.


11 Feb 13 - 07:53 PM (#3478450)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

He certainly lacks anity, that's for sure! :-)


11 Feb 13 - 10:29 PM (#3478485)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don Froth: "You know nothing of the people or the circumstances, so just take a long walk off a short pier."

...only what you posted....
...and it doesn't sound like you were anything less than the 'imbecile'...or was this a product of your articulate wisdom?? Come to think of it, as long as you try to justify it, and clean it up, you still sound like the same old 'imbecile'!

We often wish to ennoble those faults that we don't want to correct!

As to the others, stuff it..bad behavior is bad behavior....trying to launder it by adopting smokescreen political 'activism', is just another smokescreen....and nothing justifies half-witted promiscuous antics, which produces children, that gets raised by someone else who actually might care....and Don, that's you! Like it or lump it...but for God's sakes, keep deflecting responsibility, and promote other behaviors that promote promiscuity, and lack of parenting...your cup of tea!...What else ya' got??

And to those who defend such behavior...get fucking real!

GfS


11 Feb 13 - 11:19 PM (#3478491)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I am not going to discuss the details of my youthful romantic life with someone who has the mind of a rutting swine and apparently thinks that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is just a story about two teenagers who want to fuck each other. I would not subject my love life to the scrutiny of someone whose mind is nothing but a septic tank.

The fact that Goofball resurrected this moribund thread to attack people who disagree with him, especially me, more than amply demonstrates that something really bothers him about the same-sex marriage issue and the roots of same-sex orientation.

His admissions about his father in the Prop 8 thread tell why he is so dead set against the idea of homosexuality being genetic.

He's terrified of his own genes. And his own dark urges.

Don Firth


12 Feb 13 - 01:31 AM (#3478501)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Trying to resurrect a bogus claim, that I never made??..just to try to justify your permissive behavior???
Look, the bottom line is how can anyone take seriously your rap on who should or could be a great parent..when you have NEVER done it??..and then promote people whose lifestyle is based around sexual immorality to raise children??..Do you really think that is acceptable?? Would you 'advise' your child to follow in your footsteps??
Why would you promote a lifestyle choice, yes choice, of those who have blotted out half of the natural instinct of self preservation and reproduction??..and then banter about like it is a noble thing??
Permissiveness has weakened this country beyond belief, and threatens its very will to self preservation as a society..just for a sexual fantasy??? Get off it..this country is in deep shit, and you just think its swell to add more fuel to the fire! You have NO parenting experience...but then want to promote legislation about something you know NOTHING about!..just your off the wall opinions, that would affect segments of the next generation(s).
At this point, maybe a little self examination on your motives may foment some 'new' questions...and that goes to others who read this stuff, as well. It's about as rational as assigning a Catholic priest to oversee a boy's group!..(But then most people are already of politics and 'religion'!...Just a bunch of manipulating weasels, trying to control masses of people for their own personal gain...and you have NOTHING to gain...except to hide from your own reality, and appear 'useful'...a 'political activist' who has no idea what he is yapping about.
Haven't we, as a nation, and community of nations have suffered and had enough of that crap, to call it like it is and ignore the son of bitches?
The 'free love' novelty of the '60's has caused immense damage, broken enough homes, left children with one parent, fucked up the economy(along with other factors), given rise to street gangs to replace the need to belong to a 'family', increased drug abuse, violence and many other societal ills, because a loving family, and a loving, natural family structure has been assaulted, belittled and politicized to be a 'thing of the past'. This is insane!..and you are promoting it.
Why not promote the BEST for a family....instead of promoting sex acts, by your life's example and political 'activism'?..and you think you're helping?????
Now before you come back with another one of you flurry of 'assaults', try answering a question or two..just so we can understand you(as if there was any question), and put forth the 'wonderful benefits'....other than your 'acceptance' of your homosexual friends.......because your non-existent 'family' doesn't have any....your self-absorbed lifestyle has cut you off from that!
So much for 'unity'...oh, and by the way, the family structure IS the nucleus of all societies.....maybe your political orientation includes destroying that, too, as a means of achieving their goals, and you are an 'unwitted'..as in unwitting participant. Blind leading the blind...but look at you..you're at the head of the parade!
You should be ashamed of yourself!

GfS


12 Feb 13 - 02:03 AM (#3478505)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

I'm really amazed at how much verbiage you can crank out when you have no idea of what you're talking about.

No family life? I have a very good family life. Yours, from what you said before, wasn't so nice. Too bad.

You won't improve things for yourself by being envious of me.

Don Firth


12 Feb 13 - 02:06 AM (#3478506)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

You're making things up, again.....I guess you resort to that when you can't answer a question, or otherwise have anything to say.

GfS


12 Feb 13 - 02:58 AM (#3478516)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

Hey Goofus!

The good professor wishes to debate a couple of points with you, don't you boy?

Woof! Woof! Woof!

What's that boy?

Woof!

Actually I think you are both barking....


12 Feb 13 - 04:44 AM (#3478533)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

So what???...If you have anything constructive to say, head on...if not, you can meow like a pussy.

GfS


12 Feb 13 - 05:19 AM (#3478553)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket

If I had anything constructive to say, I doubt it would have any bearing on your awful so called contributions. I genuinely reckon you need help.


12 Feb 13 - 05:51 AM (#3478559)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"" I genuinely reckon you need help. ""

A terrible thought! Anybody who tries to sort out that mind will need an anti radiation suit self contained breathing apparatus.

Don T.


12 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM (#3478620)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie

In light of the wisened comments and insights, I regret (sort of) that I must choose to revert back to being heterosexual. It was fun while it lasted--oooh all the boys, those pretty, pretty boys! But I still prefer to have the love of the religious and other heteros, rather than be reviled, bullied, and spat upon.

Saul


12 Feb 13 - 11:29 AM (#3478670)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Gfs may, in a sense, be quite honest in saying he never posted that his father was gay. That post may have been written by a separate personality of which the "gfs" personality structure is unaware.


12 Feb 13 - 11:52 AM (#3478678)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

..as I said before, and posted, it may have been posted by some of the musicians here, who wanted to get back to the studio, and have told me that I shouldn't be wasting my time debating idiots.
..Then again, I really don't know, for sure, where that post came from.

As to the other posters, there are some questions posed to Don Firth, which he seems unable to answer consistently with his 'political' masquerade...anyone is open to take a stab at it. Maybe it may cause you to think...................for once in your life!

GfS


12 Feb 13 - 01:16 PM (#3478713)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"" ..Then again, I really don't know, for sure, where that post came from.""

Of course you know where it came from. It has been confirmed a number of times that it originated from your computer.

So, which of the musicians here (mentioned above) has access, in your absence, to your computer?

And which of the musicians here ""have told you that you shouldn't be wasting your time debating idiots"".

As far as can be seen in past threads, most of the musicians here are much more likely to be telling us we shouldn't be wasting our time debating an idiot.

As for the post in question, conclusions have been drawn as to the likely veracity of your explanation.

Don T.


12 Feb 13 - 02:06 PM (#3478734)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

The questions that Goofball wants me to answer have to do with what he imagines to be my love life, so he can take it and twist it into something lurid, crude, and shameful. He has that kind of mind, and IF he is, indeed, any kind of family counselor, I suspect that he gets off on the sort of thing he may hear from his clients/patients. Anything and everything I have alluded to in the past, he has done this with.

So if I DON'T answer his persistent, probing questions, I'm sure decent-minded people here will understand why.

I have NOTHING to be ashamed of.

Goofball is a disgusting and contemptible person. Not to mention SICK.

Don Firth


12 Feb 13 - 02:57 PM (#3478753)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

Hey, just for the strangeness and rarity of the thing, how about a post on the subject of this thread!??

I heard this on the news this morning and checked it on the web:
France's National Assembly has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. After days of intense debate, the bill was passed by 329 votes to 229. It must now win final approval in the Senate.
Not a fait accompli yet, but it's over the major hurdle and well ahead.

By the way, with Washington State's new same-sex marriage law now in effect, a member of the writers' group that meets once a month at Barbara's and my apartment, and his partner of several years, are getting married in about a month. They are already in a "domestic partnership," but in a month, they'll be officially, legally married.

Congratulations, guys!!

Don Firth

P. S. Bit by bit, in certain areas, the world becomes more civilized.


12 Feb 13 - 06:23 PM (#3478818)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie

The British parliament voted it through last week. Due to how bills work, it will have a couple more debates including the Lords vote but this is to clarify points and amendments not vote down the bill.

The Tory MPs showed huge division and showed the country they are not fit to form a government on their own yet as some of the homophobic rants were frankly disgusting.

Still, the reform moves on. Once we have a more equal society I wonder what other institutions will lose state protection? Many people see how irrelevant the old guard are and are beginning to ask society to stop giving them state privilege. It appears that compassion and equality are secular traits after all. Funny that. .


13 Feb 13 - 12:08 PM (#3479078)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

DonT: "Of course you know where it came from. It has been confirmed a number of times that it originated from your computer."

Duhhh....That has already been established. If you could read and comprehend, you would have also read, repeatedly that I DID NOT author the post..get over it!

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......If a living being gives up the will to survive, that entity becomes headed down a road to not surviving.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......You would either hang around that person for a healthier mental disposition, and would encourage your children, or friends to do the same.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Because it is the 'will to survive', you think that the will to reproduce no longer part of fully, healthy living beings.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Anyone who does not subscribe to those who do NOT wish to survive, or agree with giving up the will to survive, must mean that those same (non-subscribers), must automatically hate them.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who wish to maintain their 'will to survive', might see those who do not, as less than 'on the ball' as the rest of society, that is trying their best to survive, and who want their children and friends, to not only survive, but to prosper, not only financially, but mentally and emotionally.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who promote others to give up the will to survive, might be seen as being anti-survival, and could be looked upon as a negative factor, and detriment in a society trying to survive.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who use lies and bad science to 'prove their worth or validity, to promote other to give up their will to survive, should be considered 'heroes to the cause'.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who root on their families and or friends to survive, and work actively, might find the promotion of the legitimizing of others to give up the will to survive as a destructive
element.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who subscribed to not wishing to survive, and who have a change of heart, should be given help, if so requested, should not be denied help.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those same 'activists' who promote those who are locked into not surviving, AND who would deny help to those who now wish to survive, because of the 'activist's' personal views, might be considered as having a hidden agenda, and would lie, and spin as not to be seen as what they really are about.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

GfS


13 Feb 13 - 12:18 PM (#3479084)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""It appears that compassion and equality are secular traits after all. Funny that. .""

Which is absolutely obvious really, if you look at it without the unidirectional filters of all the religions which have claimed and still do claim ownership of morals and ethics.

IMHO, knowledge of right and wrong preceded all religions and possibly preceded Homo Sapiens.

After all, morals and ethics are largely an expession of the need for an individual to moderate his behaviour for the benefit of the community, and even apes have a rudimentary concept of acceptable and unacceptable actions.

Early hominids must have co-operated to hunt for food and it's not to much of a jump to suspect that family and tribal groups had some vague, maybe even subconscious, golden rule which predisposed them toward empathy, if not love, for their immediate kin.

Don T.


13 Feb 13 - 12:38 PM (#3479101)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.""

A false premise, and from a false premise anything follows.

The will to survive is an innate part of all animal life..true or false?

FALSE!

Most animals have that innate and overriding urge, but not all. Particularly, but not solely, in the insect world there are groups whose job it is to give their lives when it is appropriate to do so, and even among humans a mother may willingly give her life in defence of her child.

The will to reproduce is an innate part of all animal life..true or false?

FALSE!

Mammals which live in groups very often live their whole lives focussed on the survival and rearing of one alpha pair's offspring. They give up their chance of reproduction, perhaps not willingly, but without too much concern, and there are many heterosexual human couples who decide against reproduction for a multitude of reasons other than inability.

The rest of your post is arrant nonsense, given that your basic premise is fatally flawed.

Tell me what is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child, and a Gay couple (male or female) doing the same, other than your distaste for the latter?

BTW, I can apparently read and comprehend well enough to take you on, and what I write is at least comprehensible to others who can read.

And the fact that you deny something carries no weight unless we trust you. Ask around and see whether that is the case.

Don T.


13 Feb 13 - 01:59 PM (#3479139)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Don T,: "A false premise, and from a false premise anything follows.

The will to survive is an innate part of all animal life..true or false?

FALSE!"

BZZZZZZZZZZ

Don...someone should have taught you about the birds and the bees...

GfS


13 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM (#3479159)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw

The "will" to survive, huh?

"Will"???


13 Feb 13 - 03:06 PM (#3479174)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Look it up.
....(not to be confused with 'the ability')....

GfS


13 Feb 13 - 03:37 PM (#3479186)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

It's a terrible thing to contemplate: people who have no real will to reproduce, passing that on to their children, generation after generation, until they outnumber those who have the will to reproduce, and the human population ages and dies....


13 Feb 13 - 04:03 PM (#3479200)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

No normal person wants to die. But there are situations in which most, if not all, living creatures are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of others or for the good of the species.

The male black widow spider fertilizes the female, and then she eats him (hence "black widow"). And there are a number of insect species where this kind of thing is part of the mating ritual. This perpetuates the species.

The whole of history—and today's newspapers—carry stories of people who have died to save another person, or who have been willing to die for a principle, be it patriotism, a religious belief, or what they consider to be some higher good.

But then, you can't really expect a person who has no principles to understand that.

Don Firth


13 Feb 13 - 04:25 PM (#3479208)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince

Question: is there any evidence whatever to suggest that any other animals are aware of any connection between sexual activity and pregnancy?


13 Feb 13 - 05:06 PM (#3479218)
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth

"Question: is there any evidence whatever to suggest that any other animals are aware of any connection between sexual activity and pregnancy?"

No evidence that I am aware of. I tend to doubt that any animals really make the connection. Since such a relatively long period of time takes place between mating and birth, I doubt that it