BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..

Subject: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 07:46 AM

I know, I know.. Another thread inviting criticism of religion. What's more, in this case, Catholic leaders. Sorry Joe, but over this side of the pond, we are starting a bit of a row over religious leaders from all sides trying to tell the government there is a higher power and politicians can't define marriage.

Now, notwithstanding not many voted for the present UK government, I can't recall voting for Cardinals and Bishops either...


Catholic Cardinal criticises Marriage plan

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:38 AM

Don't be silly. Everybody knows that all the trouble in this world is caused by people loving each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:52 AM

The last time religion ran the world, It was called the Dark Ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 09:21 AM

Nobody asked for my view but here it is: I have no difficulty with any church that denies people marriage 'within' the church (or Church) any more than I have an argument with what the Cardinal does in his own home, assuming it's all legal, etc. IMO, the boundary the Cardinal has crossed is that he feels the Church has the right to dictate what will be allowed in a civil ceremony, and for that he should mind his business except as it pertains to himself as a voter and citizen.

These days there is altogether too much mingling and 'shacking up' of church and state, and it's gotta stop. Period. If you personally feel that gays shouldn't marry, then don't marry a gay either as a minister/priest or as a participant in the ceremony. But please don't presume to tell ME what to do based on YOUR interpretation of what constitutes morality.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 10:41 AM

Bruce, are you suggesting that religion should stay out of politics? If so, why don't you just come on out and say so?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 11:56 AM

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."

And that hasn't been happening since time immemorial, with divorce and babies born to single mothers?

He added: "Imagine for a moment that the government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that 'no one will be forced to keep a slave'.

"Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right?"

The fundamental human right there would be the loss of freedom for the slave. How does that equate to allowing two loving human beings of the same sex to have the same 'rights' as heterosexual couples.

I wonder what their Christ would say if he came back now?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 12:18 PM

"are you suggesting that religion should stay out of politics? If so, why don't you just come on out and say so?"

That's what I said, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 01:20 PM

Any such set of rules which are interpretations of translations of multiple inputs in different cultures from various historical eras are by definition, capricious, arbitrary, subjective and biased.



If Cardinal Keith O'Brien doesn't want to be married, I will stand up for his right to stay single... and possibly celibate too!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:15 PM

The last time religion ran the world, It was called the Dark Ages.

Umm, no. It wasn't called that until a bunch of people in the 16th/17th century decided they were better than the years after the collapse of the western Roman Empire, about which they knew next to nothing, and gave it that name. Because they did not know about it, not because it was nasty. This latter period was well known for not having theocratic government, not being run by narrow minded religious groups. (Clue - irony required.)

The so-called Dark Ages involved peoples of a number of worship practices, and almost saw the wiping out of a western church, were it not for a number of Irish religious people, and subsequently similar people from Britain, both Celtic and English, speading out across the continent. However, they did not run things, though at the end of the period, the lives of many people were better than the the lives of their equivalents at the beginning. There was a high level of education.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:23 PM

The Church's doctrines (any church's) has no business defining civil processes. Marriage should be defined solely by civil process, for all legal purposes and civil definitions. Then, if some Church wants to honor within its own bubble only those marriages it has separately blessed, let it. Who gives a fuck? The civil sphere should not presume to tell people what they can think religiously, and the religious sphere should not presume to define the civil state of marriage.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:24 PM

In the early days in the US, in many places there was no one to record who was "married" and who was not. This caused some confusion.

As was traditional elsewhere, as the churches were established here they of course made records of who had "joined in the sacraments" of marriage.

When laws "registering" people who chose to live together were proposed, it was clearly presented that the Civil Marriage requiring a license was NOT THE SAME THING AS THE MARRIAGE SACRAMENT controlled by the churches. Had they then called it a Civil Union, we might not have these arguments now.

As recently as 1957, when I consulted the pastor of the church I then attended to discuss my pending marriage, he emphatically stated that he would administer the sacraments of Marriage regardless of whether or not we showed him a "license" to be married, although he also recommended that we get the license in order to obtain the CIVIL BENEFITS of living together.

Inability to understand that the SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE according to any religion is entirely different and a separate matter from the LICENSED CIVIL MARRIAGE regulated by the government is simple illitiracy. Unfortunately illiteracy is a characteristic of ALL RELIGIOUS NUTCAKES I happen to know much about in the present US.

It would be my recommendation that the Civil Marriage License be banned, with approval of the same terms and conditions for a CIVIL UNION LICENSE. (i.e. just change the name on the civil licenses.) I'd be quite happy to change the name on the license certificate I have, and promise to do it neatly. A "Marriage" could then be understood by the illiterate Poop and his equally ignorant minions as something separate, over which the US government has no control and exercises NO RESTRICTIONS and for which the US government makes no promise of any Civil benefits.

Maybe then the illiterates would be able to understand that the License doesn't make them more holy, but does subject them to some civil benefits (and restrictions) and that the CIVIL benefits cannot be restricted to suit their particular superstitions.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:45 PM

Ey up John. If only all Usasians and UKasians understood that crucial difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM

Last year I attended a Quaker (Friends) wedding... I had not understood that they do not have someone "marry them"...but rather stand up and declare themselves married.... with all attendees as witnesses. I gather that most or all jurisdictions accommodate this practice and recognize these unions. Would that all religious institutions were so reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 07:44 PM

In most US states, the civil (licensed) marriage requires:

1. You must obtain a license from a designated government office.

2. A person designated as authorized to "perform the ceremony" must witness and ensure that parties to the union comply with the minimal legal requirements.

3. Both parties to the union must affirm that the union is voluntary.

The requirement that a "designated person" must "officiate" is no different than the requirement that a contract to sell a junker car requires a notarized bill of sale, to avoid questions about the legality of the transaction.

The "Civil Affirmation," volunarily entered into, and properly witnessed, entitles the persons to act as a "single entity" in CIVIL ACTIVITIES. The agreement is very much the exact equivalent of the registering of a business partnership.

Precisely what civil actions are regulated may vary with the state, but generally include the presumption that property is owned jointly, that debts contracted by one are binding on both, and in most cases that a full "implied power of attorney" exists whereby either may speak for the other in most matters.

There is no mention in any civil marriage laws that I've heard of that requires the parties to the agreement to HAVE SEX or to have children. In the event that there are children, in the absence of any other way of treating them, under Civil Law they are considered a "property" just like the junker truck on the front lawn (which civil authorities may compel you to register, repair, or get rid of). The CIVIL contract makes you jointly responsible for your property, including the kids if you choose to have any or either intentionally or inadvertently produce them. It does NOT REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE SEX, and has nothing to do with whether you do or don't.

A few states persist in the ridiculous notion that you must be married to avoid your sex being "nasty" in some way, but those rules generally are so perverted that they're largely ignored, except by those with one or another perverted obsession over bodily functions of various kinds.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Crowhugger
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:02 PM

Well said, 9er, Amos & JiK.

Religions should be making rules for their own members, full stop. Certainly not for anyone else. Now I'm trying to recall a concept I heard of once...lemme think... scraping the bottom of this old memory. It's on the tip of my tongue ... something about separation of a couple of things; what were they? Darn, it'll come back to me eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 08:54 AM

A "grotesque subversion" is what gay marriage is, apparently. Of a "universally accepted human right".

I would see grotesque subversions in marriages which reduce women to incubating ciphers, subject to chastisement if they get uppity.

I would see grotesque subversion in organisations which do not see women as fully human, equipped with the mental skills to function as completely equal with men.

I would see grotesque subversion in regarding a sick woman's life as of less import than that of the child she carries.

I would see grotesque subversion in polygamy.

(Please note I am not aiming all of this at any single group.)

But what would I know. I am one of that grotesque subversion of the default state of humanity. I am only a woman.

But one who suspects that the idea of a marriage of equals might lie behind some of the objections to gay marriages. It cannot stand as an icon of Christ and the church.

Joke on radio this morning. Could it have ben Rabbi Blue? A gay couple are walking down the street, and see a young married couple engaged in a fierce row. "That," says one man to his partner, "is the problem with mixed marriages."

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Silas
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 09:28 AM

Interesting that one of the leaders of the biggest kiddyfiddler clubs in the world is trying to give us lessons in morality.

I suggest you get your own house in order first.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 09:50 AM

Could this just be one more stunt from a disgraced and increasingly irrelevant and rejected religious institution to try to regain some of its authority, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Michael
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:26 AM

It was indeed the Aged Rabbi Penny, made me splutter into my tea.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:33 AM

Mike, I spotted a comment on the Archers message board which a) confirmed that, and b) revealed that he had had more support in messages to Today than had the blessed Cardinal.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 01:31 PM

I think what the cardinal was saying was, Where does it all end?
Once we start redefining "marriage" to suit any minority, the whole family structure becomes imperiled.
Group marriage? incestuous marriage? etc etc....the mind boggles...and all you "freedom lovers" forget that it is the welfare of the children which should be paramount.

The breakdown of the "family" appears to me to be at the root of most of the social problems we see around us.

Homosexuals have a huge voice in the media, and trying to reason against the promotion of homosexuality is becoming more and more difficult. I have spent ages putting foward my views in regard to homosexuality and hiv, but that subject seems to taboo in the media.

"Gay rights" are one of the main diverions used to divide and rule, they are of little importance when set beside the very real problems which are about to be inflicted on all of us.
Unemployment? removal of benefits? starvation of children? bloody revolution?.......dont worry all will be well as long as we are all "equal".

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 01:40 PM

Sorry, almost forgot.....Its not about civil union with all the "rights" associated to it,   it has to be THE WORD.

I have heard dozens of activists saying they dont want "rights", they want THE WORD......re-defined to suit their small minority of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 02:50 PM

ake... You certainly HAVE "spent ages putting foward your views"... but I fear it is you who miss the point.
No matter what your misguided opinion is about gay rights, there are many, many (most in fact) who are AIDS free and monogamous.

Marriage for everyone else will not change because it is allowed between same-sex couples. It is just an emotional committment and a legal situation about property rights and other matters. Those who are NOT gay can continue as they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 06:31 PM

Not 'zacly, Bill. When the gay couple moved into our little building cluster, three hetero couples got divorces within the year. So you see, it is not just correlation. It is causality.

But yeah, whattheheck is up with that Ake person?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: gnu
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 09:24 PM

Progress or regress or stagnate. I choose progress. YOUR religion has no place in MY life. I leave you alone and you leave me alone. That's the Golden Rule.

Corollary : If what I do does not hurt you, fuck off and leave me alone.

Seems like a simple concept to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:09 PM

I wonder if I'm gonna get in trouble. I ran into a very vocal Catholic woman at church yesterday, and she was going on and on about how terrible it was that a woman at Georgetown (Catholic) University was not getting birth control as part of her health insurance package. I told the vocal parishioner that I totally disagreed with her, that the woman should have birth control as part of her insurance if most people get the same benefit. Then it's the client's option to choose birth control or not - but I'm embarrassed by Catholics who make an issue of it.

Same with all this bullshit about same-sex marriage "threatening" the sanctity of marriage. My bishop spent a fair amount of money supporting California Proposition 8, which opposed gay marriage. I made sure that none of my donations went toward these causes.

I DO think that churches should be involved in political issues, and I am very proud that my Catholic Church speaks out in favor of a "preferential option for the poor" and against the death penalty. I think these are crucial issues. The birth control and gay marriage tantrums are just silly.

I won't say anything much about abortion. I think it's wrong and I grieve the loss of life it causes, and I don't want to argue with anybody about that. But I don't think it's my business to interfere with a woman's right to make her own choice about her own pregnancy.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:26 PM

"..When the gay couple moved into our little building cluster, three hetero couples got divorces within the year. So you see, it is not just correlation. It is causality."

Wha?.. Huh?... causality? Did you perhaps conduct interviews to clarify WHY there were divorces?

I'd think you were attempting some odd sort of joke there... but you have not joked much about this issue.

...but *I* have a joke on the type of logic you seem to follow...

"All Indians walk in single file. I know because the Indian *I* saw was walking in single file."

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: gnu
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:27 PM

Joe... YOU are a Cat'lic as I know em. Tolerant and intelligent. Just about all Cat'lics I know (French and Irish hertitages) are the same. Ya go to church and ya commune and ya keep yer nose clean and ya don't tread on others.

I wrote a long addition to this post and deleted it. No sense in it. gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: banjoman
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 06:04 AM

I have no prolem with same sex couples entering into civil contracts which define their intention to live together. However, IMO this should not be called marriage as this has always been understood as the union between a man and a woman. Call it a civil partnership or anything you want - even define it in law and allow partners certain benefits of living in partnership but dont call it marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 06:44 AM

Wondered how long before Akenaton started his homophobic rant.

To ask where it all ends, we might as well ban football because after all, Victor Kara was executed in a football stadium, Afghan prisoners were executed at half time when the Taliban were in power, hence football needs a lid on it before we start executing people in the name of football.

Marriage has not been understood as the union between man and wife any more than hung drawn and quartered has been understood as the punishment for asking why we have a Monarch. We can't judge civilisation by periods leading to rather than reflecting enlightened circumstances, i.e. 21st century.

Times move on, and cohabitation by a couple who love each other with all the legal benefits society bestows on loving couples who make the pledge to commit is marriage. I understand it as such, therefore to say anything else is understood just doesn't hold up. Once we have a secular piece of legislation on the matter, that alone is what we live by. There is no higher power than Parliament. Period.

The Cardinal is entitled to a view, but by the same token so does everybody else. I actually like the idea of religious leaders contemplating morality and commentating on the state of society from that perspective. Their education and calling puts them in a good position to contemplate such things. But to go beyond advising and calling for laws to reflect their creed rather than the democratic will of the people?

Well, that's where their irrelevance shows through and lessens the otherwise decent role they can offer society.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 06:50 AM

"What's up with that Ake person?"

He sees homosexual practice as being extremely dangerous to those who do it, and he thinks it should not be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle,
Homosexuals are infected by hiv/aids in far greater numbers percentage wise than any other "at risk" minority.....and so far no one has satisfactorally explained why.
I think that in the interests of that minority some attempt should be made to answer that question, and take steps to rectify the situation.

You don't give a fuck?.........well I'm afraid that's your problem.
Whats wrong with YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:20 AM

Bill, I guess it wasn't obvious enough (or even funny??). But of course, a gay couple cannot cause or prevent a divorce. Nobody's sexuality that is not coerced or involves a lesser being has anything to do with anyone else's.

OK, Ake. I geddit. You are homphobic. That, my friend is YOUR problem, unless you are making public policy. Then you have to be opposed at every step.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:28 AM

Lynne Featherstone,(Equality Minister, whatever that is,`ark at `er), purports to speak for the nation when she advocates the term "marriage" be used in reference to legally recognised unions between homosexual couples. I believe she is mistaken, having never gauged the national opinions. Also I fear the school curriculums being amended to present this as a progressive move.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:45 AM

All part of the breakdown of society I'm afraid.

Such things happen as empires decline.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:49 AM

"Homophobic"?......what rude name can you think up for someone who closes their eyes and minds to behaviour which carries with it so much death and disease?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 08:33 AM

"what rude name can you think up for someone who closes their eyes and minds to behaviour which carries with it so much death and disease? "

Catholic bishop - they need to open their eyes to what happen in their church.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 08:51 AM

I agree with that leveller!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 09:47 AM

It's promiscuity that leads to death and disease, not being homosexual or hetero. Common sense, respect for the rights of others, and basic education would help with that.

Rotsa ruck, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 09:59 AM

Well said leeneia.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 10:58 AM

So you think that homosexuals are THAT much more promiscuous than hetros?.....you may be right, but how do you stop what seems to be a large part of the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual "marriage" would not end the high promiscuity rates, as the take up rate is very small(in percentage terms), and the average homosexual "marriage" or union lasts just under 1.5 years.

In what way would "Common sense, respect for the rights of others, and basic education" affect the promicuity figures?
Do you think homosexuals are slow learners, or just plain stupid?

I think it is more likely to be part and parcel of the lifestyle, hedonism and risk taking.
Whatever, something requires to be done to stop or slow the infection rates.
I think the latest data points to 75% of new cases being amongst homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 11:35 AM

Any 'data' that shows a behavior problem indicates that education and warnings are relevant....NOT that marriage should be forbidden.

You are linking issues in a subjective way.........

Don't you see that even by your own subjective view of the problem, being allowed to legally marry would tend to reduce promiscuity and disease?

..no, I suppose you can't see that...

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 12:49 PM

Since certain illiterates refuse to admit that the same word can have different meanings in differing contexts, I'll repeat my suggestion that any licensed joining of persons to act together should be ALWAYS called a "Civil Union."

Additionally, any joining of two persons according to religious conventions and creed MUST BE CALLED "Holy Matrimony."

Completing a vow of Matrimony in a religion DOES NOT entitle anyone to the CIVIL RIGHTS that go along with the licensed union regulated by civil authorities. You MUST GET THE LICENSE before the joining, or you're NOT MARRIED in the eyes of the state.

I would suggest that civil penalties for unlicensed marriages should be immediately enforced, and anyone not in a licensed CIVIL MARRIAGE should immediately CEASE RECEIVING joint insurance policies, automatic beneficiary benefits in case of deaths, inheritances of property, immunity from testifying against each other, joint accountabiltiy or control of property (INCLUDING CHILDREN who should be immediately taken from them), all privileges of making legally binding decisions for each other, and any other benefits accorded to LICENSED CIVIL UNIONS by the Civil Laws.

It is the custom here that when a couple determines to "join in Holy Matirmony" they simultaneously get a license and also SEPARATELY participate in a Civil Union. Both may be accomplished within a single "ceremony" but BOTH MUST BE DONE. That by convention both of these TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTIONS are called "marriage" DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME. If you don't do BOTH, you only recieve the benefits attending to the one observed.

A church or religion may prescribe requirements for those participating WITHIN ITS OWN JURISDICTION in the "half of it" that comes within its domain. The "other half" is solely and EXCLUSIVELY in the control of the Civil Laws and the neither of the two have ANY BUSINESS OR REASON FOR attempting to regulate the other, especially with respect to persons not of their own faith.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 02:38 PM

I think that pretending it's just the word 'marriage' which is the issue is downright dishonest. The fact is that various religions (in fact, nearly all of them!) do not entertain any sympathy with homosexuals, and look on them as an abomination. Far from letting them be married in church (or mosque or synagogue) like anyone else, they'd rather they hid themselves away because they're sinful and evil. To me this is outdated thinking and should by now have been consigned to history along with racism etc. Homosexuals are just people, they have every right to be married in church in the same way as heterosexuals. Any discrimination is cruel and blatently unfair. It must be so painful for a gay couple to know they are shunned and denied like this. Promiscuity, infidelity, transmission of STD's etc are universal unfortunately, and not solely the outcome of same-sex relationships. The nastiness and spite of homophobia never fails to amaze me. What is the problem? They're not doing the least bit of harm to anyone, they just love eachother as any couple do.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 02:43 PM

I've said it before. But it is so darned clever, I will say it again. "I think homosexuals should have the same opportunity to be miserable in a marriage that the rest of us have." QED.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 04:48 PM

"politicians can't define marriage"

No kiddin'! They can't even define democracy...

Okay...so who can define marriage? Who's got the last word on the matter?

You?

I don't think so.

The thing we all got in common is, we like to yak a lot. We like to sound off. Me the same as you. And we got opinions....lots of opinions! Same as we got facial imperfections.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 05:04 PM

Well, Chongo, it's true that nobody can have the last word on defining marriage, but (for what it's worth) I see marriage as a most serious commitment between two people who sincerely love eachother, intend to stay together in reciprocal fidelity and who wish to declare this publicly, legally and formally. Personally, I regard my marriage as an infinite source of happiness, joy and emotional security, which I could never gain alone or in a casual relationship. I also see my marriage as a responsibility (gladly accepted) to care for and cherish eachother in a selfless way, seeking the good of the other as a priority. It's also for the rest of our lives, forever, no matter what fate may bring. (This surely is exactly the same for gays.)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Neil D
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 11:37 PM

"He sees homosexual practice as being extremely dangerous to those who do it, and he thinks it should not be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle,
Homosexuals are infected by hiv/aids in far greater numbers percentage wise than any other "at risk" minority.....and so far no one has satisfactorally explained why."

The poster who posted hat statement must surely be aware that committed lesbians are infected by hiv/aids at a far lower rate percentage wise than heterosexuals. So by his own logic, lesbianism certainly should be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle.

I think the most interesting thing about the article in the opening post is that the leader of your Conservative party came out in favor of same-sex marriage, something that you'd never see in this country. (US)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 05:41 AM

Yeah but don't mistake Cameron's need to be popular for a liberal outlook on life. He'll say anything to get a vote.

That said, credit where it's due. He is young enough not to have the weight of institutional bigotry on his shoulders. By saying what he said, he is alienating a large, (though obnoxious) wing of his party, not to mention all the born again loonies.   

I suspect this can be solved by etymology rather than creed. Marriage is whatever we say it is, on account of it being a word. Once Lynn Featherstone's bill becomes law, there shall be a legal definition too. Bugger me, I sound like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, saying a word can mean whatever I wish it to mean. But I reckon Lewis Carroll was bang on all the same. (of course, he was "bong" on, but that's another matter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 05:56 AM

"Bugger me,"

Is that legal now?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 07:39 AM

Orwell also inferred that a word can mean what we want it to mean...he called it "newspeak"
The word gay is an excellent example of "newspeak", designed to disguise the meaning of the word homosexual....to make it more user friendly.

Bill I have not "missed the point"....in the same way the never ending quest for gay equality is again designed to disguise the health problems associated with the lifestyle.

This serves neither society nor the homosexuals, who will continue to be infected while the "liberals" especially those on Mudcat pretend all is well.

Having a strong voice and power in the media is all very well, but sometimes that power can be used to conceal.....not to inform.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 07:56 AM

Eliza......I would agree wholeheartedly with your definition of marriage.....as far as it goes.
I would also include the production of a child and a safe loving environment for that child to be brought up in.

The vast majority of homosexuals have no wish to enter "marriage" and of those who do, the actual "marriage" or civil union lasts on average under 1.5 years.....much less than the uptake rate or average length of hetero marriage.

As I have stated above, I see "Gay marriage" as a devise used by activists to normalise and make homosexuality more acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 09:01 AM

"Bugger me,"

Is that legal now?


It was an exclamation rather than an aspiration.....

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 09:47 AM

Saulgoldie opined:

When the gay couple moved into our little building cluster, three hetero couples got divorces within the year. So you see, it is not just correlation. It is causality.

Saul, in that statement you engaged in one of the most classic of logical fallacies, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc--that is,
"After this, therefore because of this."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 10:09 AM

Yes, I know, Dave. I thought that "thinking people" would see through it immediately. I have made many comments here about fair treatment of all our brothers and sisters as long as they are not harming anyone. I guess my unstated "winkey" was not so obvious.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 10:11 AM

and of those who do, the actual "marriage" or civil union lasts on average under 1.5 years.....much less than the uptake rate or average length of hetero marriage.

Where are the figures to support this contention? If there are any it must be taken into account that same sex marriage was only legally recognised by most countries at best within the last decade or so. There are still many places that do not recognise or allow these unions and so reliable figures won't be available. How can reliable statistics have been compiled in so short a time? There will be no records to show the number of same sex couples who have been living in 'sin' for longer periods in long lasting happy relationships.

I agree with Neil.D. If the spread of HIV/Aids is a reason for discouraging same sex marriage for men then same sex marriage for women should be encouraged. Makes sense to me, if that is the premise from which this situation is viewed. However, I see abuses of marriage in heterosexual unions - Kim Kardashian comes to mind as the latest of a long line of stupidities - which make a mockery of the marriage vows.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 11:08 AM

What John said. There should be a set of statutes that describe a particular civil relationship that includes medical rights, financial associations, inheritance, parenthood, and such. Religion should handle "marriage" as whatever particular religion it is sees it. If it twer thus, there would be no need for argument over "same-sex marriages." This is known as keeping religion and "the state" separate, as they should be in a multi-cultural society.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 11:54 AM

For the record, Saul, your post of 5 March 6:31 gave me a chuckle.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 01:54 PM

"...the never ending quest for gay equality is again designed to disguise the health problems associated with the lifestyle."

You saying that it is 'disguised' is YOUR way of distorting the issue. You are so presumptuous to infer the motives of others!

As a matter of fact, I 'suspect' that your concern is less about health and more about your discomfort with the very concept of homosexual relations.... but I wouldn't have any way of knowing that, would I?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 03:39 PM

We all tend to infer the motives of others when we hear their opinions, don't we? (and sometimes we are wrong in our assumptions regarding their motives)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 05:23 PM

Well Bill is certainly wrong in his suspicions, but he does veer to the cynical side :0)
I would quite like to hear him explain the misuse of "gay", what could the motive possibly be?....or is cynicism contagious?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 06:13 PM

Ake, the term gay was preferable to the terms queer and faggot. I don't care for any of the terms because the English language already had the words lesbian and homosexual. The first use of the term lesbian was in 1567, and the first use of homosexual was 1892 according to Webster's Collegiate. That said, I felt and feel that the purloining of words in the language alters many things that went before. "Don we now our gay apparel" comes to mind. It seems however that the homosexual community failed to consult me on their choice of terms. C'est la vie.

Excellent article about STDs (STIs).

B

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 08:16 PM

As a matter of fact, *I* dislike the word 'gay'... just as I dislike cute euphemisms for other things...such as body parts and acts...I suspect that it was begun to avoid public use of the more opprobrious terms- in order to make references about it.

.... but 'gay' has the virtue of being short, and IS better than 'queer', which was a stupid euphemism of another sort. (Although for a time, some groups of 'gay' folk used 'queer' as a sort of in-your-face dare.)

The word itself has been co-opted...and I hate the background snickering when someone says "I feel gay today.".... but it is, for the foreseeable future, the common term, and *I* adjust to it. The point is not about the word, but rather about the rights of people who happen to be 'that way', no matter what you choose to call it.

(who me? Cynical?.....nawwwwww...)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 08:37 PM

It would seem that the statistic that same sex marriages have an average duration of 1.5 years would be difficult to substantiate, as there are extremely few places where it's been possible for same sex couples to have been married that long, and the statistical sample is, relative to compiling of reliable statistics, nearly ZERO.

Surveys of same sex couples living together in committed relationships have consistently indicated stability at least comparable to, and in many cases exceeding, that of formally established heterosexual marriages. There have been numerous such surveys, they are quite difficult to conduct due to the secrecy demanded by the views of surrounding populations, but the several with apparently sound basis do not indicate a significant difference between heterosexual and monosexual relationships.

A difficulty with any such surveys is that there are vast numbers (although not extremely high percentages) of "couples" who live together out of convenience but without commitment. This problem is common to both heterosexual and monosexual living arrangements.

Some recent analyses have also indicated that the "population segment" in which the rate of new HIV infections is currently highest, in "Western Countries" like the US and UK, is heterosexually married females. The surveys reporting this "change," that have been publicly reported, have come from flaky organisations like the US National Institute of Health and from at least two UK "government health agencies" whose specific names I don't recall offhand.

Reliable information about the extent of, and behavior of, those with "homosexual inclinations" remain exceedingly difficult to gather, simply because those involved in the majority of cases believe that they must be keep their preferences secret because of "fear of the believers." It takes immense courage to "come out" and I greatly respect the few, especially the couples, I know who have done so. I also have no disrespect for the more numerous ones I know who have NOT publicly shown their beliefs and who continue to conceal their behaviors. (And the same applies to quite a few atheists, who are literally "afraid for their lives" if their beliefs become known.)

At a big whoopdie over whether seminarians who are homosexual should be expelled (in Rome some time ago) an "unidentified spokesman" reported to news reporters on the progress of the discussions (he was later identified as the "chairman"). He was asked what percentage of seminarians were homosexuals, and replied with the usual "at least 8%." Several reporters noted that other reports placed it nearer 60%, and after being pressed further the spokesman said "it's probably near 60%."

Do we believe it? It's an "authoritative" statement, since he possibly does (or should) know a number, but it's not confirmable by anyone. Take your pick.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 03:24 AM

You may not be cynical Bill, but you are certainly nimble at dodging a question! :0)

John ..there has been a huge study in Scandinavia concerning "gay Marriage and Civil Union.
The study involved "marriage"   take up rates and duration of relationships.
As "Gay Marriage" has been legal in Scandinavia since 1989 the study is extremely wide ranging and authoritative.

If interested please go back to the actual study figures, as there have been many papers filed online expressing these figures to reinforce a particular point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 03:43 AM

"Some recent analyses have also indicated that the "population segment" in which the rate of new HIV infections is currently highest, in "Western Countries" like the US and UK, is heterosexually married females"

That quote is completely unbelievable!! Neither CDC nor UNAIDS have made this claim.
Perhaps you could explain.
The only thing i can come up with, is that you are confusing real numbers with percentages.

If,in a million Scotsmen, a thousand are affected by a disease....and in one thousand Canadians a hundred are affected, there is a huge over representation of Canadians to the disease, although the real numbers show the Canadians to be less affected.

Percentages Percentages....please.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 04:00 AM

Brucie....Thanks for the information....interesting, but what "right" has any group to "co-opt" a word.....or an institution?

I was rather fond of the traditional meaning of "gay" now it is never heard in that context.
I rather liked the traditional definition of "marriage" as well....now it has become meaningless.

Ask a bunch of married couples to say why the got hitched, and the vast majority will tell you...."because we wanted to have kids"
End of story!

Keep well my good friend.....A

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 04:40 AM

"Ask a bunch of married couples to say why the got hitched, and the vast majority will tell you...."because we wanted to have kids"


Total rubbish. That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. End of story!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 05:05 AM

Yeah, and ask the vast majority of gay people if the want to be persecuted...

I started this thread in order to provoke debate on 1) whether any group in society has the veto on the use of certain words and b) whether clergy such as this one do themselves any favours in trying to promote the idea of anybody other than the will of Parliament having the final say.

When I posted it, I wondered if the homophobe in residence would wake up. Should have put a fiver on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 05:35 AM

Ian.... I dont "hate or fear" homosexuals so your use of the word homophobe is quite wrong.

However, I will always oppose what I see as bad legislation, and i will give my reasons for doing so.
I believe the current promotion of homosexual practice as "safe and healthy" is wrong and not in the interests of society or the homosexuals themselves.

There a several arguments against "Gay marriage", including its effect on public perception of the "institution" of marriage and the roll over effect of this on the family structure, which I hope you will agree is the bedrock of a just and caring society.

My stance is on the health issue, which simply cannot be allowed to worsen.
Rates of infection among homosexuals have become so bad, that official bodies like Unaids have stopped presenting them in their information as a separate demographic.....although they constitute over 70% of new infections.
This is disgraceful discrimination against homosexuals, the public are led to believe infection rates are falling, when amongst male homosexuals the rates are in fact rising steadily.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 05:44 AM

Anyone who believes that male homosexuals should not be treated as a special case in regard to hiv/aids is condoning this discrimination.

If these rates were replicated among hetero women or red headed men,
there would be an immediate outcry for a public inquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 06:20 AM

Interesting..

Up until recently, I was chairman of a PCT, the funding authorities of NHS provision. Your figures don't seem to accord with public health figures nor indeed risks.

Sexually transmitted diseases have risk groups based on lots of factors and the epidemiology is too complex for either your assertion nor indeed for any rebuttal. That said, the highest risk STD is chlamydia and the largest risk group is women between 14 and 26.

In the meantime, HIV through homosexual sex is, nationally, far lower than HIV through needle exchange and only slightly higher than heterosexual sex transmission. (Source; DH - The State of Public Health in England 2011.)

That is not to gloss over the fact that homosexual transmission risk is there, exists and whilst nowhere near the levels prior to health education in the mid '80s, has not been eradicated yet.

Your statistics, whilst cherry picking at best and erroneous at worst, would be, if taken on merit, a good reason to promote gay marriage, as marriage should be, under most circumstances, a lowering of promiscuity in any lifestyle group.

Perhaps the Cardinal too should be promoting public health rather than promoting stigma and shame on a whole section of society? I expect no less from you, as your anonymity allows your free speech to exist without responsibility, but a Cardinal is set up by his followers to commentate on the state of society, and his insistence on bringing historical bigotry to the table does him no favours at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 07:14 AM

You have not been reading my posts. I have dealt with the issues you raise on this and other threads in ref to "gay marriage" and "promiscuity"

My figures are indesputable, search CDC in the US and UNAIDS in the uk... both are official bodies for the study of infection and although UNAIDS has stopped treating homosexuals as a separate demographic they do state that "Men who have sex with Men account for over 70% of new cases of hiv.
The CDC figures almost exactly correspond to the figure given by UNAIDS.

You must remember that to deal in anything other than percentages is quite meaningless.

BTW...How the fuck did you ever become leader of a PCT, when you dont have a clue on the facts of hiv/aids infection?

If you dont know the facts, how can the general public be expected to appreciate the magnitude of the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 07:42 AM

This page gives a resume of CDC findings.
You may trawl through all the bumph on the websites, Unaids have become experts in obscuring the facts.
link

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 07:54 AM

999, I was born on a Sunday - how does one end that rhyme now?

But better that change than a continued use of the really nasty words of the past.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 11:26 AM

It isn't so much as knowing the facts about HIV and AIDS, rather being certain that you obviously don't.

As in all matters, you don't employ a director of public health and numerous consultants in public health, all doctors specialising in the field, and then get your facts from The Daily Mail.

I suppose relying on credible evidence and then addressing it in a non judgemental way s one of the ways to have become a PCT chairman. In any event, dont worry. Your obvious paranoia can be addressed via another part of the NHS budget.

By the way, there are many official bodies for the study of infection, and to use the word "official" would mean recognised by The Royal College of Microbiologists, NICE, IPC and Dept of Health bodies, not to forget WHO and other international authorities on the subject.

Percentages are meaningless when addressing public health. The Townsend scoring system clearly indicates as such. The percentage of AIDS risk in an inland town versus a port town, an area of a city versus a similar population demographic in a rural catchment.

I only understand this much. Despite your denial, I read homophobia in your posts and therefore dismiss them as debatable points. By coincidence, the facts and figures used to inform healthcare planning don't coincide with whatever Mickey Mouse statistic mill you are using to substantiate your hate of lifestyles other than the one you would have us believe you "enjoy."

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 11:44 AM

as my last link has been altered since i posted, I will post it again.
Btw.....which part of 71% of new infections do you no understand?
If you have data which contradicts that please post it.
http://factsaboutyouth.com/uncategorized/cdc-facts-and-statistics/

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 12:53 PM

Poor ake, factsaboutyouth.com is an extreme rightwing, religious backed misinformation site, and he doesn't even notice it in his terror of shirtlifters.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 02:35 PM

I disagree with any assessment of Akenaton that denigrates either him or his character. He is a good man. Indeed, he and I have a few things about which we disagree, but his integrity isn't one of them. It never has been nor will it ever be.

True, I think he has his head up his arse on a few issues, but then again I have people in my life who are Conservatives (and even a few Republicans) with whom I would and have entrusted aspects of that life, and I would not hesitate to do so in future. He's one of them.

People are not the sum total of their views. They are the sum total of their experience. From my thought he's a fine human being. He would never turn a hungry man or woman from his door--be they homosexual or lesbian. I have been happy for years that we are friends because of the guy he is, warts and all.

BM (who, of course, has no warts).

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 04:15 PM

Thanks Bruce ....i need say no more than that I have the greatest respect for you.

Paul....I wasn't interested in the website, the facts are taken directly from CDC and are correct......would you care to argue about that?

Ian said that he thought my data was wrong and that hetero women had the highest infection rates the figures prove that is nonesense.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 05:48 PM

Ake... how did I 'dodge a question'? You asked me to "explain the misuse of "gay", what could the motive possibly be?".....I answered that question with my best guess...I can't see how there is a right or wrong answer to that.


"I believe the current promotion of homosexual practice as "safe and healthy" is wrong.."

I don't really remember you noting exactly who was 'promoting' this....defending rights is certainly not the same as promoting 'safety & health'. ANY dangerous activity is foolish behavior ...and due to HIV spread among the general population, anyone contemplating sex should observe relevant precautions.

If you do know...or have already mentioned... instances of clear 'promoting', I'd be glad to read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 06:58 PM

One instance of promotion is the proposed legislation on Homosexual "marriage". To advance the case For homosexual "marriage" and grant homosexuals the "right" to foster babies, infers that the lifestyle is safe and healthy....when patently it is not, due to massive rates of hiv infection.

"whether these rates are produced by homosexual practice, or simply extreme promiscuity.....which seems to be part of the lifestyle for large numbers of male homosexuals....is yet to be proven.

We are still left with a sexual minority whose behaviour carries extreme health risks, being accepted into mainstream society and given the care of very young children.....because "liberal" ideology demands it.

You are not defending "rights", you are manufacturing them.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 08:54 PM

**infers??** I asked for clear & direct examples of 'promoting'.

If your semi-quotation is from that 'proposed legislation', it seems almost too sensible to BE part of even 'proposed' legislation....why?
Because the distribution of HIV incidence is such that no one CAN accurately show specific causality.

"behaviour carries extreme health risks,"... NOT if they behave sensibly....and many to most ARE, because they know the risks....and much new cases of HIV are because of careless heterosexual behavior.

"liberal" ideology be damned... You will not change basic sexual orientation in people, you can only provide warnings and education. ...and as I said allowing same-sex marriage would tend to reduce, not increase, promiscuity!

No one manufactures rights... they either recognize them or they don't.

For a couple of years now, I have seen in your arguments simple re-statement of your *belief* that "health problems" are the major issue, even in the face of evidence that homosexual relationships are NOT the primary disease vectors any longer.

I am trying to remember what you have proposed that society actually DO regarding health and freedom..or lack of it... for homosexual couples. Maybe put them on Easter Island and wait till they die out? (yes, I'm being cynical this time)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 09 Mar 12 - 03:49 AM

Akenaton;

Just for the record, where did I say women had the highest infection rates?

I said younger women have the highest STD infection rate, and I said that homosexual infection of HIV was slightly higher than for heterosexual, where sexual activity was the root cause.

Just out of interest, women in the general sense and infection in the general sense? Yes, massively so. UTI, Clostridium Difficile, MRSA... Mainly because they live longer than men, so reach a frail state where infections can be rife.

Stop mixing HIV with infection in general, or indeed even STD. Apples and pears, and if you are the intelligent person 999 claims you are, you might want to base your argument on facts? If you did, you might even realise you are shooing a paper tiger...

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Mar 12 - 04:30 AM

"To advance the case For homosexual "marriage" and grant homosexuals the "right" to foster babies, infers that the lifestyle is safe and healthy....when patently it is not, due to massive rates of hiv infection."

Surely the point is that when people get married - whether gay or not - they are entering into a stable monogamous relationship, so the chance of catching any form of STD is much less.

I know one gay couple who have been married for several years and now are intent on adopting a child. Incidentally, my elder son rang me yesterday and told me he and his partner of some years are getting married. I thought it rude to ask him why - they have a 3 year old daughter so having children is not the reason.

I reckon that there are just two many moralising busybodies around who think that everyone should fit into their narrow idea of what a relationship or a marriage should be. Why the fuck don't you just mind your own business and let people get on living their lives in the way that makes them happy?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 09 Mar 12 - 08:12 AM

Having started the thread, I was waiting for someone to summarise succinctly.

I reckon Leveller's closing comment sums my feelings up nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: John P
Date: 09 Mar 12 - 10:07 AM

I think we need to make sure that men from Scotland aren't allowed to marry. Everyone knows they are all alcoholics. We shouldn't be promoting this unhealthy lifestyle by allowing Scotsmen to mingle with normal society. Think of the health risks if whiskey drinking becomes "normal" behavior! Imagine the harm to children that are brought up by Scottish fathers!

I think we need to make sure that voyeurs aren't allowed to marry. It is extremely dangerous to society to have people who are interested in what other people are doing in bed running around acting like normal people. Anyone who expresses any interest in the sexuality of strangers should be banished!

I think we should make sure that anonymous posters on internet sites aren't allowed to marry. They are all cowards! Accepting cowards as normal members of society is detrimental to our collective moral fiber. Children brought up in the homes of anonymous posters are much more likely to die young. I've got the figures to prove it!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 12 - 02:01 PM

ake might be a diamond geezer, but he has a fertile imagination. I followed his link to the childrens' misinformation site; now I followed his recommendation to visit the UNAIDS site. Perhaps he can point out the exact source of his figures on that site, but what I did find was:

In the 2011 World AIDS Day report:


Sub-Saharan Africa remains the region most heavily affected by HIV. In 2010, about 68% of all people living with HIV resided in sub-Saharan Africa, a region with only 12% of the global population. Sub-Saharan Africa also accounted for 70% of new HIV infections in 2010...

I take it that the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa is gay.

In Policy Brief: HIV and Sex between Men:

Actions for governments:
...
Respect, protect and fulfill the rights of men who
have sex with men and address stigma and discrimi-
nation in society and in the workplace by amend-
ing laws prohibiting sexual acts between consenting
adults in private; enforcing anti-discrimination; pro-
viding legal aid services, and promoting campaigns
that address homophobia.

Actions for civil society:
...
Challenge stigma and discrimination against men
who have sex with men and advocate legal and
policy reforms to promote their human rights and
access to health services


Which sound very much like, ake, shut the f*** up.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 12 - 03:19 PM

Sorry, I've been busy, but I see you've been chattering amongst yourselves in the meantime.
The thread has de-generated into a heap of personal abuse.
Thats the problem when you have nothing relevant to say.

However I will leave you with the latest CDC press release....they seem to be trying to tell you ostriches something...dont you think?
CDC press release 2010


As for blaming the high infection rates on stigma or lack of imformation, try to concentrate, there is less stigma, more information, and more money, targetted at homosexuality today than there has ever been......yet the infection rates are still rising steadily.

It has to be about the behaviour. It is a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: John P
Date: 12 Mar 12 - 10:51 PM

Let's see . . . dangerous and unhealthy lifestyles . . .

soldier
mountain climber
skier
police officer
driver
smoker
bartender
drinker
fireman
gas station attendant
gun owner
Christian Scientist
bus driver
being promiscuous
cancer patient
diabetic
any sufferer of a deadly disease
living in cold climate
living in hot climate
living in tornado country
living in earthquake country
hiker
own a vicious dog
construction worker

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 05:09 AM

Marriage, various people including Archbishop Sentamu have said, is about the procreation and education of children.

Therefore no-one who is infertile by reason of illness, injury or age can contract a valid marriage.

That includes anyone infertile by reason of treatment for cancer and all women over the age of menopause.

Of course, if a heterosexual couple marry and subsequently discover that one of them is infertile, the marriage will be annulled.

On the other hand, if you find this logic too harsh and think that heterosexual couples should be able to marry, even if one of them is infertile and there is no possibility of procreation, by what logic do you deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 07:43 AM

Exactly Marianne! I'm unable to have children, so presumably I would have been banned from marrying. That is why I didn't mention procreation in my personal definition of marriage. In fact, I feel that if any couple wish to commit to eachother sincerely and permanently, they should be permitted and even strongly encouraged to do so. Stable and committed relationships can only be good for society in general. It's totally irrelevant to categorise the marriage partners as gay, straight, old, young, of one race or religion or another etc etc. It's entirely their business why they wish to be married; once they do, then let them!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 08:56 AM

I'm in total agreement with Marianne and Eliza. If we stuck to the very narrow definition of marriage put out by certain religious ideologues Kendall and I would not have been allowed to marry.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 05:02 PM

Of course you should not be prohibited from marrying Eliza, the are many reasons why married couples do not produce children....and it is sad that you cannot have kids should you want to; but the vast majority do decide to procreate and most state that they see marriage as part of the family structure.

I am amazed Jacqui, that your marriage could have been forbidden, tho' my wife and I were refused a church marriage many years ago, because I would not become a church member....I could see no good reason for that at the time, but we were married in an hotel by my wifes minister.....and felt just as married!

All this of course has nothing to do with my position regarding the promotion of homosexual practice as a safe and healthy lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 02:44 AM

I am rather struggling to understand your logic, Akenaton. You appear to be saying that if homosexuals are denied the opportunity to marry they won't have sex so they won't transmit Aids.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 08:19 AM

Well, the good news is that even though there *are* holdouts, homophobia is on the decline overall.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 08:52 AM

Good point Marianne - post 2.44am.

Ake - Marriage, various people including Archbishop Sentamu have said, is about the procreation and education of children.

Sticking to this definition, as Marianne says, people like myself who are incapable now of childbearing would be denied the union. Of course, this is ridiculous, as is the original statement from Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Maybe the Catholic church should stick to getting rid of the paedophiles within their own organisation and making reparation to those affected by that behaviour before trying to dictate to the rest of the population how their lives should be regulated.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 03:24 PM

Marriage is a very good base for parenthood and the raising of children. But it's also a very good base for ANY couple to thrive and grow together, because it's a formal and important permanent commitment. One couple's marriage (say, for example, two gay people) doesn't in any way detract from the marriage of another (say, two straight folk) Two gay men in a committed and stable marriage do not in any way harm the heterosexual couple next door, or the mixed-race pair down the road. But what all these marriages do is create a stable society in which many couples intend to stay together permanently. If we want true equality and equal opportunity, we just cannot ban two people in love from getting married because of their sexual orientation (or colour or religion or age-difference or fertility status or health problems or IQ or life-expectancy etc etc) People want to marry - why shouldn't they? IMO all this fuss about gay marriage is just a thin veneer covering rampant homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 04:05 PM

Marriage between people of different ethnicity was banned in various places well into the 20th century. Both religion and science were used to justify these bans, just as they are used to justify opposition to gay marriage. I'd like to say that I hope opposition to gay marriage becomes as unacceptable as opposition to interracial marriage, but I've just found a report that last year a Kentucky church banned interracial couples from attending services there.

Not all churches, or all church members are against gay marriage, which raises an interesting point. Akenaton says God is against gay marriage, other Christians say he isn't - how do we know who's got it right?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 05:01 PM

Back in the Biblical days, they didn't exactly have marriage license bureaus. People just sorta announced they were 'together' or had their church to bless them somehow. I suppose it never occurred to anyone other than man/woman couples to even ask.... but you KNOW there were homosexual liaisons, even though it was not understood why people had such feelings.....indeed, we are just barely beginning to sort out the genetic, hormonal and brain chemistry factors which incline us to various proclivities.

I suppose it will take a LONG time to make sexual variations part of the natural order and accepted by the majority.....

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 05:31 PM

Up until Victorian times, a legal situation introduced to England by the Normans applied, in which the woman surrendered all her property to her husband on marriage. Her children were, as she was, his chattel property, in the same way as a slave would be. If the marriage was ended, he retained all her property, and the children.

That was the definition of marriage, supported by the various churches. Then the government decided to change it, and it did.

Governments have been defining marriage since who knows when. The Normans did it, and the Victorians. And, in the latter case, a good thing too.

I've just been listening to the programme "The Moral Maze" in which one opponent of gay marriage introduced the idea of siblings, or parents and children, or polygamy, as following from this drastic change. And one said that marriage had to be between people who were different. These arguments did seem odd. (Even identical twins are different - especially with girls.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 06:37 PM

I suppose the crux of the pro homosexual marriage case is that "it just isn't fair", nothing else is of any importance.

Like the redefinition of marriage to accomodate a tiny but vociferous sexual minority. The health problems associated with male homosexuality. The damage to the family structure by said redefinition. The opening of doors to any form of coupling which feels itself discriminated against.....the thin end of the wedge.

And all because somebody says "it just isn't fair.
Well i've got news for you guys.....life "isn't fair" and never will be...nature "isn't fair" or it would have given men or women the means to impergnate someone of the same sex.
Some things are biological fact and will never fit into the equality agenda.

As long as marriage is to be seen as the cornerstone of a family orientated society, nurturing the creation and upbringing of children and the extended family, the supposed "rights" of a tiny sexual minority come a very poor second

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 06:56 PM

Oh and by the way Marianne, where did I say that "God is against gay marriage"?

I don't happen to believe in a supreme being, so how could i determine what he/she/it, is "against"
I am against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe and healthy lifestyle......I do not think the "Gay marriage" legislation has been properly discussed or thought through.
An issue which is seen by many as "just not fair"......could turnout to have serious consequences for society

I see the Rabbie is still on his homophobia trip.....wake up and join the real world!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 07:05 PM

You'll never believe this fans, but the last two post were mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 02:54 AM

I have read with interest Akenaton's posts and observed his rather distorted world view. I note that he seems to thinks that all homosexuals are male - he completely ignores lesbians, who are at less risk of Aids than heterosexuals,(so no grounds for denying them marriage then). He completely ignores the question of Aids amongst intravenous drugs users. The conclusion is that for some reason Akenaton is obsessed with, and terrified of, male homesexuality.

It is hard to avoid to conclusion that this is actually about Akenaton's fears about his own sexuality. I'm sure most of the posters on this thread would be sympathetic and understanding, but for your own safety, Akenaton, if you are not ready for face to face counselling, find a forum which can offer you a protected environment in which you can discuss your problems. This is not the right place.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 03:52 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 05:13 AM

Glad you're smiling - it's much better to have these things out in the open, isn't it?

However, I don't know if you will be relieved or disappointed to find that there is no such thing as 'a homosexual life style'.

Some gay people are promiscuous - just like some straight people. Some are monogamous and some, from inclination or lack of opportunity, are celibate - just like heterosexuals. Some dress flamboyantly, some are boring - just like heterosexuals. Some would like to get married, but unlike heterosexuals, in many countries they don't have that option. Just how preventing gay people from marrying is going to discourage promiscuity and lack of responsibility about STDs is something I don't understand - perhaps you can explain, but don't worry - no-one is going to force you to sleep around if you don't want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 05:44 AM

Perhaps someone can pm Akenaton and offer to help him with his irrational phobia? The we can get on with this thread. (Thanks for participating by the way. First time one of my threads has gone over 100. I'd like to thank my agent, my family, Jesus, Slash, Oh, and special thanks to Joe for not deleting my posts.)

In the meantime, I started this thread in order to question whether clergy have any moral right to claim the word marriage is theirs to use, rather than the elected members of Parliament? (I use the word moral, as in a Parliamentary democracy, they certainly don't have the legal right, as they claim. I've already dismissed that.)

The public consultation in England is now in progress, and I believe the Scotland consultation has yet to end. Northern Ireland take a Biblical view but can't decide who has the right to read from it, and Wales wonder if there is an inter species dimension to the word.....

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 06:10 AM

I'm not sure when the ban on marriage with a deceased wife's sister was repealed - sometime during the later C20, I believe, so it appears that CoE clergy, at least, are willing to change their views on what constitutes a bar to marriage. Their moral position appears to be about as substantial as fog.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM

"In the meantime, I started this thread in order to question whether clergy have any moral right to claim the word marriage is theirs to use,"

Interesting point. While not necessarily answering the question (particularly the "moral" bit) etymology might yield some tangents on that. The word Marry - with the meaning "to wed, marry, give in marriage" - appears to have been in use for a few hundred years prior to the Church adopting it for use it's formal Marriage ceremony:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry&allowed_in_frame=0

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: banjoman
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 07:12 AM

Just a thought - Is the Church actualy talking about what it calls "Holy Matrimony" which is the Sacrament of marriage in the RC Church. If so what is the argument about. Let the government define marriage anyway it wants to and the Church can have the state of Holy Matrimony and define it as a union between a man and a woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 07:34 AM

Interesting question - since churches disagree -compare, for example, the RC and Quaker attitudes - which church has the moral authority to lay down the law for everyone. Even people within one church don't agree with each other. I'm with banjoman on this -let the state define marriage and religions can define marriage for their own adherents. Though marriage is, at the moment, defined as between one man and one woman in the UK, there seems to be no legal problem with accepting Muslim polygamous marriages.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 08:32 AM

From the Citizen's advice web site.

"A polygamous marriage is one where a man can marry more than one wife. A polygamous marriage between partners, one or both of whom are domiciled in England, Wales or Northern Ireland is not valid. The concept of 'domicile' is very complex and does not necessarily mean 'living in' a country.

If you need to know about the validity of a polygamous marriage, you should seek specialist legal advice. An experienced adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau may be able to help you find specialist legal advice."

The site is updated regularly (today), unlike the Daily Mail report from 2008 to the contrary.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 08:46 AM

(no relation!)

You are, of course, correct in that polygamous marriage in the UK is not legal, nontheless, the validity of marriages contracted elsewhere is not questioned, nor have I heard anyone talking about polygamous marriages in the same way as gay marriage. As I never read the Daily Mail I have no idea what it says.

I'm unsure of the position of someone marrying abroad anbd then coming to the UK when one or both partners are under the UK age of consent.

All this actually shows is that there is very little consensus on what marriage is and who can contract a legal marriage.

Which certainly brings into question the right of one group to impose their will on a multicultural society.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 01:41 PM

Just how preventing gay people from marrying is going to discourage promiscuity and lack of responsibility about STDs is something I don't understand"

Well I'm glad there is something that you dont understand Marianne, as you seem to make so many suppositions about people you don't know, on forums to which you are not a member, that I was beginning to think that you were the deity him/her/itself.
If you cannot add anything to the debate, please stop the tired name calling and grow up.
I may or may not be a latent homosexual, but I am not a fool.

Like you though, there are a couple of things which I dont understand....why male homosexuals are 44 times more likely to develop hiv/aids, why male homosexuals constitute over 75% of new hiv infections....and why homosexuality can be classified as a safe and healthy lifestyle, or a safe environment to bring up very young children?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 01:47 PM

Homphobia. No substantiated facts. Careless logic. Yaaawn.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 02:54 PM

ok.....dont wake up, just go back to sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 03:52 PM

"...why homosexuality can be classified as a safe and healthy lifestyle, ..."

Once again... WHO classifies it that way? That is a generalization! Promiscuous individuals (of **any** gender) who take no precautions DO have a non-safe & health lifestyle. These are usually not the sort who want to be married anyway. They account for the majority of the scary statistics.

Various people keep telling you this, in various ways....but you keep circling back to the same invalid point--as it relates to marriage rights! Health concerns and marriage rights are two different issues!

As to "whether clergy have any moral right to claim the word marriage is theirs to use"...

Throughout history, marriage has been defined pragmatically by both the church and by society/government in general. Each made rules to cover perceived issues.... society, to make inheritance and obligations clear, and and the church to control/influence its own concerns about behavior and relationships.
The church defines marriage because it SAYS it defines marriage! If people **choose** to accept the church's rules, that is their decision, but it doesn't take much looking to realize that in most Western societies, the church can only perform marriages that the govt. says have been licensed. Thus, because atheists can apply for a license and get married, no overriding 'moral' claim by the church makes sense....except to those who already accept the church's authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 08:40 PM

Close relatives are banned from marriage on health grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 02:54 AM

The genetic health of the offspring. Generally, male homosexuals don't conceive children together.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 03:41 AM

Name calling - so in your view using the word homosexual is an insult?

"Just how preventing gay people from marrying is going to discourage promiscuity and lack of responsibility about STDs is something I don't understand"

Still no answer to that point.

"and grow up"

If you don't have logic and evidence on your side, try being childishly rude!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 04:50 AM

Let us consider for a moment what 'promoting a homesexual lifestyle' could actually mean.

Possibility 1. Advertising to heterosexuals saying 'try homosexuality, it's safe and healthy.

Rather a waste of money this, since being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

Possibility 2. Advertising to gay men saying 'try promiscuity, it's safe and healthy. Why bother being in a loving and faithful relationship, it's better to sleep around and catch STDs.'

Oddly enough, I don't remember seeing anything like this or the first possibility.

So: who is promoting a homesexual lifestyle as safe and healthy and who are they targetting? Please provide examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 07:13 AM

For those interested the consultation document is here :Equal civil marriage consultation

You can fill in the online form with comments

...and, just for the record: I know it's been said numerous times before but it's still worth making a point. Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice. It's a sexuality just the same as straight or bisexual.

Choosing to have unsafe sex is a choice

I'm glad I'm not the one to have to read through some of the consultations replies because I dare say some will make quite a song and dance against in what they fear the most about themselves

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,cardinal sinne
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 10:55 AM

Ah, yes; the 'sanctity' of marriage is the one thing that the church (of any flavour) offers couples that civil partnerships don't. The fact that some bible-thumpers believe they are unable to sanctify a same-sex partnership only shows how specious the whole concept is. If two people love each other enough to make a binding legal commitment then the church ought to put out all the flags it can, not say, 'ooh, you can't join our club because it's not in the rules'.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 11:06 AM

Well clearly the practice of human pair bonding has been and continues to be a worldwide ritualised social custom which transcends both place, race, time AND indeed religion.
In the West Christian religion took an interest in that existent human custom and asserted (as it did over many pre-existent human customs) some kind of authority.
The question posited by the OP is "does the Christian religion own any possession over the term 'Marriage' itself?".
If my understanding of the origins of the word 'Marry' are correct, then presumably the answer would be 'no' as it seems the word was in use something under two hundred years (it's roots preceeding that) prior to it's inclusion in the wording of the Christian marriage rite.
Maybe someone more knowing about the history of the English language would care to wade in?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 11:24 AM

We might as well pack up and stop posting to this thread.

The elves have removed one of mine, one that did not demonise anybody, didn't say anything about other members that wasn't fully apparent but what it did do was contribute to this discussion.

Sorry that the elves are religious, but deleting a post because it offends your superstition is below you mate, it really is...

{There were no messages deleted. It might not have posted. }

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 01:25 PM

I heard, yesterday, a government spokesperson (LibDem) saying definitely that what is proposed will not allow the Unitarians, Quakers, or Reform Jews to have religious services of marriage for gays.

Not at all, with or without consultation. All three want the option. In the case of Quakers, they are in a unique position with regard to other churches not CofE that their marriages do not require a separate registrar to be present. Allowing them would thus have a different meaning to allowing the others.

The civil marriage proposed will be like civil marriage for heterosexual couples, and have no religious component included. By law.

So not an equal situation at all. I wonder why people who believe that God has guided them to recognise such marriages are to be banned from carrying them out.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 01:33 PM

I shall apologise to the elves if it was't deleted, of course I will. It did post though, I always tend to check them since my dialogue with he whom others call M'Unlearned Friend got bit too close to the bone and Joe went on a post cull.

[Elves can use a button to see all posts. In case one is deleted by mistake, it. can be returned. I can see no deleted posts in this thread.]

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 08:24 PM

I often wonder if the Monseignuers are trying to gauge public opinion
thro the reading of encyclical letters from the pulpit.
Or are they pandering to the "zealots" and homophobics or even trying to flush them out as has happened here. Or promote thro debate the pros and cons of the proposed legistlation.
Is it not better to have outed gays in stable relationships than living a lie perhaps in unhappy hetro relationships...... just a thought

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 08:45 PM

The Monsigors and our good friend here think that if you ignore gay relationships, or better still make them illegal (homosexuality was a capital offence in England until the 19th century) they will stop being homosexual. In their view, it is a perversion, the practitioners of which can choose to be normal (like us).

I find it sad that they can't rejoice in human beings loving each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 03:20 AM

if you are referring to me paul, then you have made another mistake.
I choose my friends carefully.
I do not see anyone asking for homosexuality to be made illegal, or who think that homosexual practice can be "changed"

My uncle was the finest human being whom I have ever known...I loved him dearly. I am sure many people have loved others of the same sex.
That is completely different from wishing to have a sexual relationship (homosexuality)....or join in marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:55 AM

I've read Akenaton post several times.

Yes, Akenaton, the way we love blood relatives is indeed different to the way we love a partner. The way we love friends is not the same as the way love relatives or partners.

I'm not trying to wind you up. You need help.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 09:53 AM

I love my dog. I'd never be up in court for loving him though.

Many apologies to the elves by the way. I did see my post, honest! Sadly, a track record in deleting does tend to make one look for the obvious reason. Occams razor and all that.

I have been to three civil partnership weddings where friends got married. I say they are married, they say they are married, their family and friends say they are married. Ergo, they are married.

If the Scottish head honcho of the left footed brigade say they are not, and the bishop bloke in York say they aren't that's their problem. Cameron says they are, and his power, like it or lump it, is allowed to affect us all, not just those who live as others tell them to.

The government will deliver this legislation, as not doing runs contrary to their own Equality Act. I am somewhat surprised we need further legislation, but we need someone to rid us of these meddlesome priests.......... Or at least put them back in their box. I think the house of bishops is a good part of the House of Lords, and able to give a moral perspective to review of legislation, but if the cost is allowing the spewing of bigotry, then we should consider doing without them being able to influence reality.

Bad day, need a beer already, as you can tell. Taking it out on bigots. Better than taking it out on normal people all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: banjoman
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 10:05 AM

The government seems to have now redefined the meaning of consultation as it now appears that any such is simply to determine how the legislation will be implemented and will have no regard for any views expressed either for or against. In my view, this also deals a serious blow to the concept of democracy. There are lots of regimes around the world which have gone down the path of imposing a view which is not supported by a significant number.
Are we now on the road to dictatorship?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Mo the caller
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 10:45 AM

The original question raises another.
Is it time that the UK cut the link between church and state?

The CofE is better(worse?) than the RCs at cutting it's coat according to it's cloth. It has changed it's attitude to divorcees and remarried couples.

What happens in church must depend on their religious views, (with exceptions e.g. forced marriage). Why do we still pretend that they have any place in government?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 10:50 AM

Yes,we would be on the road to dictatorship if the old blokes in pointy hats dictate policy and are never up for election by those whom their bigotry is imposed upon.

This government may lack a clear mandate but Parliament is still Parliament and our elected MPs will vote after hearing the outcome of a consultation and the wishes of ministers.

Sounds to me like democracy in action. Less than 1% of the country attend church. More attend other religious ceremonies on a regular basis. The difference is that none of those other religions seek to impose their views on people who aren't members of their particular cult.

Consultations do work, and more often or not end up tweaking the proposals put forward. People may or may not agree with the proposals but consultation makes for better policy, and I speak from experience, having chaired public bodies.

In any case, this particular matter doesn't fall into that category. It is about saying that people are married regardless of what sections of society that don't concern them think. Nobody is affected by this other than those who want to be affected by it, and then for positive reasons.

In short, it is about clergy remembering where their place is. With their followers, full stop. If they put as much energy into helping society as they do into interfering with those who their fairy story book disdain, or even if they spent more time addressing abuse of vulnerable children by their employees, they might have some credibility, but whilst ever they legitimise bigotry of the worst kind, they can go to that hell they keep threatening us with.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 12:02 PM

The problem is, that around 20% of the Catholic clergy are homosexual, in large part because of the celibacy rule.

If you look at the figures for abuse in Boston several years ago, it was apparent that the crime being committed was not paedophilia, but in the main homosexual abuse of male teenagers....the largest group being 13 to 16 years of age.

I have no doubt this pattern will be repeated in other cases in other countries.

The American study also showed that real "paedophilia" amongst priests, was at a lower percentage rate than within the general public.

By stating this, i am in no way trying to excuse the disgraceful crimes committed by officers of the Church, just clarifying what the crimes actually were.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 01:53 PM

ake, the problem is not homosexuality: it is abuse, coercion and rape.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: banjoman
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 08:30 AM

I find some of the remarks above offensive and simply an opportunity taken to have a go at the Catholic Church. Where you get your figures from escapes me. There is good and bad in all walks of life and the clergy are by no means exempt. However to tar them all with one brush is just deviating from the subject of this thread. The so called consultation has been clearly stated as having no regard for any views expressed in opposition to the proposals. It was never a manifesto promise, and a large number of MP's on the government benches are being stifled from expressing their own view. My own MP (leader of the House)is just one example

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 12:02 PM

"I find some of the remarks above offensive and simply an opportunity taken to have a go at the Catholic Church."

Perhaps this is true.. but the Catholic church has put itself in 'line of fire' simply BY being a religion which has a rigid heirarchy, claiming unbroken authority from Jesus to the current pope, and requiring celibacy from its priests. Thus, when a high Catholic prelate makes the sort of remarks this one did, it is presumed that he is voicing the basic attitude OF the church.
If you read the original article by Cardinal O'Brien, the 'logic' he uses could be from any opponent of same-sex marriage...but it is not- he writes AS a high Catholic official, and I would assume he hopes that his status as such will sway some minds.

(Yes.. Joe Offer regularly make the point that many Catholics do NOT hold such views, but high officials do carry some weight as spokesmen for the church.)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 12:33 PM

"The problem is, that around 20% of the Catholic clergy are homosexual, in large part because of the celibacy rule."

And you know this, how? Oh, right. You can cite a statistically valid poll of said clergy in which the questions were carefully written to unambiguously gather the relevant information, and in which all the pollees answered all the questions honestly. You mean like that?

Oh, in that case, OK. By the way, did you know that 73% of all statistics are spontaneously made up? Well, you should know that. It's certified fact.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 12:50 PM

I thought it was 73.214%

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 01:24 PM

It is out for consultation THEN MPs will Debate it. All MPs on both sides of the house and then a vote.

It is a clarification and extension of The Equality Act which was put through Parliament by the last government, with all main parties agreeing to complete it after the election which they did. As part of tht Parliamentary debate, members asked that consideration be given to non workplace equality, citing same sex marriage as an obvious example.

Refining the Equality Act was a manifesto promise by all main parties and Cameron in opposition made it clear that he supported it. Equality means just that. It doesn't mean equality because a disgraced old bigot adjudicates on it.

We are all equal and indeed able to have a view. I dont wish my views imposed on others where it has nothing to do with me and clergy should realise their views have bugger all to do with gay marriage. They found some old book that doesn't seem to like the idea. Hardly a debating point in a progressive secular society..

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: bobad
Date: 09 Apr 12 - 04:28 PM

People who have negative feelings toward homosexuality often have secret attractions to the same sex — and are more likely to have grown up in households that forbid homosexual feelings, according to a recent study.

A research team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara found that "[h]omophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires."

"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," the study's lead author, Netta Weinstein, explained.

"In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward," co-author Richard Ryan added.

"We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences."

Details of the four separate experiments conducted by the research team will published in the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 05:33 AM

Homophobia certainly isn't a laughing matter. But whilst ever disgraced old men use their medieval costumes and traditional cultural following to perpetuate and indeed make homophobia respectful, it shall always be a problem.

These clerics want to be part of society's debate. They want to retain their position influencing UK law, they want people to join them.

Any one of them who can't denounce the bigots in their midst is no better themselves. Sorry but to hear them rattle on about aggressive secularism, anybody would think they have something relevant to say. Society has a far higher moral position than homophobic bigots who feel gays, women and anybody who doesn't believe in all that rubbish are somehow lower than them.

Mind you, you don't have to be superstitious to be homophobic. But the hardwiring helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 07:05 AM

I have never met anyone who "hates and fears" homosexuals, personally I feel sorry for them, especially their predicament regarding hiv/aids....."Homophobia" is Orwellian Newspeak!

I have met several homosexual couples during my working life, all exhibit symptoms of being trapped in a relationship that they find unsatisfying.
I think that for most homosexuals the equality debate is of little importance, as it seems to be driven by "heterosexual homosexual activists" in the main.
They (homosexuals) appear to have become unwilling tools in a "liberal" agenda, which accepts homosexuality as it is, the associated problems being unseen and unsaid......to the huge disadvantage of homosexuals in a real sense, not in the sense of "ethereal equality"

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 07:06 AM

If two human beings (of whatever sex or sexuality) sincerely love eachother, they should have every right to express that love and commitment in marriage, with no difference made between them and any other couple. It's simply persecution and discrimination to deny them this right. It's one of the tenets of my Church (C of E) which I pray will soon be changed. If (which statistically is more than likely, given the percentage of gays in the general population) 20% of RC priests are gay, I don't understand why this should in any way detract from their ministry, or incur attack and vituperation from homophobes. People are gay, get over it!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 08:04 AM

"Expert on marriage opens mouth.."

I read the thread title and thought, "Any real expert on marriage would know better than that . . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,van
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 08:25 AM

As the boys were all under the age of consent surely it is paedophilia. had the priests concerned had had the opportunity to abuse girls that age group it would have been regarded as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 08:54 AM

Like Ake I have, in my time, known quite a few homosexuals, of both sexes Some were in partnerships and some single. As with my heterosexual friends they displayed differing attitudes to their situations. I would say that the ones in committed relationships seemed to be happier, on the whole, than quite a few of my married hetero friends. I do wonder whether our own prejudices colour our perception of other people's happiness or lack of.

So far as the church is concerned - don't have time for the outdated, moralistic behaviour that seems to be prevalent. I would rather be in the company of so called sinners than spend time with those who would seek to bend all to their own narrow codes. I'm glad that I won't be going to their heaven - that would be my idea of hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 09:40 AM

Bruce, we need a "like" button here at Mudcat. I had the same thought exactly. ;-)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 10:20 AM

Akenaton sums up homophobia brilliantly. It takes a certain insight in order to explain such thoughts.

"I have met several..." followed by "all have exhibited symptoms of being trapped.."

Then states that their plight, to keep the silly terms going... Is exacerbated by heterosexual homosexual activists.

Be buggered if I know what they are? In fact be buggered if I don't...

Amazingly, I finished a post by saying you don't have to be superstitious in order to be homophobic and the very next post is by Akenaton.

There rests the case, M'lud.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 12:28 PM

I think folks have asked Akenaton 173 times...(well, maybe only 5-6, but it seems like more)... to explain why ALL gay relationships should be condemned or decried because SOME have HIV/AIDS - and why he concentrates on this when HIV/AIDS is now about as prevalent in straight populations.

He never 'quite' deals with the question, leading some to wonder if he is being totally honest...even with himself... as to why he objects to a homosexual orientation- and whether he believes it it 'natural' or a chosen lifestyle.

I am not a mindreader to make any definitive assertions, and I'm sure he will continue to insist he only 'concerned' about health issues, but I see repetitive patterns and wonder..................

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 04:48 PM

Oh Fuck!!!.....For the hundred and seventy forth time,
Hiv aids is not "about" as prevalent in the hetero population, as it is in the homo population.......Why do yo write this trash Bill?
CDC state catagorically that Homosexuals are almost 50times more likely to contract Hiv/Aids than heterosexuals.

Why do you want to bury this statistic? Do you think it is in the interests of homosexuals to do so?
I think it is only in the interests of the "liberal" agenda and you should be capable of understanding that.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 05:04 PM

Ian.....puzzle no longer, Mr John P..... spinster of this parish, is a self confessed HHA.

I'm sure he can fill you in!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 12 - 05:40 PM

This is actually all about redefining language, not about changing laws or extending or restricting rights.

Same sex partners in the UK already have all the same rights in law as married couples. The only difference from married couples is the linguistic one that in such partnerships the partners aren't referred to as husband and wife.

I would think that difference will continue even if the legal definition of marriage is altered to include same sex partnerships.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 12:15 AM

All these years later, and Akenaton has still not been able to formulate a coherent response to the Amos and John P simple question:

"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."

Ever since, I have been counting the incoherent rantings that duck this, but I ran out of fingers toes, ears, noses and dicks. Luckily I know exactly where there is one.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 12:28 AM

Our Catholic diocese has an Annual Appeal that provides support to many social service agencies in the area. Most are Catholic institutions, and others have Catholic roots but welcome employees and volunteers and clients regardless of their religious beliefs. I work at Wellspring Women's Center (founded by nuns and still directed by a nun), and probably the biggest charity in town is the Loaves and Fishes Dining Room, founded by an ex-priest and now directed by a Mercy Nun. The local food bank started at Immaculate Conception Parish and is now operated by people of all faiths. One other service to the homeless, Francis House, was started at St. Francis Parish, and recently hired a Methodist minister as executive director. The minister has spoken in favor of Planned Parenthood (although she claims not to support abortion), and she has spoken in favor of gay marriage.

Well, the Annual Appeal discontinued its annual $10,000 contribution to Francis House this year. I was so upset that I wrote to the bishop and asked for a refund of my $250 contribution. Two days after I mailed my letter, I got a call from the head of the Appeal, and he said that I would get a refund of my contribution. He said that in a campaign such as this, Catholics need for feel sure they're not contributing to a charity that questions Catholic teachings. I said that since Francis House serves the poor and has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion, its director's views on those subjects are immaterial. I'm sure the bishop is getting a lot of pressure from anti-abortion groups and I can understand his predicament, but I think maybe he needs a little pressure from the other side.

So, I got my money back, and I'll give it to the four formerly-Catholic charities I named above.

I can't say I'm an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage. I just don't care whether they get married or not, and I can't see how anyone could see gay marriage as a thread to families or to heterosexual marriage. That just doesn't make sense to me. If two people love each other and want to make a lifelong marriage commitment to each other, why in the world would I want to interfere?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 02:11 AM

I still don't see why adherents of one or two churches should have the power to bar other churches (or synagogues) from carrying out religious services to join such loving couples before God.

Especially when they are not seen to publically oppose other religions from carrying out under age or polygamous marriages, which arguably exploit one side of the arrangement, in the same way.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 05:05 AM

Penny makes a good point. Inflicting the wishes of one group on other groups is to infer that your group is superior. A good argument against churches, mosques, synagogues and temples having any influence at all.

If you wish to comment on society, you need to comment on all society and not in comparison with your own sanctimonious outlook.

Hence I originally started this thread by the title "expert on marriage.." By trying to prevent people from saying they are married, the term "expert" is almost as laughable as the so called vow of celibacy. Mind you, you sometimes see things differently from an outside perspective, and priests (other than the bigots who came over from Anglican jobs c/w wives...) certainly have an outsider's perspective....

As ever, when I hear of the many people, like Joe Offer, who selflessly help communities under the banner of a religion and then the leaders of said religions let their good members down so comprehensively... And they say power corrupts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 09:50 AM

Goodness me, Akenaton's still ranting on.

Just to remind people who have forgotten, Akenaten admitted to having inappropriate feelings for his uncle. He also doesn't seem to understand the difference between incest and homosexuality and also seems to believe homosexuals are exclusiovely male - unsurpising in view of his admitted problems.

Because he and his uncle didn't have a physical relationship, he thinks all other homosexuals should be celibate. He tries to back this up with mis-understood and distorted research and he refuses to answer questions which might expose his illogicality.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 11:29 AM

"Why do yo write this trash Bill?
CDC state catagorically that Homosexuals are almost 50times more likely to contract Hiv/Aids than heterosexuals."

Because of the following: I went to the CDC site. I could not find such a categorical statement. Perhaps you can show us where in the site it is located.

statistics

basic analysis

You do the math, Ake- my best addition of diagnosed cases from the beginning thru 2009 says
607121 - from male to male sexual contact
293220 - 'other'..including drug injection and heterosexual contact.
..Even *IF* there are statistical breakdowns that vary this a bit, I don't see any "50 times"

Now...if all you mean is that *promiscuous homosexual males* who engage in anal sex are way more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals who do NOT, that is not deniable.
It is also irrelevant to MY point that homosexual males (AND females) who practice safe sex and/or live in monogamous relationships are NOT at great risk, and there is no reason to restrict their marriage/relationship freedoms!
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Copy/paste from the CDC site... it's easier to read in the graphs at the site

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of AIDS diagnoses among adults and adolescents by transmission category in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate. Transmission Category         Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, 2009
Adult and Adolescent Males        Adult and Adolescent Females        Total
Male-to-male sexual contact        17,005        -         17,005
Injection drug use        3,012         1,930         4,942
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use        1,580        -         1,580
Heterosexual contact*        3,832        6,561         10,393
Other**        158        155        313

* Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

   Transmission Category         Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2009*
Adult and Adolescent Males        Adult and Adolescent Females        Total
Male-to-male sexual contact        529,908        -         529,908
Injection drug use         186,318         87,126         273,444
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use         77,213        -         77,213
Heterosexual contact**         72,183         126,637         198,820
Other***         12,744         7,032         19,776

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 01:02 PM

I really cant believe that you dont know the difference between real numbers and percentages Bill?

Do you not read any posts on this or other threads?

I have explained 175times the difference, if you dont believe me , contact Wolfgang.....who is a statistician.

Homosexuals make up 2-3% of the population, relate your figures to this percentage.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 01:20 PM

Marianne......"inappropriate feelings?".... "Doesn't know the difference between incest and homosexuality?"...."Thinks homosexuals are only male?"

You are either a troll or a fucking idiot...probably both... and you insult the hundreds of people on this forum who love their family members.....with a love that has nothing to do with sexual intercourse.
You probably never knew it , but it is a love which is completely without "self",a bond of blood and emotion......as when a parent would die for their child......without a thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 01:31 PM

Tia repeats the mantra......."Its just not fair!!!!"

That is not a reason to ignore such levels of death and disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 01:52 PM

Akenaton - re-read your own posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 03:39 PM

Ake...I know quite well the differences between percentages and "real numbers". I also know that meaningful statements of either must reflect ALL aspects of the issue...including the type of behavior being considered and the relationship status of those involved.

You STILL ignore the point that those who do NOT engage in promiscuous sex and who use safe practices are statistically close to the straight population. The issue is what rights do they have and how should education and medical practice be employed to reduce ALL infections.

"Homosexuals make up 2-3% of the population, relate your figures to this percentage."

Any statistician, including Wolfgang, could take your assertion, and your conclusions FROM your assertion, and dissect it better than I....but I offer these figures.

187,000,000 population between 18-65 in 2009
about 600,000 TOTAL HIV cases in gay males from the beginning to 2009. What do those numbers tell you, and how do you justify "50 times more likely" as a relevant statistic? (why, perhaps on attempt 176, you can give us a clear breakdown of how YOU arrived at that...or where exactly the CDC does. I could not find it.)

(I already agreed that a promiscuous male homosexual who does NOT take care IS 'much' more likely to be infected. So what? 12 times...24 times...38 times...50 times... makes no difference to the issue of rights to marriage & partnership.)

I also question whether 2-3% even reflects accurately the number of homosexual + bisexual males who 'might' engage in occasional dangerous behavior. I believe it is higher, and thus the **rate of infection** is lower.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 03:43 PM

(You note that I am not the only one who disputes your analysis & conclusions)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:04 PM

Not ignoring death and disease.
Just saying that your "solution" is illogical, and your statistics smell like dog doo.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:07 PM

GUEST Marianne S. -

Are you familiar with this recent study?

Some Homophobia is Self-Phobia

(From Science News Daily about four days ago)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:09 PM

or, if you prefer, Scientific American.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 04:35 PM

I looked at the thread title and thought, "Well, I guess it wouldn't be Chongo..."

How about Woody Allen?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 05:19 PM

C D C F A C T S H E E T

1 SEPTEMBER 2011
HIV and AIDS among
Gay and Bisexual Men
Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all races
continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. CDC's most recent data show that between 2006 and 2009,
the number of new infections that occur each year increased among young MSM — driven by an alarming 48 percent
increase among young, black MSM 13 to 29 years old. These data clearly show the urgent need to expand access to proven
HIV prevention programs for gay and bisexual men, and to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
1 The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection,
rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an
estimated 580,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections).
t While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 06:06 PM

You are rather late Tia, Guest and even sensible old Bill have tried to insinuate that I am a latent homosexual,because of my stance against the promotion of homosexuality as "safe and healthy"......you could not be further from the truth, but I have no intention of broadcasting my personal details on any internet forum.

The truth is that you are employing a cowardly tactic in an attempt to silence me.
I will debate with anyone on the facts of the issue, but you know absolutely nothing about my private life or my sexuality and your tactics, to my mind, constitute a personal attack.
Joe has already warned others about using this tactic, and has stated that he also views it as a personal attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 12 - 07:37 PM

I have **NOT** insinuated any such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 12:05 AM

Bring the numbers.
They are the only true evidence.
Please do.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 01:55 AM

Tia - yes. I think Akenaton rather proves the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 05:48 AM

Bill...I dont really care what Guest or Tia say, but I do have quite a lot of respect for you in debate and from long standing here.

I feel that you have made the insinuation here....I will check and of course if I am wrong, you will have a full public apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 05:59 AM

Bill.....There are others.

He never 'quite' deals with the question, leading some to wonder if he is being totally honest...even with himself... as to why he objects to a homosexual orientation- and whether he believes it it 'natural' or a chosen lifestyle.

I am not a mindreader to make any definitive assertions, and I'm sure he will continue to insist he only 'concerned' about health issues, but I see repetitive patterns and wonder..................

Perhaps in this case you are insinuating that I really hate homosexuals? Perhaps you could clarify before we move on to the next.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 07:02 AM

Tell you what Akenaton, as you claim the mud elves protect you when people make personal attacks.

Your comments offend a great many people, and your views and attitudes to others are indeed personal attacks. I am sure there are many gay people on Mudcat, and unless you issue an apology for the personal attacks on them, I suggest you exercise self moderation, saving the elves from exercising it for you.

Or is queer bashing still an accepted sport in your woods?

Saying you don't hate people and then say they shouldn't have sex, whereas heterosexual people can, by your leave... Sounds like hate to me. Sounds like homophobia to me. Sounds like free speech has its drawbacks after all. I'll pm you a map back to the forest.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 12:11 PM

Akenaton--PM sent

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 12:14 PM

Well said, Ian!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 01:22 PM

Ians post is absolute rubbish.

My stance has always been on the health issues. I have said right from the beginning that I am not anti-homosexual, but anti bad legislation.

There are too many unanswered questions associated with male homosexuality for the current legislation to be supported.

There are many good arguments against homosexual marriage, but my stance has always been on health.

I am utterly amazed that you people think the health figures are acceptable....most people just are not aware of them, but you have had then set down in front of you and still you accept the horror, because it fits in with your idiotic equality agenda.

Sometimes i despair at the stupidity, cruelty and lack of empathy in our society.
Political ideology has much to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 01:30 PM

I take it that akenaton's view here is analogous to those who criticise smoking as highly inadvisable behaviour which are likely to be very dangerous to health. That doesn't necessarily imply hatred of smoking people - though it does often go along with it.

Incidentally the terms for hatred of smoking are capnophobia and fumiphobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 01:56 PM

Simple question, Ak old love - perhaps you could answer it this time.

If your objection to male homosexuality is the health risk caused by promiscuous behaviour, wouldn't it be better for them to be in lifelong monogamous relationships. After all, if two virgins, gay or straight, marry and remain faithful they won't get any sexually transmitted diseases.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 04:33 PM

Late to this thread - sorry.

A subjective first point. I know many happy couples of longstanding ~~ Rodney & Judith; Donald & Helga; Inge & Alan; me & Valerie [who is dead,alas] & Emma [who is my much-loved wife now]; Monica & Anthony; Martin & Trixie; Penny & Stuart; Mary & Paul...
And I would add similarly - David & Brian; Mandy & Nicola; Ben & Dick; John-Stuart & Ricky... All these last four couples have 'civil-partnered'; whether, if allowed soon to do so, they can either call that a 'marriage', or if they wish go thru another ceremony called 'marriage', I do not know: if they do, then the best of luck to them - tho I can foresee a certain amount of semantic difficulty in re the use of those fine old designations 'husband' & 'wife'!

And, talking of semantics: Chambers Dictionary now gives 'homosexual' as the primary and current usage of 'gay', & IIRC labels the connotation 'merry, happy, bright' as [obsolete] or [obsolescent] or some such, which I think a great shame as it represents the loss from the language of a charming and ancient word which had been hijacked by a specific single-issue group; which is about the only thing I can think of which sets me in any way against the homosexual community, concerning whom, as the great Duke of Wellington remarked, I don't care what they do so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses... and I hope they enjoy it and I hope it keeps fine for them.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 12 - 04:45 PM

It was Mrs Patrick Campbell, the first actress to play Eiza Doolittle, who said that, not the Duke of Wellington. Though I think he would have been quite likely to say it if the topic had cropped up.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 02:03 AM

"There are too many unanswered questions associated with male homosexuality..."

Oh BS.

We answer them over and over and over again and you are incapable of and/or umwilling to accept them. You stick to your stupid illogical and offensive talking points come hell or high water.

Smacks of a serious agenda of some kind to me.

G'head. Call that a personal attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 06:43 AM

I've always made it a point not to have sex with unmarried homosexuals who have STDs, and instead to limit myself to married women who have STDs. That way, all the STDs I open myself up to are at least straight STDs within the confines of a legal, "normal" marriage. Eh, whatever.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 08:29 AM

Saul Goldie alleged:

When the gay couple moved into our little building cluster, three hetero couples got divorces within the year. So you see, it is not just correlation. It is causality.

The ancient logical fallacy: "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." That is, "After this, therefore because of this."

No, it's NOT causality.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 11:22 AM

Oh dear, Saul.

How do you know the married women are straight?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 05:07 PM

"Expert" derived from "X" (an unknown quantity) and "spurt" (a drip under pressure)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 05:23 PM

The way I heard it was:

ex- a has been
spurt- a drip under pressure

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 07:22 PM

I was watching a film about the artist David Hockney (great man) who as well as being gay is an indefatigable proponent of the right to smoke without being persecuted for it.

I've been trying to work out why it is that anyone urging that his lifestyle was a dangerous one which should be avoided and escaped if at all possible would be likely to be seen as public spirited if they were referring to his smoking, but bigotted if they were referring to his gayness.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 08:10 PM

Good point Mr McGrath, but the answer is simple.....political ideology.

Homosexuality being rather a cause celebre these days.
Why, ever Mr Cameron is going pink at the edges.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 09:57 PM

"Homosexuality being rather a cause celebre these days."

It wouldn't be, if everyone else let them live peaceably

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 10:10 PM

Guest,
Why do I need to know? If they are with me, they are either straight or they are *pretending* to be. Itsa win either way. I don't see the problem.

Dave,
Yes, I KNOW that. I guess my "winkie" was not visible through the ether. Of *course* you can't prove that kind of causality. Of *course* the logical fallacy is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc." Of course! Somehow, though, the "marriage defendents" do not understand that their own marriage is only in trouble from whatever the two of them make it or don't make it. Of COURSE.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 14 Apr 12 - 02:02 AM

Still not answering the question, Akenaton? Ignporing it completely? Pretending it doesn't exist? That's because you know you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 14 Apr 12 - 02:55 AM

McGrath - The reasoning, as I understand it, is that David Hockney's smoking causes health problems for other people breathing his smoke. If he uses the NHS the taxpayer may well have to pay for expensive treatment which he wouldn't need if he didn't smoke. His example may encourage other people to smoke, thus pumping even more carginogens into the air and costing the NHS even more.

David Hockney's homosexuality does not harm anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Marianne S.
Date: 14 Apr 12 - 06:28 AM

David Hockney's homosexuality does not harm anyone else. - or himself. I would not like that to be misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Apr 12 - 07:32 AM

Ooo, ooo...200!