BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 04:47 PM

As these posters are obviously only interested in homosexual chat, maybe GfS & Co' could take their personal (and no doubt fascinating?) preoccupation with "Men putting their willies into other men's bum holes" interests away from a err supposed *Folk Music* board, and on to a more focused Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian discussion board, where it might be better appreciated?

Just a thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 03:56 PM

You've got it, Crow Sister. In his/her last 200 posts, GfS has posted only four times on music threads. The vast majority of posts have been dedicated to the trying to quell the same-sex marriage issue.

Ake's history is pretty similar. His posts tend to deplore homosexual practices, implying they actually create the AIDs virus, and seem to dwell on the lurid details of anal intercourse.

What's the word? Obsession? Fixation? Fetish?

I think that about says it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 03:31 PM

Does GfS ever post about anything other than homosexuality and men bumming each other?

I haven't noticed anything but homosexual posts from GfS myself. GfS is into Homo discussions - but this is a Folk discussion board. So, does GfS belong on a Folk discussion board, or on a Homosexuality discussion board? Go figure?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 02:47 PM

See what I mean, folks?

GfS has no intention of discussing anything in good faith. Insults and brow-beating is all s/he has in his/her repertoire.

And the best Ake can come up with is to try to insult someone by dinking around with the spelling of their name.

Bloody childish!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 02:15 PM

Don, Okay, you stated your position...are you done with that yet?...so we can move on???

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 12:47 PM

GfS, where the snideness comes in with you and Ake is that you two were the first to try to refute those who did not agree with you by attempting to denigrate them by insulting them on a personal level, calling them "stupid," calling them such things as "liberal fascists," and generally trying to lump them (us) into some fictional political movement dedicated to promoting homosexuality when that is not the case at all. The primary concern is the matter of civil rights (which is not a political issue, it's a human rights issue), which you and Ake simply refuse to recognize.

Recently Ake listed a few names of people whom he regarded as sufficiently stupid and contemptible that he would no longer bother to answer them. The fact, of course, is that these were the people who were asking the difficult questions—questions that he either could not answer or was afraid to answer honestly for fear of revealing too much about his prejudices and motives.

And you tried to undercut my credibility by building a whole fictional scenario about my being morally remiss and, hence, emotionally disturbed because of a relationship of mine that I happened to allude to on another thread, that occurred over forty years ago, and about which you know absolutely nothing. That, GfS, is fighting dirty. And I didn't start it. You and Ake did.

Neither you nor Ake seem to be willing to discuss this matter in reasonable terms without resorting to insults, so your attempts at "reconciliation" here (if that is, indeed, what it appears to be) tends to ring hollow.

Show good faith by refraining from the insults and pigeon-holing (e.g., such things as accusing us of a "political stand," which you used in your most recent post) and give straight answers when they are asked of you and we might have a basis for rational discussion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 10:13 PM

"Mr.Snide", is no way to convince your intended reader, that you wish to raise him 'up'(?) to your understanding. Let's do this as a way to bring this to a symbiotic conversation, rather than trying to vindicate ourselves, to be 'recognized', as being 'right'. Truth to tell,most all your points have either been in error, or limited...Fair enough?...No slam or slur intended, in the least,..but WE can do, and BE better than that. The lesbians think they have a corner on being 'right', the male homosexuals think the same, those opposed, think they do, so on and so forth. Those who are, have all the reasons they are, those opposed, do so, because they do not like the effect that they see, and don't like it for one reason or another..both can be 'RIGHT', from their perspective, but, instead of beating each other over the head, UNDERSTANDING, at this point, may be in order....wouldn't you say?..unless all you want, is people to understand, that you should be acknowledged, and worshiped, for your political stand......which has NOTHING TO DO with CAUSE OR EFFECT...its just your political stand..okay? I would rather we talk to each others hearts, and minds, to understand, and to be understood, than play politics, just to placate each other...wouldn't you?
Let's give it a shot....and get somewhere, where others CAN'T!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:31 PM

By "Mr. Snide," I was not referring to you, GfS, but if you want to put the shoe on and announce loudly to all that it fits, be my guest.

And I haven't missed a thing.

Don Firth

P. S. The question remains unanswered.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 06:59 PM

""The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to maintain stable families for the children they create. It would be a mistake to undercut that purpose by redefining marriage, whatever the take-up rate for same-sex unions. Yet, for those receptive to arguments for same-sex marriage, the case for this reform would be greatly weakened if it turned out that only a few gays actually marry.""

Once again a comment which is not germane to the issue.

1. Exactly how would permitting same sex marriage "undercut" the nature or function, or the "fundamental purpose" of heterosexual marriage?

That statement is arrant nonsense.

2. The number of marriages so far taken up is immaterial. Civil rights are not granted on the basis of how many citizens suffer discrimination, but rather on the basis of ensuring that no citizen suffers discrimination.

In point of fact, the small number of same sex marriages might quite well be due to the short time for which this has been possible, and quite likely the opposition of many churches to celebrating such unions.

In the USA specifically, it is unclear whether it will even be possible to marry, as there is doubt, even in the States which are for this reform, whether it will be overturned.

For gays, a policy of "Wait and See" might be wise, given that permission may be rescinded by the veto of one man, mayor or governor.

Whatever, I don't think the figures of gay marriages to date can be considered significant, as an indicator of the long term position.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 06:27 PM

""What you say about Christians is quite right too. And other 'people of religion' (other religions). Most just want to practice their faith without being vehement or upsetting anyone else on various topics.""

Which of course is exactly what most homosexuals would want, and what they should be able to do, were it not for the interference occasioned as a result of fundamentalists trying to relegate them to some lesser status than themselves.

I never cease to marvel at the number of different fears that seem to afflict religious zealots, but, given the choice of allaying their fears, or protecting the civil and legal rights of those they fear.....well, I've made my position plain.

I have no truck with bigots of whatever stripe. I look down on no man, and I look up only to a carefully chosen few.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 06:16 PM

thank you mauvepink! I agree exactly with that statement about being bisexual! so many people don't realise that for the majority of people that are truly bi, it is indeed all about the person. But gees, the number of time I got called greedy was _almost_ funny. Particularly as when I came out at 15 I had only really dated one boy and one girl and never slept with anyone. Ignorant people are so capable of cruelty.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:57 PM

Apologies... I never put my name on so I guess the previous will dump itself at some point?

Here it is again....


Thanks for that Bill. I think there is a great deal in what you say as sometimes having a male partner to a function does cut down on attentions. It makes perfect sense and, of course, gay men often love mixed company in any case :-)

Elspeth, I have heard all sorts of arguments about bi men and women. Being greedy, fence sitters, can't make their minds up, etc etc. But what people do not realise is that for those whose bisexuality is not all about sex (and most genuine relationships are of the heart and not just sex) then they face the same obstacles as straight people. Finding the 'right one' no matter the gender. Being bi often means being a person lover in that you do not care what genotals a PERSON has as long as they have something that is good between the ears and in their hearts that each can relate to. What most people forget is that bi folk, while maybe doubling a chance of a relationship, also double the chance of getting their heart broken :-(

akenaton... loving the same gender is homosexuality, no matter the gender, but over time homosexual seems to have become to mean exclusively male. In fact it is male or female. Thus...

homosexual [,hEUmEU's*lksjUEl or ,hQm-] noun
    1 a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

adjective
    2 of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality

    3 of or relating to the same sex Compare heterosexual

Lesbian, on the other hand, is exclusively female. Before then they were tribades or friccatrices.

Hope this helps

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

well Ake, I was going to provide a definition of homosexual, but that's already been provided acurately. However some other terms might be useful. Gay is now generally used to mean male homosexuals however in it's original use in connection with homosexuality it was used to refer to all of it...much as one could use the word "queer" nowadays, although some people find that offensive. for the record when I say "gay" I mean anything _not_ heterosexual.

I was thinking about the question of male promiscuity...the most obvious thing that can be drawn form this is that men are, in general, mnore promiscuous. It is also more acceptable for them to be. They might be called a player possibly...but no one will really accuse them of sleeping around or any of the unpleasant names that come with that. So it stands to reason that in a lot of situations two men will not form a permanent relationship, because it is more natural for them not too. However there are some permanent relationships, possibly because of the more feminine side present in a lot of gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:35 PM

I guess this person, referred to as 'Mr. Snide' cross posted. Don, lighten up, you might miss something.........AGAIN!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

While scrolling through the thread, to get caught up, I caught this, from mauvepink's link, the very first sentence,..now pay attention!......"This question asks for scientific explanations rather than religious or moralistic answers.
Unfortunately, there is not yet a conclusive study which tell us exactly what causes homosexuality."

Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT I SAID???!!!

And to Ake, Homosexuality refers to sex with the SAME gender, either male to male or female to female...not exclusively to men.

Okay, We are having some company arriving very shortly. Being as the thread is now 'discussing the issues a little deeper, and delving into the moralistic, religious, psychological, and the scientific aspects of this, getting back on, will be among my top priorities!! Because there is a lot more to share with you, and hopefully you may all be receptive, because somebody's missing something, by just looking at one aspect!!..Remember the story I posted, of the 'Blind Men and the Elephant'!!...If not, re-read that post carefully...and hopefully understanding,and open mindedness will prevail.....because if WE, as musicians fall into the trap that has everyone squabbling, we are no better, and have NOTHING to say. It wasn't always that way. Years before, it was the musicians and particularly the 'folkies' that had a LOT to say, and we made a difference! We can't just fall back, remembering those times, and think that we still do, just because WE ONCE DID!! There was a time that we were the thinkers, not the followers.Perhaps we should 'wise up' and be the thinkers, once again, and stop chanting symptomatic mantras of disinformation and politics, that limit science, instead of expanding it!!!...or co-opting it!!!!
With Much Regards,and Hope,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM

Well, it's been awhile, and I notice that Mr. Snide, who simply ignores questions that he can't answer or doesn't answer because it would reveal too much about the basis of his attitudes and beliefs, has not answered the question I posed some time back.

What, intrinsically, makes two men "an infinitely more dangerous sexual grouping than a man and a woman?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:06 PM

Ebbie...I haven't changed my views and have explained them pretty clearly above.

Oh BTW...the next time you get your "stiletto" out of the woodpile, make sure you get it plumb between your victims shoulder blades....I think the old eye to hand co-ordination may be going..:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:55 PM

I think I should make it clear, that I am referring to male homosexuals in health issues and promiscuity.

The figures for lesbians are as good or sometimes better than heteros.

Can you clarify something for me? what is the proper way to describe a woman who is sexually attracted to other women exclusively.
I always thought the word homosexual described a man sexually attracted to men?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:33 PM

I think it's a generation thing...no offence of course, but most people gay people I know of my generation do want to settle down. The gay people far more than the straight! Almost as if to prove that being gay isn;t something dirty, just a fact and not making them promiscuous in a way...and actually a lot of the gay people I know are fair more honourable (dating wise) than the straight ones.

I know a LOT of bi peoploe, myslef included her, that get very angry when it's implied that most bisexuals are just promiscuous when I can tell you honestly that I have never cheated or slept around nor do I have any intention of doing so and I am most _definately_ attracted to both sexes.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM

Agreed Elsie, but Amos did accuse me of an "outrageous assertion" in stating...."The trouble is that it seems, in general terms, homosexuals are uninterested in "marriage" or monogamy".

My link makes it clear that my assertion was quite correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM

To answer mauvepink... sure, I know that 'some' women were attracted to gay guys, but whatever relationships *I* saw were usually just friendship. It was kinda rare for that to interfere with women also wanting straight BFs.
(sometimes having a gay friend allowed a woman to go places and do things and feel safe from being hit on by other guys. I knew a couple of gay guys who often acted as escorts for women friends at a bar or something.)

Oh... and I knew several people of BOTH sexes who were quite bi-sexual. It never seemed like a conflict and they didn't make a big deal out of it...it was just 'known'.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM

I'm sorry, but there being a low take up on gay marriages does not mean that it ought'n't be legal for those who choose to. Many heterosexuals decide not to marry, or remain "living together" for many years, even their entire lives, why shouldn't the gay population have the same reasons for staying unmarried? Some people in striahgt relationships live together and have children together and consider themselves lifelong parteners and still do not marry. I think this is a personal choice (though a slightly odd one) and everyone should have their pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 03:50 PM

Amos dear boy, dont be so shocked....See here, the Williams Institute,UCLA School of Law, have found the take up figures for homosexual marriage to be exceedingly low...about 5 new homosexual marriages to 1000 new heterosexual marriages.

Why So Few? Looking at what we know about same-sex marriage
By Stanley Kurtz
National Review Online
June 5, 2006

Why have so few gays chosen to marry? A new study by Maggie Gallagher's Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP) estimates that, in countries that legally recognize same-sex unions, typically between 1 percent and 5 percent of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage. Obviously, that is a very low number. Much of the argument for gay marriage turns on the claim that same-sex couples need the cultural, legal, and economic benefits of marriage. Yet if only a small number of gays actually marry, the practical impact of the change on gays themselves would be minimal.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to maintain stable families for the children they create. It would be a mistake to undercut that purpose by redefining marriage, whatever the take-up rate for same-sex unions. Yet, for those receptive to arguments for same-sex marriage, the case for this reform would be greatly weakened if it turned out that only a few gays actually marry.

And there's more at stake than numbers. Since the "conservative case" for same-sex marriage holds that marriage will import a more conservative ethos to the gay community, we need to know something besides how many same-sex couples actually marry. If substantial numbers of gay couples take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage, while simultaneously rejecting traditional marital norms (like monogamy), that would greatly weaken the "conservative case" for same-sex marriage.

Despite the few short years formal same-sex marriage has been available, we can now offer some preliminary answers to questions about why so few gays marry, and how those gays who have married understand their unions. The iMAPP study covered only countries that have formal same-sex marriage, with data going back, at most, five years (for the Netherlands). Yet a turn to Scandinavia provides a fuller story. A series of recent empirical studies on Scandinavian registered partnerships have made available a fascinating body of data about a same-sex partnership system that has been in existence for 17 years in Denmark, 13 years in Norway, and 12 years in Sweden (19 years if we go back to the same-sex unions Sweden created in 1987).

The new studies show that after nearly two decades of Scandinavian registered partnerships, only a very small number of gays have actually entered legal unions. And there are clear indications are that even many couples who have registered may be doing so more for legal benefits than because they aspire to traditional marital norms. In short, there are now clear signs that same-sex marriage is not working the way its defenders claim it should, even for gays.

Complete article

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 12:11 PM

Ake's most recent post states:

"I am in favour of letting homosexuals get on with their lives in private, as long as the appropriate health education is provided."

I see.

So now you're line has evolved to a point where you are saying the same thing that is being ... er ... "promoted" in schools.

... oh no ... one thing missing ...

that homosexuals deserve the same civil rights as everyone else.

In other words, that homosexuals should not be discriminated against.



2 key points here Ake that you may dick to avoid as much as you like but that this thread has come down to.


1. Have you changed your view of homosexuals since 2004?

2. Do you agree or disagree with discrimination against homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 11:51 AM

Almost everything we do as animals has a) survival, or b) reproductive reasons behind it. We have to survive to sexual maturity in order to procreate in other words. When we look at almost all we do there is some strategy tying in a, b or and and b above... until we come to homosexuality. That then seems to fly in the face of evolution and procreation. BUT most animal groups display homosexuality and that it continues to survive in the gene pool it must have some evolutionary advantage ultimately linked to a and b above.

Of course gay people actually do reproduce so as to why the genes continue is not so hard to answer as to what the evolutionary advatage is of homosexuality in nature. That said, many homosexuals never reach sexual maturity because of hate deaths and suicides :-(

One train of thought is a kind of 'keeping you hand in' approach to reproduction and the fact that humans developed pleasurable orgasms means anything that gives that pleasure will be utilised. There are as many ideas as for why it happens as there are detractors of it being evolutionary. That it exists, and will likely continue to exist, is without doubt really.

I found a short precis type idea which expalins some ideas. Hope it is of help.

What_is_the_scientific_explanation_for_homosexual_behavior


The thread is going a little off topic and I apologise for my part in that already

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 11:51 AM

Devious:
1. departing from the most direct way; circuitous; indirect: a devious course.
2. without definite course; vagrant: a devious current.
3. departing from the proper or accepted way; roundabout: a devious procedure.
4. not straightforward; shifty or crooked: a devious scheme to acquire wealth.

It is true that I prefer the stiletto over the bludgeon or even the hatchet - it is less messy and just as efficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ake: "This post has been extensively cut in a typical "hatchet job" by one of the most devious posters on the forum, but I stand by all my remarks even tho' they were made many years ago."

No so, my slippery friend. Here is the ENTIRE post:

"I must give my support to "cruiser"in this thread. He has had the courage to say what many of us feel about homosexuality, but are too intimidated by the politically correct "Gay"pressure group.
I too think homosexuality is repugnant,against nature and based on psychological problems.
"Cruiser says the answer is to turn away and let the homosexuals get on with their lives,but unfortunatly this is getting harder and harder to achieve, as "gay culture " ouzes from every media orifice,
with all its nasty innuendo,like little boys behind the bike shed
and god help anyone who tries to stop them....Ake
PS At least folk music seems to be pretty clear of this scourge.
Just shows what well adjusted ,sensible hetros we are."

Feel better now? Incidentally, even though it "was many years ago" (2004), does this mean that you have changed your views?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 11:35 AM

Procreation f every species is certainly one of the major dynamic vectors of life, but I wouldn't attribute to "a purpose", beyond it being an inherent struggle by every organism. Postulating it as an "assigned attribute" is what you might call a "Blind Watchmaker" argument.

The trouble is that it seems, in general terms, homosexuals are uninterested in "marriage" or monogamy(Ake)

Ake, this is an outrageous assertion when you look at how hard large portions of the gay community are trying to get the right to legalize their monogamous relationships. Maybe you've just been exposed to the "young buck" section of the population, of the type who lead risky lives no matter what their sexual orientation.

GfS: I asked if you thought homosexuality was reversible or cureable. That doesn't mean I think it is a disease, but that I was curious whether you do and whether or not in your view it is remediable. i think it is not, outside of reincarnating in the correct body type.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM

"I DO know that when I was still in my teens, and saw some of those good-looking gay guys, I was quietly relieved that they were not competing with ME for girl friends"

The subject of gay men and the women that 'love' them could be a whole thread in itself. So many women will still fancy a gay man even if they know he is gay. Being gay does not stop them being attractive.

We used to say things like "All the decent men are either already married or gay" and, while not factually correct, many women find gay men make excellent friends because sex is taken out of the equation. It's a very relaxing relationship that is fun, friendly, loving and safe. Some men do not like their wives/girfriends talking to other men but would not get upset if it was a gay man at all. So they, too, feel unthreatened by the relationship. Gay men (and I am generalising) really treat you wonderful, are great conversationalists, know how to have a fun time, are not interested in you sexually, and can dance ;-)   Forgive any stereotyping. This has just been my own experience. Any other women out there agree?

We are getting into a "When Harry Met Sally" type thing here, I know, but I do actually belive that men and women can have platonic friendships where sex does not raise its head. Being friends with a gay man (men) just takes it a step further and there is no threat percieved at all from sex. Do other women feel the same way? I know most of my females friends do. This is not a slight on straight men in any way, but there is just something I cannot define that is intrinsic with a female-gay male friendship. For the record I have nothing against straight guys trying to date lol

So, I suspect that while you were grateful that the gay men were not competing directly that you still actually came across women who were nonetheless attracted to those same men?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 10:46 AM

"...the primary purpose of "nature" is to facilitate procreation of every species."

Nature doesn't have a 'purpose' in the sense we mean it. Evolution DOES work in such a way that procreation is usually assured. That is sort of automatic, or we wouldn't be here, but 'nature' produces many variations on the theme which don't affect the procreation aspect. Perhaps there's some 'purpose' in that also.

I DO know that when I was still in my teens, and saw some of those good-looking gay guys, I was quietly relieved that they were not competing with ME for girl friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 10:42 AM

Yes, it's not about all agreeing on the matter is it? It's about having respect for eachother. I certainly have friends that disagree with me on subjects that could be considered hugely important, but as it is I get on with the people they are, and don't bother myself that their ideals are perhaps different to my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:17 AM

Elspeth, sorry... my post and reply blanked out so I am putting in another if someone can remove the blank.

I fear your Guest reply may disappear too so I have made a note below of your anwer to keep it on the forum :-)

I look forward to the day we can all be friends and have respect. It is a dream, I know, but I can dream wondering what it would be like. I think it is healthy for people to disagree on a lot of things. I would certainly not want a cloned society, but respect and education must be high on the list toward achieving peace in the end :-)

mp

Elspeth wrote "I think you are right in our being luckier in the UK...of course there are a lot of things that aren't right, and as you say many of our laws are indeed "tag ons" which is a shame. But overall, yes I think it's dealt with well.
It probably is a human thing...it wouldn't be normal for everyone to agree.

Exactly, there is a lot of confusion of 'faith' with 'religion'. People who have faith should of course be free to practise their religion, but there is a lot of religion without true faith that tends to be all about the achaic practices and NOT "love for all". Which, by the way, I heartily agree with as the most important message/practice"

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:02 AM

That was me btw, the previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM

I think you are right in our being luckier in the UK...of course there are a lot of things that aren't right, and as you say many of our laws are indeed "tag ons" which is a shame. But overall, yes I think it's dealt with well.
It probably is a human thing...it wouldn't be normal for everyone to agree.

Exactly, there is a lot of confusion of 'faith' with 'religion'. People who have faith should of course be free to practise their religion, but there is a lot of religion without true faith that tends to be all about the achaic practices and NOT "love for all". Which, by the way, I heartily agree with as the most important message/practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:49 AM

Hello again Elspeth :-)

I think in many ways we may be luckier in the UK as the law is lots more specific and clearer in many areas to do with all discriminations. Alas, many of our laws are also 'tag ons' whereby an initial law has been passed and then they have added groups into it as laws have changed. They do try though and I think the UK probably is quite good with it all. That said, it does not and will not stop people disagreeing with others having 'equal' rights. I guess it's a human thing? That confusion you mention still abides in abundance but is getting lots better here.

What you say about Christians is quite right too. And other 'people of religion' (other religions). Most just want to practice their faith without being vehement or upsetting anyone else on various topics. Indeed, the vast majority of folks I know who have a faith and religion actually preach a message of love for all, live and let live, judge yea not, etc. This has changed a lot too in my lifetime as people have become more open minded and educated as to other's lives. Fundamentalism, in most things, is often a far cry from that being carried out by the majority of followers.

Fighting for rights and existance is so complicated :-(

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:04 AM

Ah....another honest poster! Welcome Elsie that's four of us already.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:57 AM

Although it irks me no end, I have to say that the comment "I find homosexual _practice_ repugnant" is actually a valid comment...I mean it works the other way around. I have a heterophobic lesbian friend who actually feels nauseous at the idea of heterosxual "practice"

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:47 AM

"I too think homosexuality is repugnant,against nature and based on psychological problems. ... the answer is to turn away and let the homosexuals get on with their lives,but unfortunatly this is getting harder and harder to achieve, as "gay culture " ouzes from every media orifice with all its nasty innuendo,like little boys behind the bike shed and god help anyone who tries to stop them."

Hmmmm. I wonder who could have written this?

This post has been extensively cut in a typical "hatchet job" by one of the most devious posters on the forum, but I stand by all my remarks even tho' they were made many years ago.

In common with the vast majority of heteros (if they were being honest) I find homosexual practice repugnant, this does not mean I think they deserve to die from what shoul be a very preventable disease. Also, even given all the shit about fruit flies and penguins, the practice is "against nature", as the primary purpose of "nature" is to facilitate procreation of every species. The link with homosexuality and psychiatric problems is well documented.

Homosexuality can't be banned, and criminalising it is on a par with criminalising depression or substance addiction, so I am in favour of letting homosexuals get on with their lives in private, as long as the appropriate health education is provided.
The promotion of homosexual culture by the media and "liberal" ideology does make this course more difficult.

In conclusion, Ebbie leaves out the agreement with my "repugnance" remark, by one of the more thoughtful contributers to this thread, who is in favour of "Gay marriage" etc.....Miss Tomahawk indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Elspeth
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:47 AM

Concerning LGBTIQ: I know the T and I are not to do with sexual orientation...I put them in because I feel there is a lot of uncertainty around their rights in the same way as there has been with homosexuality.

Also, I may be late in making this comment, but I feel when people bring christianity into this coul they please...I don;t know...specify something like fundamentalists? because I know a LOT of people, myself included, who are actually christians and what a christian ought to be instead of predjudiced fundamentalists giving the rest of us a bad name. Also as you can probably tell I have no problem with homosexuality....may have something to do with having been very in love with a girl for most of my teens...maybe =)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:23 AM

Now this is funny!

    ROFL

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:16 AM

"Most people in that situation tend to fall back into a default mode of "one liners" and point scoring."

Some even descend to answering questions, providing evidence and in some cases maintaining a consistent position.

But you wouldn't Catch Ake stooping as low as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:13 AM

Hi Sanity.....I know you are right, we should be looking at causes and effects....and trying to understand why things have got so confrontational....and trying to encourage people to accept the need for a worldwide medical inquiry into hiv/aids and male homosexuality.

but it's difficult to keep focused, when trying to defend your stance faced by a baying mob.

Most people in that situation tend to fall back into a default mode of "one liners" and point scoring.
I'll try to do better......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 09 - 04:27 AM

Sure thing..Hope you had a good road.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 11:47 PM

Sorry, I have been on the road all day, and just got back. GfS, I am not sure what it is you are asking me about but I will have to re-read the back-thread in the morning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 08:28 PM

TIA;"......don we now our gay apparel fa la la la la la la la la"

Or come as you are...(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 08:26 PM

...don we now our gay apparel fa la la la la la la la la

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:25 PM

Anyone for a rousing chorus of "Joy to the World"?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:23 PM

Ake made a statement some time back, claiming that two men make "an infinitely more dangerous sexual grouping than a man and a woman."

When someone makes a statement like this, it is expected by any rational person that they have a reason or some kind of data to back it up. I have asked Ake the same question several times now:

What, intrinsically, makes two men "an infinitely more dangerous sexual grouping than a man and a woman?"

Yet, Ake simply blows right by it, ignoring the question. It seems that he considers me and a couple of other people not worth answering. And why might that be? Because we have the nasty habit of zeroing right it on the foundations of why he thinks the way he does, and he knows that if he tries to defend his position, it will reveal that he can't give a reasonable sounding answer that won't make his bigotry and prejudice obvious for all to see.

Even him!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:16 PM

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 07:10 PM

OH WAAAAA! Quit bickering.......JEEZ!.., talk about sucking someone into a emotionally immature argument!..Let's be small!

Amos, you around?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

And why do you *not* care quite so deeply about the health of Swazis ?