BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:39 PM

Bill ...Homosexual relationships are objectionable mainly due to the health risks which come with homosexual practice.
I dont care in the least what Don T, Don Frith,Lox,Tia,or any of the "feel good sisterhood think of me,and certainly don't worry about them geing "on my case". If I found them in agreement with my opinions, then I would really worry!

I have read all they have to say on all the Homosexual threads, and understand that they see this matter as a political issue.
They have no real interest in Homosexual wefare, or in addressing the obvious health problems encountered by homosexuals.
Their only interest is in winning a political point; and it is a complete waste of time attempting to engage them in any sort of constructive discussion.

Amos... "CIvil rights are civil rights. Medicine is medicine. Health issues are NOT coupled to civil rights of the sort being discussed here."
Completely untrue, close family members of DIFFERENT sexes who "love" one another and wish to marry or even live in a civil union are forbidden to do so by law.....Their rights are infringed due to unspecified "health issues"

And before you cop out by saying that incest is illegal....Most members of this forum remember when homosexuality was illegal.
If homosexuality was still deemed to be illegal by a bunch of corrupt politicians, would you still be saying that you were in favour of "gay" marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:25 PM

"...I may have to re-assess our relationship   :0)."

I did get a bit pointed, didn't I? ☺ ...I really tried to see a neutral position, based on facts, in your ongoing points, but as you notice, I was not the only one who detected a wee bit of morality-based bias in your opinions. Perhaps a couple hours face-to-face and detailed Q&A would resolve some of them, but here we have only words.

I know the "behavior" you point to...and object to, but how much it is a RESULT of being unable to contract the same 'marriage' types as heterosexuals is unclear. Even IF you were correct about behavioral patterns, you don't seem to be as concerned about "... risk taking,hedonism and extremely unhealthy sexual conduct" in heterosexual individuals. Disease and societal problems (such as rape) are well documented there also.
You see? So many are 'on your case' here because you seem to be making a case for same-sex relationships being inherently more objectionable, and most of the arguments for that are largely subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:03 PM

""The trouble is that it seems, in general terms, homosexuals are uninterested in "marriage" or monogamy and seem to prefer the "frisson" of risk taking,hedonism and extremely unhealthy sexual conduct. This behaviour seems to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle.....with a few exceptions.""

If your first point were true, there would be absolutely no reason for the current interest in acquiring the right to marriage, and we still have nothing but your somewhat less than impartial, and far from convincing assertions about what homosexuals prefer.

Have you been sitting in gay bars, taking notes?

If you were to climb down off your pinnacle of false self righteous morality, and visit a few nightclubs, you would be surprised at the volume of evidence of heterosexual promiscuity, just waiting for an accomplished statistician such as yourself.

When you've succeeded in making gays second class citizens, you will undoubtedly need another outlet for your righteous wrath, so maybe I shall have helped you a little in your quest to make the world conform to your cosmic plan.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:36 AM

Dang!!..I just was winding up a long post, and its 3:30 A.M. here, and I mistakenly closed my tab, and lost it.....I tried getting it back, but to no avail. So I'll get this off, probably tomorrow. Meanwhile, Amos, what did you mean by reversible or 'curable'...Sorta sounds like you think its a disease.....was that a slip?? (No jab intended, but for all those who thought that, why?)
Anyway, I've got some interesting things to share....(wish I didn't close it).........till then, clarify that for me, ok??..
Anxiously waiting to get back,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:47 AM

Bill....I think I have responded to most points you have made, but if you continue to post in the manner of your last two messages I may have to re-assess our relationship   :0).

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:36 AM

Amos... the designation of marriage does not in itself keep a relationship stable, although of course being in a long term monogamous relationship would probably have a beneficial effect on the hiv/aids figures relating to homosexuals.

The trouble is that it seems, in general terms, homosexuals are uninterested in "marriage" or monogamy and seem to prefer the "frisson" of risk taking,hedonism and extremely unhealthy sexual conduct. This behaviour seems to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle.....with a few exceptions.

A regime of testing and contact follow-up, allied to a realistic education policy,would IMO be much more beneficial....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:33 PM

Well spotted, TIA!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:32 PM

Ake:

Do you think having the possibility of a stable single partner in a relationship supported by social recognition--as in stable hetero marriages--would increase or decrease the incidence of AIDS in a homosexual community?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:24 PM

But I have great respect for anyone who refuses to answer a simple "yes or no", and in so doing answers it QUITE clearly.
Thanks for your prompt (and rather expected) response.

We shall go forth knowing exactly what each other thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:08 PM

It appears to me that ake is going to be talking mostly to himself. We're going to miss him. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM

Ake:

Sigh. You missed the parallelism I was offering.

CIvil rights are civil rights. Medicine is medicine. Health issues are NOT coupled to civil rights of the sort being discussed here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:20 PM

"...I allow myself the luxury of responding mainly to people for whom I have a degree of respect."

*grin*... I guess I asked too many pointed questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:27 PM

Oh, and once again, Ake, it's necessary to remind you:

Homosexual activity does not cause HIV. It may transmit it, but it does not cause it, as you keep saying.

"Spontaneous generation" was a medieval myth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:24 PM

Valid question, Ake, whether you respect the person who posed it or not.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Don Firth

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

As Sanity appears to be busy, I am forced to hold the fort singlehanded; as such I allow myself the luxury of responding mainly to people for whom I have a degree of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: TIA
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:54 PM

Let's try again.

Once there is a vaccine for HIV, will you object to homosexual relationships?

"yes" or "no" will do ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:28 PM

Thank you Amos....I think you're wonderful too, but I don't concur with your idea that there is a parallel between hiv infection and cancer.

Hiv rates in homosexuals are rising steadily everywhere,
as opposed to a small but steady drop in new hiv infections in heteros.
This difference must surely be explained by the lifestyle choices made by homosexuals,(extreme promiscuity, anal sex, intentional risk taking, etc) these choices seem to go hand in hand with homosexual practice.......or the statistics are completely wrong.

The risks inherent in homosexuality are well defined, and with the will, relatively easy to avoid, whereas cancer can strike any body at any time and although we can lessen some of the risks (like smoking), cancer is not caused by any particular behaviour....therefore the parallel does not exist.

If the rise in homosexual infection rates continues, the practice should be actively discouraged with a compulsory testing and contact follow up scheme instigated.

Just as they have done in Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

"the Cuban emphasis on social responsibility and its related moral pressures do create a distinct climate for testing and thorough contact tracing. It is likely that Cuban health professionals see such moral pressures as a plus, not a problem."

Oh, I don't doubt it! Cuba is a pretty monolithic society still..... when the government says "do this!", they are often consequences if "this" is not done.

It would be interesting to see the US try to institute some of the more... ummm... insistent.... aspects of such a program, as in 'moral pressures'.

Still, one can't argue with the basic concept of much education and country-wide programs to highlight the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:39 PM

A representative from CDC has replied.

The technical notes to the HIV/AIDS surveillance report are here.

It's too involved to paraphrase it or interpret it. Based on what I DID read, I think changes in reporting requirements, testing methods, and in programs that allow people to be tested for free, may effect the results. You all read it for yourselves if you wish. I need more time to really grok it.

GUEST,999 did good to question the statistics. The biggest problem with statistics is that people often don't know or care what they really mean because they're blinded by their bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:16 PM

Ake:

You are a stubborn cuss, which I respect. As such, you have repeatedly said that those of us in favort of extending the civil rights of marriage to the gay community are ignoring the concomitant HIV/AIDs problem.

Quite the contrary. There is no doubt AIDS/HIV is a problem. It just has absolutely no reasonable hard-coupled connection with whether or not minorities should be discriminated against.

No-one claims cancer-victims are discriminated against because they get radiation therapy. But if you tried to deny them the right to marry, you'd be facing serious charges of bringing back extreme eugenics. A really bad idea. I trust the parallel does not escape you.

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:15 PM

Cross-posted, Ebbie. I was refering to Ake's post about Cuba's approach to HIV/AIDs.

Ake, I presume the "Gorry" mention in the article is Connor Gorry, the travel writer (Lonely Planet series) who is now based in Havana and has been lately writing about the Cuban health care system.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM

A considerably more civilized approach than Uganda's!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM

"The Ugandan bill will pass with a sweeping majority vote in favor of jail and execution of homosexuals."

You may be right but I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:09 PM

Cuba, although hosting over 2 million tourists per year has the lowest hiv/aids infection rate in the world.

Some details.

LESSONS LEARNED

What has been understood and misunderstood about the Cuban HIV/AIDS program? And what are the lessons from Cuba regarding HIV/AIDS? Some others have attempted to address these questions.

A group of Cuban and French researchers and health professionals surmised that the policy of extensive testing and contact tracing "may be an important factor," as well as education through the public media and schools. However, the rising infections were "worrying," especially among homosexual and bisexual men (39). A detailed report by Gorry stressed the integrated nature of all elements of the Cuban program, suggesting this was a clear "rights-based approach" in terms of privacy, health promotion, peer education, and participation, as well as guaranteed treatment and counseling (40). Gorry considers the major challenges for Cuba to be the impact of the US economic blockade on the health care system, underreporting of infections, the steadily rise in HIV infections among gay and bisexual men, and the persistent cultural stigma toward sexual diversity and the disease (40). With regard to underreporting, however, if the estimates of one Cuban study in 2003 (4) are accurate, this would seem to be less of a problem than elsewhere.

During the past decade, the main developments in Cuba's program have been the rise of the day care program, the Living with HIV courses, the increased role of peer educators, and, since 2001, an ARVT coverage rate of 100%. No neighboring country has this level of treatment. The Cuban infection rate among sexually-active adults has risen gradually in recent years, from 0.1% to nearly 0.15%. Nevertheless, this rate is still well below that of any of its neighbors. The reasons for Cuba's relative success, this paper suggests, are not well understood outside Cuba. During its two-decade experience with HIV/AIDS, Cuba's methods have been alternately ignored or misunderstood. Misunderstandings appear to be most prevalent in the US literature.

Outside views of the testing regime have been criticized through anecdotal material centering on complaints over privacy. Yet the formal practice of targeted testing, patient consent, and legal privacy protection are not so different in Cuba than in many developed countries. Nevertheless, the Cuban emphasis on social responsibility and its related moral pressures do create a distinct climate for testing and thorough contact tracing. It is likely that Cuban health professionals see such moral pressures as a plus, not a problem.

Isolation of patients has played little part in Cuba's program or its success. There has been no quarantine for the past 20 years, a period corresponding to most of the epidemic in Cuba. The 1986-1989 quarantine period was excessive, however it was not aimed at homosexual men, who at that time constituted about 20% of infected persons in the late 1980s. The sanatoria continue to play a lesser, but probably important, role in the HIV program of respite and treatment. However, extended voluntary residence in the sanatoria has led to a new challenge for social inclusion, a concentration of a minority group with high levels of psychological, social, and family support problems.

Cuba's approach to HIV education programs evolved over the 1980s and 1990s by incorporating some important outside influences. "Health promotion" began to supersede "prevention," particularly through peer educator-led activities. Since the 1990s, some international agencies have been directly engaged with HIV education in Cuba.

Finally, one uniquely Cuban feature of the overall HIV/AIDS program has been its strong intersectoral cooperation; that is, the coordinated work of Cuban government agencies, schools, media, and community. HIV education is thus not treated as an isolated program, but is supported by sex education in schools, television programs, and broader "sexual diversity" campaigns.

In spite of the serious effects of the US economic blockade, which limits access to foreign medicine and impedes scientific and professional exchange, Cuba's HIV/AIDS program has drawn on its intersectoral cooperation to help link community education, epidemiological surveillance, targeted testing, and thorough contact tracing. These elements are in turn backed up by a free public health system and a strong commitment to social solidarity. Cuba's experience deserves serious study by those concerned with effective and inclusive approaches to HIV/AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 03:32 PM

Verily!!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:09 PM

" Don Firth - PM
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM

And I. I am not a "promoter" of a "homosexual lifestyle" as it is so quaintly put. I am, however, a fierce advocate of civil rights for any minority group, especially any minority group whose way of life does not impact mine in any way whatsoever."

___________________________________

The Ugandan legislators do not have your advantage of freely stating your simply put opinion. If they do, they face the eventual crime of supporting homosexualty. All those who have tried to say something similar to Don have been labled Homosexuals for saying essentially the same thing as Mr. Firth.

The Ugandan bill will pass with a sweeping majority vote in favor of jail and execution of homosexuals. The Sponsors know they face some economic sanctions but I wou bet they are talking to evangelists who may have promised to pipe in money from the mega churches.


PS First Firth, go forth firmly with the fifth.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:58 PM

thanks to those who saved me some typing...

"I suppose you are old enough to remember the attitudes at that time, would you disagree with what i've said?"

I am old enough...and I lived in good old **Kansas** at the time....THEY sure would have tried to retain criminal statutes for LOTS of sexual practices, but since when does being able to get lots of votes for smug conservative ideas change what is "fair & reasonable"?

and disagree with what you have said? *shrug*...I guess it depends on what state you live in. Some places have more reasonable populaces & legislators.

"There are many things which can be done...and have been done to improve the health statistics. I have no time to go into them now..."

well, we'll be here when you think of some and have more time.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM

And I. I am not a "promoter" of a "homosexual lifestyle" as it is so quaintly put. I am, however, a fierce advocate of civil rights for any minority group, especially any minority group whose way of life does not impact mine in any way whatsoever.

The color of someone's skin or the shape of their eyes or the nature of their religious beliefs (as long as they don't try to force them on me)--or what they do in the privacy of their own homes does not affect me in any way.

And is none of my, or anyone else's, business.

Why should anyone else care?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:31 AM

I add my voice to Don T's refutation. ake, no one here fits your description: "the other promoters of the homosexual lifestyle here"

Talk about smarmy.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:15 AM

Not wishing to jump ahead of anything to be continued... I have caught up most of the last bits of the thread and find that STILL some of the old myths are still circulating.

Lesbianism and Penis Envy was a Freudian thing, which really just about says it all. The guy was positively sexist in his ways of treatments for women psychologically. Men, too, can get penis envy but they do not become lesbian! Do men suffer "womb envy" I wonder? I am heavily biased at any concept I find with his name attached so forgive me from not being able to be objective where he is concerned. IMHO he knew nothing about women, their lives and, especially, their psychology. Quite an arrogant statement really, considering who he was, but I shall be very kind and say he is 'old school' for sure. Thankfully things have moved on since then. But that would be another topic for sure. Conceptually so many things he said about women have been very damaging and are now considered artefacts. That said, some of the structures he suggested as existing in the brain have recently been 'highlighted' in modern scanning so, who knows? I still think he knew little about women ;-)

Elspeth mentions about non associative thought patterns and negativity. Sadly they tried all that way back all of just 30-40 years ago by 'plugging' gay men 'into the mains' and giving them an electric shock if they shown any excitement at seeing a naked male. It was called aversion therapy and is now illegal in many countries. Lots of gay men killed themselves back then too due to stigma, being treated as criminals and a 'subspecies'. Very often it was a case of 'man's inhumanity to man' as women were often treated entirely different for having same sex relationships. Homosexuality in men was criminal and women were disregarded because no penis was involved. So much revolves around the use of penises! I do not think there were many women lawmakers back then though.

There is also mention of: "I see no reason for LGBTIQ people to change at all. Evil has nothing to do with their sexuality and everything to do with the nature of the relationships they engage in". Only the T and I (transgender and intersex) part have nothing to do with sexuality. The former is to do with gender and the latter to do with a physical condition. Many people group these groups and it causes much confusion but they are poles apart as regards sexuality and gender. The distinction is important.

I eagerly await further revalations :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:46 AM

""At least the other promoters of the homosexual lifestyle here, don't try to hide behind smarmy language....my opinion is as valid as yours and backed by the facts!""

There goes that red herring across the trail again. It's getting a bit battered and frayed, and I think you need a new one.

Nobody here has promoted, is promoting, or will be promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle.

You and GfS are the only posters here who believe it IS a lifestyle.

We simply recognise that it exists, that it is none of our business (and none of yours), that it harms us not one bit, and that it does not, and cannot, deprive gays of their civil rights and legal status.

Now you can take as many of your opinions as you like, and present them as fact, and you can post on other forums, and cite your own posts as authority for your contentions on this one, both of which you have done.

You will still be wrong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:28 AM

"....allowing it to encompass homosexuality in the face of opposition from the vast majority of Christains (sic) worldwide."

I don't believe that, upon examination, you would find a majority of Christians, vast or otherwise, so why pray should their opinions carry more weight than those of the Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, Pagans, Agnostics, and Atheists, to name but a few?

Have you sought their point of view, Ake, to support your opinions, or are they just more of the second class citizens who inhabit your dark and murky conception of how the world should be.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:20 AM

"This is a logical error sometimes called the "naturalistic fallacy": you cannot draw inferences about what is right from what happens in nature. Penguin behaviour tells you nothing about human morality.

The same applies to same-sex sexual behaviour in animals (see "Homosexual selection"). It might be tempting to use animal examples to refute claims that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong. That would be a mistake. We have no need for fallacious arguments to support basic human rights""


Noone is drawing observations of nature to show that homosexuality is moral or not.

YOU state that it is unnatureal - a psychological defect that runs contrary to nature and natural law. A perversion that goes against natures purpose - the purpose of procreation.


Observations of nature show that Humans are not anomalous to the rest of nature.

They show that the rest of nature also exhibits the same bahaviour.


They show that if Humans only had sex to procreate that we would be the anomaly.


The point isn't that these observations support any "liberal" explanation.

THE POINT IS THAT THEY SHOW YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:35 AM

"What kind of smarmy remark is that?"

An accurate one.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 03:53 AM

"Ok... that's clear enough for me to know what basic attitude drives the tenor of most of your posts on the subject."

What kind of smarmy remark is that?

I don't believe in criminalising homosexual practice, as I've stated on all the various threads on the subject, I was simply responding to your query.
I suppose you are old enough to remember the attitudes at that time, would you disagree with what i've said?

At least the other promoters of the homosexual lifestyle here, don't try to hide behind smarmy language....my opinion is as valid as yours and backed by the facts!

There are many things which can be done...and have been done to improve the health statistics. I have no time to go into them now but the most important thing is to realise and admit that there is a problem.

Months have been spent on this forum by supporters of Homosexual marriage etc, denying that very fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 10:55 PM

"If HIV/AIDS was recognised back in the sixties, Homosexual practice would never have been de- criminalised!! "

Ok... that's clear enough for me to know what basic attitude drives the tenor of most of your posts on the subject.
but...ummm.. you did avoid once again "coming out of the closet" and telling us what you would have the world DO...

once more: What WOULD you suggest to reduce health concerns?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 10:07 PM

Okay, I was only able to pop in for a quick 'look-see'....and, as most can see, I have not jumped on the bandwagon of proclaiming anything being evil, except for when one deceives another, intentionally, for selfish motives, without regard for the person they are deceiving, usually to manipulate them, or to bring intentional harm to that person...that's evil! But, to be born with a condition, is in no way 'evil'.

That being said, I'll have to leave, again(drat!), but I'm very much looking forward to sharing my thoughts with you!...and, Thank You all, for being patient, with my schedule. I've got some more insights, that I think you may find very interesting...for, at least, some mental chewing gum.
Thanks for hanging in there!.......TO BE CONTINUED......
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:55 PM

Like Bill D I pick up on this: "My objection to homosexual marriage....again the normalisation of homosexual practice on health grounds and the attempt by homosexual activists to re-define "marriage", allowing it to encompass homosexuality in the face of opposition from the vast majority of Christains worldwide
Nothing at all to do with "evil"

ake, this seems an odd explication of your views. As an atheist, what do you care what the "majority of Christians worldwide" thinks?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:50 PM

"WAS being homosexual objectionable before HIV/AIDS? WILL it be if they find a vaccine?"
      
If HIV/AIDS was recognised back in the sixties, Homosexual practice would never have been de- criminalised!!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:41 PM

"....allowing it to encompass homosexuality in the face of opposition from the vast majority of Christains (sic) worldwide."

?? Why would the opinions of Christians make any difference whatsoever to doing what is fair?
"...my objections to the normalisation of homosexual practice have been purely on health grounds..."

So you assert on more than one occasion, but I do tend to doubt that...
(am I calling you a liar? No...not directly. It just seems to me that you avoid points that would contradict 'health' as a major objection.)

Look... overeating is a serious health problem, as is smoking and driving too fast! But I don't see those condemned as a 'lifestyle' problem. Why not just treat careless sex practices like alcoholism instead of vague insinuations that homosexuality should get its own version of prohibition?

What WOULD you suggest to reduce health concerns?

It is the case that many, many homosexuals observe rules that reduce relevant health concerns, yet the argument seems to be against **homosexuality**, not just careless habits. It all 'sounds' like a moral argument, no matter how many disclaimers are offered.
WAS being homosexual objectionable before HIV/AIDS? WILL it be if they find a vaccine?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: fundi3891
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:13 PM

Firstly, the death penalty is, for any rationally unimpaired thinking person, a misnomer. The deeds of the living are caused BY THE LIVING and to sentence to death is to succumb to ignorance and evil. If you condone the death penalty, you are an accomplice to murder. There is no two ways about it.

Secondly; homosexuals come in many shapes and forms, as does 'love'.
There are as many purely hedonistic homosexuals as there are purely ascetic. It is up to certain relevant governing bodies to decide the respective rights of homosexuals. ie - rights to bringing up children etc

The main concern I have regarding progressive attitudes to homosexuality is how far they can be taken before being phased out in lieu of more efficient/economical PRODUCTION of 'cannon fodder'...

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:53 PM

There is a very important difference between the notion of "having no choice", which GfS rebuts roundly, and the statement that homosexuality, as a condition, is not something resulting from choice.

Heterosexuals have the same choice as regards their sexual yearnings as homosexuals, viz., to indulge them, or not. No-one on this thread had argued this is not the case. But having that choice whether or not to practice sexuality is very different from the question of whether the sexual leaning is itself in-built or taken on.

While I agree with GfS that many homosexual individuals--more males than females in my experience--seem to have strains of emotional suppression of some kind in their make-up, I do not know whether this is a causative vector of homosexuality or a resultant vector from it. I suppose it could be either, depending on cases.

Again, I await the second chapter of GfS' discussion with interest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:46 PM

From Bill's linked publication.

"WHEN the documentary film March of the Penguins came out in 2005, some Christians tried to exploit it to promote a conservative social agenda. To them, the penguins' apparent monogamy and selfless parenting affirmed the rightness of traditional family values.

This is a logical error sometimes called the "naturalistic fallacy": you cannot draw inferences about what is right from what happens in nature. Penguin behaviour tells you nothing about human morality.

The same applies to same-sex sexual behaviour in animals (see "Homosexual selection"). It might be tempting to use animal examples to refute claims that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong. That would be a mistake. We have no need for fallacious arguments to support basic human rights"

Qite correct....and my objections to the normalisation of homosexual practice have been purely on health grounds(statistics are available)

My objection to homosexual marriage....again the normalisation of homosexual practice on health grounds and the attempt by homosexual activists to re-define "marriage", allowing it to encompass homosexuality in the face of opposition from the vast majority of Christains worldwide
Nothing at all to do with "evil"

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:17 PM

Hahahahaaa... I think I was wrong about you to a certain extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM

"Evil has nothing to do with their sexuality and everything to do with the nature of the relationships they engage in. If the nature of the love is good and pure, as it ought to be between a man and woman or any other combination, then there is no evil there."

Agreed. One of the greatest wrongful associations some posters are attempting to assert, is a sexual link between adult homosexuality or *mutual mature sexual attraction between the same sex* and paedophilia or *adult sexual orientation and predation towards sexually immature children.*

I dunno, maybe because I was raped by men who liked little blonde girls, I get on well with men who like men?
I'm sure the resident Circus Therapist can offer an opinion!

I'm fortunate in terms of never hating men (unlike other survivors I've known) who I generally get along well with - especially faggots, queers, bummers and men who like to put their willies in other men's anuses and mouths (I can do more details for GfS & Ake etc. just PM if interested).

I dunno, I just seem to kinda get along with these fruitcakes for some reason.. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM

GfS:

Thanks so much for your very interesting discussion, the clearest presentation of your ideas I have seen (IMHO).

Look forward to your addendum.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Elspeth Hart
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:51 PM

I know you said no premature comments but this is just me thinking out loud.
"4. Do you think homosexuality is reversible or curable etc"

Firstly I want to say that this is possible as it is possible to turn yourself gay. I vaguely remember a documentary about it that said if you associate sexual thoughts of whichever thing you're trying not to be with something bad, then that works. Say trying not to be a gay man- for every sexual thought about another man you use a system to make sure it's associated with negativity. But may I just say that this is considered very unhealthy and an unwise route to take.

Also...I see no reason for LGBTIQ people to change at all. Evil has nothing to do with their sexuality and everything to do with the nature of the relationships they engage in. If the nature of the love is good and pure, as it ought to be between a man and woman or any other combination, then there is no evil there.
What ought to be considered immoral are the same things as would be considered immoral in any heterosexual coupling.

Now, please don't think I'm drawing premature conclusions from your writing. Just that 4. got me thinking again and it seemed a relevant place to comment.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:31 PM

Hi, ..Was super busy, and couldn't get back as soon as I wanted to..

Great article, which also does not come to any conclusions,..BUT, there is something very interesting, toward the end, that I'll refer to. But First I'll address the questions Amos posed, and in answering them, rather than 'proving a point', which is NOT what I'm trying to do, but rather open up larger avenues of thought, about this and other subjects.
Great answers, as well as art, usually comes up from the 'street'!

AMOS:"GfS:

1. Do you believe that all homosexuality is based on an individual decision? If not, does it come from a genetic quirk? Something else?"

GfS:
There's is a huge possibility, that your last choice has the best option,'Something else?'.
If I were to believe the rhetoric, of defensive homosexuals, and their 'champions of political correctness(?)', Then they are in favor of saying that they have no choice...which makes me think that, with that thinking, they are neither given, nor allowed a choice! This is nonsense! Of course they have a choice..to do anything they want. I thought 'liberals' were liberal enough to allow them that, and not take it away. Your last illustration in the article mentions just that....but, how do we get there?..Where did this come from, that maybe we haven't explored yet?..I'll propose something a little further down....
Genetic quirk?....Not so much, as something that may have happened as a fetus. T thought the article just lightly touch on a really good thing, but possibly only scratched the surface..,again, I'll try tio tie that together, with the others.

"2. Do you believe lesbians and male homosexuals are suffering from the same syndrome, from the same cause?"

GfS
Yes, and no. If we are talking about something going on, in the womb, to those, very very possible. But there are many homosexuals, who were NOT born that way, and 'acquired' that as they grew older. Those, in particular, are far less victims of anything, except their own bitternesses, fears, unforgiveness, and self absorption. That is a different category, as far as CAUSE, than the former, the ones from the womb. In short,, some are born that way, and others are hiding behind that rationalization, though it does not apply to them, in their case....Fair enough?
In regards to lesbians, most of us have heard that SOME women have 'penile envy'.do that make them a lesbian, either latent, or overt? No!....unless its taken too far. If it gets to the point where the woman starts to resent her own femininity, and acts upon it, yes, it would be considered a form of 'latent homosexuality'..much the same as CERTAIN women may dress, competitively for other women, or to 'prove' something to, or impress other women, as a focus. The reasons may vary, but again, when it gets to be an obsession, then it could open the door, to greater manifestations, to 'satisfy' an empty place in her heart.
Then again, there are other reasons that I'd love to share with you, but, I think the point has been made. If you want to go into those further, just ask...without the nasty accusations, or remarks. I think with an open mind, it could be not only fun, but mind-opening. and enlightening.

Amos:"3. Do you think homosexuality is evil?"

Gfs:
This is the question, that caused me to wonder, 'Where are you coming from?", or "Where do you think I'm coming from?"
So, to try to clarify one's perception of 'evil', I'll have to use MY perception, on what I think evil is. On an earlier post, I was rather clear on it, but in case people were only scanning my posts to find something to bitch about, I'll repeat; Most people try to do the right thing, given the choices they have. I mean, like, how many of any of us, set out to make a stupid, wrong decision?..then do it. However, if you make a bad decision, based on the only information you have, and the information was bad, or fraudulent, you still would not be an 'evil' person. That only means, that you were deceived..but tried to make the best decision you could, with what you had to work with. Once you find yourself, discovering that you had made a mistake, then you'd go about making a corrective decision, based on the new info, and again your decision making would be base on making the best decision, to correct, and make good on the final outcome. So, that is not what I consider 'evil'...so, in that context, a child, who has been that way from the womb, is not 'evil'. Remember now, we have two different types. One from the womb, as the article alludes to, and the others, who 'acquired' the tendencies growing up. I'll comment on those, when I get back from an appointment...so don't draw any pre-mature conclusions to this, till I get back...
.......To Be continued!!!...................Gotta' run,
Regards,
GfS
4. Do you think homosexuality is reversible or curable, in all cases or most cases? If so what do you think such a reversal requires?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 02:54 PM

"The problem is that while we can observe the sexual behaviour of animals, we often have little inkling about what motivates it."

Like we know what motivates it in humans ...

(actually Bill I liked the article, I just thought that was a funny observation.)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 02:24 PM

Gay events? I love 'em! Love the celebration, the flamboyance, the carnival.. Any excuse for a party, is a very good excuse, and gay folk can do it so well.