 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM "Don and Ebbie appear to feel that homosexual promiscuity and the practice of anal sex cause the health problems which have been highlighted by the Centre for Disease Control. . . ." I'm really sorry to learn that you have a reading disability, Ake. Where, exactly, did I say anything like that? I have been trying to point out to you that HIV can be transmitted by homosexual practices (and heterosexual practices and blood transfusions and any other exchange of bodily fluids between an infected person of either sex and a not-infected person of either sex), but the virus is NOT created spontaneously by homosexual practices per se. I have posted this information a number of times—along with the historical data that the concept of "spontaneous generation" is a medieval superstition that was finally laid to rest by Louis Pasteur in 1864. Ask any competent epidemiologist. Ask any competent doctor. Be so kind as to stop misquoting me. HIV/AIDS is NOT a specifically "homosexual disease" (even if a group of Los Angeles gays, for some cockamamie reason, want to own it!). It's an equal opportunity viral infection. The way to protect yourself is to avoid exchanging bodily fluids with an infected person (of either sex), and if you don't know if the person is infected or not, either avoid that kind of contact with them or, at the very least, make sure you take the necessary precautions. And encouraging stable relationships by legalizing same-sex marriage will go a long way toward reducing promiscuity among gays. To simply ignore fact that is to turn away from the obvious. But you already know all this. You just don't like it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:07 PM "Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anger, in itself, is not indicative of bad character. I, for one, would rather that a person be passionate in his or her beliefs and actions than detached and supercilious and uninterested in truth." Amen to that, Ebbie! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM there is a fine line between rightous anger and self rightous anger. the first allows us to admit when we are wrong, the second will never let us admit guilt for anything. crap spelling again i am afraid as i am knackered.you know what i mean! sleep well all jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:57 AM Still dancing Don? Some day you're gonna fall off the head of that pin...:0) Please explain why homosexuals are so many times more likely to contract Aids than homosexuals; and why any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community. The containment policy employed by Castro in the eighties means that even since "liberalisation" the numbers of people living with Aids in Cuba is relatively small. Of these unfortunate people, approx 80% are homosexual or bi-sexual. Now I don't know why this is so, I have certainly never mentioned "spontaneous generation", to be honest, I had never even heard the term till you mentioned it, but nobody knows for sure what causes Aids or "triggers" it.....so as far as I am concerned, everything is "on the table." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:55 AM any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community You have made this statement a number of times. Is there some documentation for this (from as unbiased a source as possible)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:17 AM Ake: You ask "Please explain why homosexuals are so many times more likely to contract Aids than homosexuals; and why any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community." Actually the people many times more likely to be infected are black. From the CDC: ************************** African American males continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection. In 2006, the HIV diagnosis rate for all black males in 33 states (119.1 per 100,000 population) was the highest of any group— more than 7 times that for white males (16.7), more than twice the rate for Hispanic males (50.9), and more than twice the rate for black females (56.2). The diagnosis rate for Hispanic males was approximately 3 times that for white males. African American females are also severely and disproportionately affected by HIV infection. In 2006, the HIV diagnosis rate for black females (56.2) was more than 19 times the rate for white females (2.9). The rate for Hispanic women was 15.1, more than 5 times that for white females. reference ************************* It is a hugely loaded question, but I am trying to understand your logic, so here it is: Should marriage between blacks be outlawed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM And, sorry, your question does deserve and answer. The CDC's answer is: "The reasons for these disparities are varied and not well understood." reference I am not an MD or biologist, but here is my answer constructed from what I have read and heard since living with one of the first diagnosed AIDs sufferers in 1981 (a hetero female nurse). Several factors: 1) early on, gays got more attention than straights because they were reporting it more, and were more aware of it themselves. 2) the vagina is built for sex, the anus is not. It tears more easily, allowing infection to enter. Also, the vagina has beneficial flora whose purpose is to produce a pH and chemicals that are hostile to invaders. 3) Gay men do not have a vagina (see 2 above). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:39 AM Akenaton, before we phase back into the link between AIDS and being gay, there's a different question still on the table. You have claimed, many times, that a precedent for denying a full range of civil rights to homosexuals exists in that we deny certain rights to certain other people, mostly drug addicts, felons, and madmen. Besides the fact that all of these people, even murderers in prison, are allowed to marry, Amos presented arguments that seem to completely refute your position on this question. Rather than wait two or three days and then repeat yourself again, and then ignore it when Amos, one of the Dons, or I refute your comments again, perhaps you could answer this one now. It would be lovely to start taking the open questions one at a time and discussing them fully. Here is the statement from Amos again, just to refresh your memory: The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful. Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously. There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy. No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM "Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying "we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules" is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled." "The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means "treating everybody the same way", but "treating people appropriately", which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant "the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire". Ho ho!! Somebody's been reading my mail!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:35 AM My link was not meant as an answer to the poster immediately above. I would have thought that by now he would have deduced that I have no interest in conversing with someone who thinks me a homophobe, a bigot and a pervert. Tia...would you, for fuck sake go see a statistician....ask about percentages and how they work....after that you might have a go at simple addition or subtraction.....who knows, the world may be your oyster! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:55 AM The rhetoric you excerpted is interesting in its illogicality. The assertion that justice does not mean giving in to every sexual desire is a complete strawman. If you take a class of people and outlaw them in some way, you are in fact declining to test each case on the merits, preferring to do your thinking in large categories and treat everyone int hose categories the same way. As your proponent points out, this does not serve justice. If you insist on linking categories that do not really tie together (such as the capability of bishops and the sexual orientation of the people who act in that capacity) you are not serving logic, either, because you are asserting false-middle and hidden-premise distortions. "No-one should be a bishop who will not safeguard the young" is a fine principle. "All homosexuals threaten the young with corruption" is highly debatable. Linking these propositions together automatically is a betrayal of reason, preferring reflexive or reactionary modes of thought. It is exactly the same failing that militates for dictating about sexual orientation to people and denying civil rights to people because of some attribute or category instead of the merits of individual cases. It is lazy, reactive, irresponsible thinking. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:19 PM "Still dancing Don? Some day you're gonna fall off the head of that pin..." Standing on solid, scientific ground, Ake, and you know it. You just don't like it because it pulls the rug out from under your "homosexual activity generates HIV" argument, which is pure medieval superstition. And you know that, too. Or if you don't, your scientific education is sadly lacking, and you need to learn a great deal more before you venture into making the kind of pronouncements you seem so fond of making. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM As a charter member of the moronic pseudo-liberal conspiracy of Orwellian thought control, it seems to me that complaining about being called names is a bit odd. Be that as it may, if you don't want to respond to me, perhaps you would be so good as to respond to Amos: The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful. Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously. There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy. No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:36 PM Akenaton -- just to be clear, I've never called you a homophobe. As I've said, I have no idea if you're a homophobe or not, since I can't see inside your head. The names I have called can be supported, in my world, by the things you've actually said. That's a claim you can't make. But that's all a digression. Really, the best thing would be to answer Amos' post, or acknowledge the point and don't bring it up again. Otherwise you run the risk of being seen as an inadequate thinker and conversationalist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM ". . . any new outbreak of Aids has always [emphasis mine—DF] shown up first in the homosexual community. . . ." Not true, Ake. The first outbreak of AIDs was found among African hunters, illegally poaching monkeys for "bush meat." It then spread rather indiscriminately among Africans of both sexes. It was first found in the United States among homosexual men, where the nature of the virus was identified. As I said, it is an equal opportunity infection and it is transmitted like any other virus. Spontaneous generation is a medieval superstition (repeat that to yourself until you finally get it). #### United Nations, May 30 (Prensa Latina) Cuba was highlighted on Tuesday as the Caribbean country with lowest HIV-AIDS levels as well as for carrying out one of the most efficient programs in the world to prevent the transmission of the illness from mothers to children. The recognition appears in the UNAIDS report on the world AIDS epidemics, presented on Tuesday at the UN headquarters in New York, and contrasts the Island with the panorama in neighboring Caribbean nations, which is today the most affected region in the world after Africa for this scourge. Last year alone the pandemic took over 2.8 million lives in the world, and four more million people were reported to be newly infected. The document says that in the case of Cuba, there was a 0.1 percent rate for adults by the end of 2005, with some 4,800 people living with HIV and fewer than 500 dead due to diseases associated with AIDS. The Cuban program to prevent mother-child transmission of HIV has kept the number of newborn HIV children under 100 so far, the report states #### Ake, I have checked what sources you have used that I've been able to ferret out, in addition to the BBC story about AIDs in Cuba that you linked to many posts above, and I find that not only do you exaggerate what these sources say, you pad the statistics you quote. Naughty boy! Most unscientific. Most unethical! When it comes to dancing on pins, you're liable to find the point of that pin in most uncomfortable place! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM "Tia...would you, for fuck sake go see a statistician....ask about percentages and how they work....after that you might have a go at simple addition or subtraction.....who knows, the world may be your oyster!" Please note that until this exact post, I have never called Akenaton any names, nor have I used any foul language in adressing him. That just ended. Akenaton, Thanks very much, but the world is already my oyster. I teach math at a fucking university (you, and all, would recognize the name). Steering me to a math primer is a fucking dodge on your part. Easier (and ridiculous) to pretend that I don't understand math than for you to try to justify your fucked-up logic. I'm sorry if my tone is oppressive. I certainly don't wish to silence you, but I really don't get the blather that comes out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:48 PM AN interesting tidbit from the reference TIA provided: "A survey using a convenience sample of more than 6,000 middle and high school students across the United States found that What this suggests is that by promoting bias against homosexual individuals on categorical grounds, the impact of voices like GfS and Ake in a community would be to increase the transmissions of STDs through the mechanism described. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM One of Ake's methods of discussion (in addition to posting bogus information and dodging straight questions) is to attempt to denigrate those who disagree with him by displaying contempt for their knowledge, background, and intelligence, when those he tries to denigrate obviously know more about the subject than he does. Thus, like Wile E. Coyote, he avoids looking down, lest he notice the he's standing in mid-air, twenty feet out from the canyon's edge. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:34 PM Tell you what, at Ake's suggestion, I will have a go at simple addition. I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM. sum=0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:40 PM Tia....I am astounded! You teach maths yet are unable to work out simple percentages! Who hired you?.....he should be sacked immediately! I am only a stonemason, but am able to calculate quite easily that in real percentage terms, homosexuals are by far the largest group of people living with Aids. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were being facetious and obstructive with your "blacks" comment. Better watch out for the thought police tho'.....ask Ebbie :0) Hmmm....Maths teacher, I suppose that explains the quality of your jokes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:57 PM Tell you what, at Ake's suggestion, I will have a go at simple addition. I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM. sum=1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM Ake! 2171 posts! You da troll! Troll on dudette! Have a gay old time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:06 PM Akenaton: The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful. Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously. There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy. No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM Tia....A friendly word of advice, this course of action could prove difficult for you. As I have already answered Amos's point regarding the status of homosexuals in relation to marriage "rights"(several times)and wont be repeating it again, there is a real and present danger that you may run out of fingers....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM Answer again, please, this time responding to the specific points that Amos made: The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful. Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously. There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy. No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:17 PM cough, sputter, and complete disbelief at your point that gays are the highest group of poeple living and dying from HIV/ AIDS. what type of drugs are you on there ake? can i have some please as you must be very intoxitated. how many times must we point out the conditions in africa? i am getting very dizzy going round in circle, although i am learning some cool stuff along the way,but unfortunately not from you ake. i got outed in school and i can tell you it was a very unpleasant time and i lost alot of friends over it. however that was high school, which was 16 years ago. times have moved on now, it is about time you moved with them. may i ask how you feel about gays being in the military? i would love to know if you think they would be a risk out there with a whole bunch of men, in the middle of nowhere? anyway, that is me done for now but please stick to the facts as it was a good job i did not have a mouthful of coffee because it would have gone all over my pc. take care all jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM Good for you, jeddy. If his feet are held to the fire long enough he might wake up. Eb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 15 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM Jade...I think you know that I was referring to the situation excluding Africa, which has been dealt with earlier in the thread. The transmission of the disease in Africa, is related to the general promiscuous behaviour of African heterosexual males. In Western developed countries, the figures state that homosexuals are by far the largest group living with Aids " in REAL PERCENTAGE TERMS"....not absolute numbers, as absolute numbers are completely misleading in this case. Now whether you like it or not, this is stated as a fact by the highly respected Centre for Disease Control, please address any complaints to them, not to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM sorry ake, i took you literally. please be abit clearer, you know how easily confused i get. LOL love jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:46 PM I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM. sum=4 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM Akenaton keeps citing the Centers for Disease Control as his source of dire statistics. From research I did on the site, I can only conclude that Ake excerpts what he wants from the site, gives it his own twist, and simply ignores the rest. It is a good, informative site. I would suggest that whenever Ake quotes something from the CDC, you check it for yourself. Centers for Disease Control--HIV/AIDs Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM That should say "most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM" Sorry John. no change in sum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM you know that the risks of transmission from oral sex are very low. you need to have an open cut or wound in ones mouth or throat for the virus to actually get into. you cannot be infected by swallowing. the same for kissing, it said a casual kiss, but it is known that the only way you can catch it is if you swallow a bucket load of an infected persons saliva.. nice. by the way i learnt this stuff when i was in high school and went to various terance higgins trust talksd on the subject. i did not see that sort of awareness from the hetrosexuals. it also went on to say that other STDs increase the risk, so why are we not shouting at all the staight people too? take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM Jade...I am not "shouting" at homosexuals, that would prove absolutely nothing. I am appealing to the "liberals" and homosexual activists, who seem hell bent on promoting a lifestyle which the figures suggest needs much closer scrutiny before being accepted as healthy and harmless by society at large. The "marriage" issue is simply a cover for the furtherance of a "liberalist" political agenda, with all it's attendant horrors like the suppression of "free speech and free thought" Homosexuals are basically uninterested in the marriage "rights" being pushed by political activists, the take up figures for homosexual "marriage" support that. In general terms, the lifestyle as it is practiced by male homosexuals is high risk and very promiscuous and marriage/ monogamy would appear to have very little place in that lifestyle. Most homosexuals who are in a committed relationship, seem to prefer a little privacy! Quentin Crisp, who was mentioned earlier by someone, was a homosexual icon, but opposed "homosexual rights" He is on record as having said "the world would be a better place without homosexuals". You are beginning to sound the most sensible of the pro's Jade...well done....its a start...:0)XX |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:26 AM As far as Homosexuals in the military are concerned, my opinion is that anyone, homosexual of heterosexual, who wishes to join the military must have severe learning difficulties. Another example of vulnerable people being used to further a political agenda. In other words, it does not matter how many young men and women die in these Capitalist wars, as long as the agenda keeps moving forward. Any excuse will do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Smedley Date: 16 Jul 09 - 06:45 AM I have been on holiday for almost two weeks. And this thread is still going. Wow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 16 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM ake, thankyou for the commpliment kind sir, (not being sarcastic.) also thanks for answering my questions i appreciate it. it seems we are talking about two different issues here. 1) the normalisation of gays. 2)the right to marriage for gays. the two are completely different to me. the first is accepting someone for who they are and allowing them to love who they want. if we do not ackowledge their feelings then we condem them to a life on the outside of society and i sm sure you will find there would be more deaths through suicide than new cases of HIV. there is alot of predjudice out there as it is, without people saying they should be shunned even further. the second issue is a legal and political thing and it should not matter (as long as everyone involved is legal age and consenting) what happens in someones bed as to what rights they have. i understand some of the reasons for joining the military, not all of them. if it is a family thing and thereis no outside pressure then i think it is a worthy cause. we should all support them and i for one feel better that we ahve one of the best military in the world. i applaud the courage it takes. without them we would be in serious trouble by now from world war II. our countries are build on war from as far back as you can trace through history. i know you would never beleive i am a peace lover. anyway i digress. it is a good thing you do not make the distinction between gay or staight in the barracks, does this mean you are in favour of changing the rules in the US military? take care all jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 16 Jul 09 - 08:56 AM It's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock. The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful. Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously. There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy. No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Smedley Date: 16 Jul 09 - 10:05 AM What baffles me is why those of you in this thread whose views I support (and as a big ol' homo that's been involved in assorted aspects of gay politics for more than twenty years you can guess which side I'm on) are still trying to get Akenaton to change his mind. It's never going to happen. He is impervious. You might as well get a polar bear to go vegan. And worst of all he is also clearly having loads of fun by getting you all so stressed out. Why keep throwing him fish ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 16 Jul 09 - 11:46 AM ahhh, thats hardly fair to call ake a polar bear. they are dying out,as much as i disagree with him i don't want to think of him on a small bit of ice slowly starving to death. i do agree that we are rising to his arguements but i feel the need to counter them, however much i wish to rise above, i simply cannot. the fault is mine. (ashamed face) ake, if you could address the first part of my last post,i would be gratful. cheers x take care all jade x x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 16 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM 6 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 Jul 09 - 06:05 PM Quentin Crisp was very amusing with his repertoire of witty remarks, but he also spoke a lot of sheer balderdash. He definitely did not speak for all gays, and I don't think he would get much agreement on statements like, "The world would be a better place without homosexuals." If, indeed, he actually said that. And Ake's statement that homosexuals are basically uninterested in same-sex marriage (pushed, as he says, by those nasty, meddling "liberalists") is nonsense, as are his comments about the "lifestyle" of homosexuals. Not what the real, live homosexuals of my acquaintance tell me, by any means. Does Ake know any homosexuals? Has he ever take the time to talk with a gay person? And more important: did he listen to what they had to say? It's putting forth misinformation, such as GfS's insistence that sexual orientation is a matter of choice (when you reach puberty, you just toss a coin), and that it is a psychological aberration (not what the American Psychiatric Association says) and can be cured with counseling and/or psychotherapy (proven ineffective, if not downright hazardous to the patient); and Ake's increasingly obvious thesis that homosexual activity by itself spontaneously creates the AIDs virus (based on "spontaneous generation," a long since debunked medieval superstition) that gives homophobes and bullies the kind of excuses they look for to commit hate crimes against gays. Hassling and bullying of gays is almost a national sport with some people, and almost all kids even suspected of being gay have had to undergo it. It's called by some "fag bashing." What it really is, however, is a HATE CRIME. And sometimes it can lead to unspeakable atrocities. Have you ever heard of Matthew Shepard? If not, google the name. It will give you an idea of how far this sort of thing can go. Here's a start: CLICKY. Don Firth P. S. By the way, Ake: since when has it been reprehensible to have a "political agenda?" All politicians have one, otherwise why did they run for office in the first place? And all thinking citizens have one, otherwise why would they bother to vote, in the hope that the politicians they vote for will actually do what they say they intend to do? No—if you don't have a political agenda, you have your head up a very dark place. Your political agenda seems to be the prevention of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, what are all your posts on this thread, and at least one other thread awhile back, all about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Jul 09 - 02:42 AM 6 already Tia, soon be time to get your socks off mate! After that you'll only have one digit left.....:0o !! Never mind, I'm about finished here, once I've addressed the points made by Don and Jade....so you should be safe enough and won't need to navigate the minefield of "double figures".....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:19 AM Hello Jade...I wasn't being sarcastic either, at first you seemed "too good to be true" but I can see that you are sincere and not at all politically motivated.....but you "are" running around with some real bad company :0). I dont really know what it is you want me to answer, but I guess what you are saying is that "love" conquers everything and every other issue is incidental.... well that may apply to you and your partner, in fact I'm sure it does, as seems to be the case with most lesbians... who are mostly monogamous. The promiscuity figures for male homosexuals are totally different, showing multiple sexual partners in a short period of time, and from what I've read on the subject, the typical male homosexual liason is a pretty sad, lonely and loveless affair....the user and the used both requiring something completely different from the experience. Perhaps this eternal search is the reason for the promiscuity which seems to be endemic in male homosexuality. Everyone here seems agreed that exteme promiscuity can be one of the reasons that homosexual health statistics or so bad, if that is the case then the lifestyle must be questioned and its promotion as healthy and normal opposed. By that, I don't mean that homosexuals should be criminalised or persecuted, but that they should be given the means, to address their problems, psychologically and physically, by providing funds and expertise.....not just leave them to die in their thousands by sticking our heads in the sand, or blindly following an Orwellian political agenda. Please PM me at any time, I will try to reply when I can, but I work usually from seven 'till eight in the evening... seven days a week so my time here is limited......best wishes Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:21 AM Hi Don....Firstly, before I finish here, I would like to apologise for any offense I have given to you personally, but trying to paint me as a psycopathic hate filled bully, as you have done in your last post, hardly encourages friendly debate. When I am attacked in such a manner,I usually respond in kind. I have no objection to anyone having a political agenda...I have one myself, which would seem outlandish to most people here, but it does not involve the manipulation of people or their views in its pursuit. The "liberal" political agenda, as opposed to liberal thought, is "Orwellian" in concept and practice. I believe that implicitely and my views are borne out by many who are much better educated than I am. I know two homosexual couples, they are both appalled by the controversy engendered by the "liberals" and activists, they feel it is serving no useful purpose and that legal rights can be achieved through a civil union. Neither of these couples are in a civil union at present, and have no desire to be...."they just wan't a bit of peace" From my view regarding the health figures this may be rather selfish, but these couples see themseves as separate from mainstream homosexuality and its attendant problems. In conclusion Don, my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it. For me it has meant months of repetition and much of my valuable time, but at the end of this thread we are addressing the issues, rather than attempting to stop a politically "inconvenient" discussion.......Apologies and best wishes Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:57 AM ake, thanks for that it was a really nice post. when you put it as simply as that i can see where you are coming from. although beleive me i have known some real sluts in the lesbian world too! i just think they way men and women search for someone is different, gay or straight. the risks of unprotected sex is just so much greater for gay men ( not just HIV but tearing and bruising too)and hetrosexuals. for me a person can sleep with as many or as few as they want to, it is a matter for them and whoever they settle down with to come to terms with, as long as it is safe sex!!!!! just a personal thing but sex in a toilet is meaningless and degrading, unless it happens to be with ones partner. i feel sorry for those who do it purely on a 'they are worth moe than that' basis. i did think about sending this to you in a pm but i have given you alot of stick here and wanted to say this in public. you are not a bad guy and i do believe that you are trying to make the world a better place.so many people just don't care, so good on you. just some of the langauge you have used has been abit full on. right that is enough being smoochy take care all jade x x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM "...the typical male homosexual liason is a pretty sad, lonely and loveless affair." Therefore we should ban the happy, long-term, loving ones. Sheesh. And the sum=9 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it. This is a beautiful mission statement, Ake, and I applaud it. However, it should never be found so dazzling as to blind you to human wrongdoing in its name. All politics is persuasion, by its nature, and it is wiser to choose among voices by reason rather than simply stand against all of them. There's a fuzzy line between persuasion and manipulation. But aside from that general principle, the intention to have equal civil rights equally administered is not manipulative; it is simply a desire to see equable justice under the higher principles of our great experiment over here, to make a democratic republic work under the law and strive for an ideal of justice. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM Being "married" does not necessarily mean "long term, happy or loving"......are you saying that those who choose to remain unmarried Oh fuck what's the point!.......10!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:49 PM 2200!!!!!! Whoo-Hoo! Still rollin', eh? And now........a word from our sponsors: Don't let THIS happen to you! |
