BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:08 PM

DonT: "Of course you know where it came from. It has been confirmed a number of times that it originated from your computer."

Duhhh....That has already been established. If you could read and comprehend, you would have also read, repeatedly that I DID NOT author the post..get over it!

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......If a living being gives up the will to survive, that entity becomes headed down a road to not surviving.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......You would either hang around that person for a healthier mental disposition, and would encourage your children, or friends to do the same.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Because it is the 'will to survive', you think that the will to reproduce no longer part of fully, healthy living beings.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Anyone who does not subscribe to those who do NOT wish to survive, or agree with giving up the will to survive, must mean that those same (non-subscribers), must automatically hate them.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who wish to maintain their 'will to survive', might see those who do not, as less than 'on the ball' as the rest of society, that is trying their best to survive, and who want their children and friends, to not only survive, but to prosper, not only financially, but mentally and emotionally.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who promote others to give up the will to survive, might be seen as being anti-survival, and could be looked upon as a negative factor, and detriment in a society trying to survive.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who use lies and bad science to 'prove their worth or validity, to promote other to give up their will to survive, should be considered 'heroes to the cause'.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who root on their families and or friends to survive, and work actively, might find the promotion of the legitimizing of others to give up the will to survive as a destructive
element.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who subscribed to not wishing to survive, and who have a change of heart, should be given help, if so requested, should not be denied help.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those same 'activists' who promote those who are locked into not surviving, AND who would deny help to those who now wish to survive, because of the 'activist's' personal views, might be considered as having a hidden agenda, and would lie, and spin as not to be seen as what they really are about.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:23 PM

The British parliament voted it through last week. Due to how bills work, it will have a couple more debates including the Lords vote but this is to clarify points and amendments not vote down the bill.

The Tory MPs showed huge division and showed the country they are not fit to form a government on their own yet as some of the homophobic rants were frankly disgusting.

Still, the reform moves on. Once we have a more equal society I wonder what other institutions will lose state protection? Many people see how irrelevant the old guard are and are beginning to ask society to stop giving them state privilege. It appears that compassion and equality are secular traits after all. Funny that. .

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:57 PM

Hey, just for the strangeness and rarity of the thing, how about a post on the subject of this thread!??

I heard this on the news this morning and checked it on the web:

France's National Assembly has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. After days of intense debate, the bill was passed by 329 votes to 229. It must now win final approval in the Senate.

Not a fait accompli yet, but it's over the major hurdle and well ahead.

By the way, with Washington State's new same-sex marriage law now in effect, a member of the writers' group that meets once a month at Barbara's and my apartment, and his partner of several years, are getting married in about a month. They are already in a "domestic partnership," but in a month, they'll be officially, legally married.

Congratulations, guys!!

Don Firth

P. S. Bit by bit, in certain areas, the world becomes more civilized.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 PM

The questions that Goofball wants me to answer have to do with what he imagines to be my love life, so he can take it and twist it into something lurid, crude, and shameful. He has that kind of mind, and IF he is, indeed, any kind of family counselor, I suspect that he gets off on the sort of thing he may hear from his clients/patients. Anything and everything I have alluded to in the past, he has done this with.

So if I DON'T answer his persistent, probing questions, I'm sure decent-minded people here will understand why.

I have NOTHING to be ashamed of.

Goofball is a disgusting and contemptible person. Not to mention SICK.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:16 PM

"" ..Then again, I really don't know, for sure, where that post came from.""

Of course you know where it came from. It has been confirmed a number of times that it originated from your computer.

So, which of the musicians here (mentioned above) has access, in your absence, to your computer?

And which of the musicians here ""have told you that you shouldn't be wasting your time debating idiots"".

As far as can be seen in past threads, most of the musicians here are much more likely to be telling us we shouldn't be wasting our time debating an idiot.

As for the post in question, conclusions have been drawn as to the likely veracity of your explanation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:52 AM

..as I said before, and posted, it may have been posted by some of the musicians here, who wanted to get back to the studio, and have told me that I shouldn't be wasting my time debating idiots.
..Then again, I really don't know, for sure, where that post came from.

As to the other posters, there are some questions posed to Don Firth, which he seems unable to answer consistently with his 'political' masquerade...anyone is open to take a stab at it. Maybe it may cause you to think...................for once in your life!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:29 AM

Gfs may, in a sense, be quite honest in saying he never posted that his father was gay. That post may have been written by a separate personality of which the "gfs" personality structure is unaware.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM

In light of the wisened comments and insights, I regret (sort of) that I must choose to revert back to being heterosexual. It was fun while it lasted--oooh all the boys, those pretty, pretty boys! But I still prefer to have the love of the religious and other heteros, rather than be reviled, bullied, and spat upon.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 05:51 AM

"" I genuinely reckon you need help. ""

A terrible thought! Anybody who tries to sort out that mind will need an anti radiation suit self contained breathing apparatus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 05:19 AM

If I had anything constructive to say, I doubt it would have any bearing on your awful so called contributions. I genuinely reckon you need help.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:44 AM

So what???...If you have anything constructive to say, head on...if not, you can meow like a pussy.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:58 AM

Hey Goofus!

The good professor wishes to debate a couple of points with you, don't you boy?

Woof! Woof! Woof!

What's that boy?

Woof!

Actually I think you are both barking....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 AM

You're making things up, again.....I guess you resort to that when you can't answer a question, or otherwise have anything to say.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:03 AM

I'm really amazed at how much verbiage you can crank out when you have no idea of what you're talking about.

No family life? I have a very good family life. Yours, from what you said before, wasn't so nice. Too bad.

You won't improve things for yourself by being envious of me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:31 AM

Trying to resurrect a bogus claim, that I never made??..just to try to justify your permissive behavior???
Look, the bottom line is how can anyone take seriously your rap on who should or could be a great parent..when you have NEVER done it??..and then promote people whose lifestyle is based around sexual immorality to raise children??..Do you really think that is acceptable?? Would you 'advise' your child to follow in your footsteps??
Why would you promote a lifestyle choice, yes choice, of those who have blotted out half of the natural instinct of self preservation and reproduction??..and then banter about like it is a noble thing??
Permissiveness has weakened this country beyond belief, and threatens its very will to self preservation as a society..just for a sexual fantasy??? Get off it..this country is in deep shit, and you just think its swell to add more fuel to the fire! You have NO parenting experience...but then want to promote legislation about something you know NOTHING about!..just your off the wall opinions, that would affect segments of the next generation(s).
At this point, maybe a little self examination on your motives may foment some 'new' questions...and that goes to others who read this stuff, as well. It's about as rational as assigning a Catholic priest to oversee a boy's group!..(But then most people are already of politics and 'religion'!...Just a bunch of manipulating weasels, trying to control masses of people for their own personal gain...and you have NOTHING to gain...except to hide from your own reality, and appear 'useful'...a 'political activist' who has no idea what he is yapping about.
Haven't we, as a nation, and community of nations have suffered and had enough of that crap, to call it like it is and ignore the son of bitches?
The 'free love' novelty of the '60's has caused immense damage, broken enough homes, left children with one parent, fucked up the economy(along with other factors), given rise to street gangs to replace the need to belong to a 'family', increased drug abuse, violence and many other societal ills, because a loving family, and a loving, natural family structure has been assaulted, belittled and politicized to be a 'thing of the past'. This is insane!..and you are promoting it.
Why not promote the BEST for a family....instead of promoting sex acts, by your life's example and political 'activism'?..and you think you're helping?????
Now before you come back with another one of you flurry of 'assaults', try answering a question or two..just so we can understand you(as if there was any question), and put forth the 'wonderful benefits'....other than your 'acceptance' of your homosexual friends.......because your non-existent 'family' doesn't have any....your self-absorbed lifestyle has cut you off from that!
So much for 'unity'...oh, and by the way, the family structure IS the nucleus of all societies.....maybe your political orientation includes destroying that, too, as a means of achieving their goals, and you are an 'unwitted'..as in unwitting participant. Blind leading the blind...but look at you..you're at the head of the parade!
You should be ashamed of yourself!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 11:19 PM

I am not going to discuss the details of my youthful romantic life with someone who has the mind of a rutting swine and apparently thinks that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is just a story about two teenagers who want to fuck each other. I would not subject my love life to the scrutiny of someone whose mind is nothing but a septic tank.

The fact that Goofball resurrected this moribund thread to attack people who disagree with him, especially me, more than amply demonstrates that something really bothers him about the same-sex marriage issue and the roots of same-sex orientation.

His admissions about his father in the Prop 8 thread tell why he is so dead set against the idea of homosexuality being genetic.

He's terrified of his own genes. And his own dark urges.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 10:29 PM

Don Froth: "You know nothing of the people or the circumstances, so just take a long walk off a short pier."

...only what you posted....
...and it doesn't sound like you were anything less than the 'imbecile'...or was this a product of your articulate wisdom?? Come to think of it, as long as you try to justify it, and clean it up, you still sound like the same old 'imbecile'!

We often wish to ennoble those faults that we don't want to correct!

As to the others, stuff it..bad behavior is bad behavior....trying to launder it by adopting smokescreen political 'activism', is just another smokescreen....and nothing justifies half-witted promiscuous antics, which produces children, that gets raised by someone else who actually might care....and Don, that's you! Like it or lump it...but for God's sakes, keep deflecting responsibility, and promote other behaviors that promote promiscuity, and lack of parenting...your cup of tea!...What else ya' got??

And to those who defend such behavior...get fucking real!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:53 PM

He certainly lacks anity, that's for sure! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:30 PM

The extra "s" is to pay tribute to that guy who lacks S anity.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:26 PM

NEW WORD!

Assstroll!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:01 PM

Obviously, gfs, the only way in your life you could ever get fucked was to find an ugly, unwanted, desperate woman and marry her.

And no, I have no reason to think that is actually true; but it's no less a construction from sick imagination than what you, the almighty counsellor and fount of compassion and virtue are quite willing to spew in someone else's face in all seriousness.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM

I was not "picking up chicks in bars," you imbecile. Don't judge me by YOUR slimy standards of behavior.

You know nothing of the people or the circumstances, so just take a long walk off a short pier.

Over and out!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 04:23 PM

Now that I brought up empathy and compassion look who's trying to interject in in their postings!...How come you never thought of it before??..but this time you twist it around..as if you even related to it!

Don, Remember when you posted this?: And your question regarding my son, "Any regrets, or wishes that something might have been done or handled differently, back then???" On the one hand, I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place. On the other, considering the fine man that is the product of this union back then, I am most glad that it did happen. And although I would have liked to have participated in his growing up, his mother (and eventually, step-father) did a more than fine job, and I doubt that I could have done any better. He, his partner, Barbara, and I have a very loving family relationship."

Why were you picking up chicks in a bar to fuck then?...as long as someone else, who might have actually loved her, raised the child that you knocked her up with! (Do I have to refresh your memory?)
"I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place."???..and then you want to lecture us on the wonderful benefits of parenting??..and how to do it??...and ennoble people procreating, and walking away??...as long as someone else will pick up YOUR slack???

Then you post: "Barbara was married before, briefly when she was in her early twenties, but it didn't work out. No children. I, on the other hand had not been married before, but I do have a son. From a relationship that took place in the 1960s. Due to various circumstances, marriage with my son's mother was impossible."

"..marriage with my son's mother was impossible."???????

But fucking her was OK??????!!!???
Methinks you think with your 'smaller brain'...too bad you see NO correlation with the two acts.....and then you CANNOT see that parenting your own child and loving him/her from conception is the same...and part of the same. Did you EVER even think of what emotional wheels were initiated in the "woman that you never wanted to be involved with" ..and care about that????...So much for YOUR compassion and empathy!!!

You stated that you wanted to go to college instead..for your 'career'....what for???..for providing for your child?????..or just for YOUR self-centered...'new conquests'??

You also stated that, the "I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place", would not even allow you to be around...and in fact moved away from you....are we supposed to applaud you and your kind, caring, sensitive, responsible ways?????

You've been bullshitting people long enough, just to get your way..problem is, some adults (even on here) aren't as gullible as the easy women you preyed on...and ain't buyin' your line of crap!...and then you get all pissed off and act so indignant...and can't fathom 'why?'..and call us/them 'bigots and homophobes'...what a line of covering your own stupid ass!...or was picking her up and knocking her up an act of 'wisdom'???

So don't even begin to tell me squat, about the wonders of sexual acts over the gift of being a loving, responsible parent..you don't know what the fuck it is!!..NO EXPERIENCE!!!!....just quasi-theoretical excuse making!

Ironic that you also posted this tidbit, "For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex."

So true..but you've given NO indication that you know what it is!!

....and you posted; "..Frankly, your posts are so convoluted that I find I can't divine what the hell it is that you are trying to imply about me. Are you still rattling on about my allegedly being guilt-ridden over the fact that my son was raised by another man? Well, first of all, I had no choice in the matter. And second, there is nothing to be guilty about."

No wonder he turned out alright....he was raised by a man, and a woman that were capable of loving him!!!..makes a difference!

...and Don posts: "Don: Firth: "My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one,..."

...ever occur to you that it was a 'real family' because you were not around?



Note this one, from 'Don T'....: "From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM

"(GfS)I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!""

(Don T)Quite right Goofie!

As the father of two much loved children and the five grandchildren with which they have brightened my existence, I too have a complete lack of respect for that type of worthless human."

Amazing how politics don not reflect the BEST humans can do...just accommodations for the decadent!....and then they mask it with 'civil rights'(?)

Don T...I applaud you for loving your kids, the way you came across.
Would you trade it for any other experience?....If not, explain it to all the other promiscuous destructive morons who think otherwise...either hetero or homo!
Firth wouldn't grasp it at all.....no point of reference!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 02:10 PM

"Don (Firth) seemingly takes great pride in the alleged fact that his son turned out so 'normal'...pretty good, considering the woman that raised him wanted nothing to do with Don, nor him around the kid!...Ya' must have done something..or represented something pretty fucked up to warrant that!"

LIAR!!

Goofball has no way of knowing the circumstances. He's making it up, and I'm certainly not going to try to explain anything to him because, first, it's none of his business, and second, he'll only try to twist it into something tawdry, which it was NOT.

And the fact that he's resurrected this thread, which has been beaten to death, is a clear indication of how stupidly desparate he is for attention.

Ignore the village idiot and let this asinine thread die.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 01:53 PM

Once again, gfs, you have managed to string together a grammatical garble such that anyone can only make a best guess as to your actual intention. My best guess is that you are again holding forth that gay men can be cured of their orientation, so that they can marry and father children. My second-best guess is that you are suggesting that, despite their orientation, it would be best for all concerned for them to marry women and father children.

You continually discount a genetic basis for homosexulity as an unscientific notion promoted because of an agenda. But instead you postulate changed or confused orientation caused by stresses experienced by the mother during gestation. Granted this much, that serious emotional stress during pregnancy can't be healthy or the developing child. But why would the mother's stressful relationship with a male dispose the child to avoid relationships with women and seek relationships with males instead. Frankly, it all sounds about as "scientific" as saying "mom was frightened by a snake so I'm afraid of the garden hose". That's not quite right either. It's more like saying "mom was frightened by a snake, so I'm afraid of gopher holes".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM

Another deep steaming pile of Far from Sanity horseshit.

It appals me to think that you call yourself a counsellor and yet are devoid of the smallest vestige of empathy.

You don't see human beings different than yourself, you see ""reproductively impaired"" cases to be converted by you into whole humans who fit your self generated and unsupported suppositions about what their sexual orientation ought to be.

I see human beings who establish relationships in a different way than I do, but are just as loving and caring as myself or anyone I know, and a damn sight more so than you.

I see other human beings of the same orientation as myself, who are careless, thoughtless, irresponsible and as incapable of empathetic interaction with others as yourself.

I have no problem in recognising that children need a caring, loving background in which to grow, or that both hetero and homosexual couples can and will supply that.

I have no problem in recognising either, that in both hetero and homosexual couples, there are those who not only cannot supply such a background, but should be actively prevented from nurturing children.

You babble on about making neglectful and abusive parents "live up to their responsibilities".

I pray God that nobody takes any notice of your inane suggestions, because you are a danger to children.

Think very carefully before you again ascribe to me the smallest measure of agreement with your so called ideals, because I assure there is none, zip, zero, zilch. Got it?

The proof of the pudding will come when Gay couples end up with exactly the same proportion of heterosexual to Gay kids as do Straight couples.

IMO that is exactly what will happen.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 05:28 AM

Well I hope enough time has gone by, for all the phony wannabe pretenders of giving a shit about anything but how their stupid misinformed opinions are playing to the audience, and 'platituding' each other on the back, for agreeing to delusions based on no science whatsoever, but political horseshit, to set a few things straight!

Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..what great names!...but before I tell ya' how they came into being, I gotta' say that the only TRUE indignation, disappointment, and honest response came from TIA...but not for the reasons some of those described in paragraph one, would want to believe!!

TIA's reasons were/are personal..your others are bullshit. TIA has real concerns..as opposed to some of you, who seem to cringe and want completely out of the subject..AND responsibility of being the natural parents of your own children!...and it is those hypocrites who type the LOUDEST..and are the most vociferous!

Don (Firth) seemingly takes great pride in the alleged fact that his son turned out so 'normal'...pretty good, considering the woman that raised him wanted nothing to do with Don, nor him around the kid!...Ya' must have done something..or represented something pretty fucked up to warrant that!

Don T...mentions...Wait..here it is....:

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 08:36 AM

"(GfS)"...and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!""

Don T: "And on that we are in total agreement, so why would you suggest that such useless trash be coerced or persuaded to live up to their responsibilities and bring up the kids they obviously don't want."

So..we are in agreement with that...Let me ask you something, Don, with no underlying 'barbs' attached....after I read your post about how you felt about your kids, and you look back on it..what has brought you greater joy, happiness and satisfaction...seeing your kids grow up and fly straight, (as you indicated), or having the best sex you ever(really) had??.......
...thing is, you were able to have them both!...and THAT separates your experience from fantasizing about experiencing either one!..Ya' think that that MIGHT affect SOMETHING about your life's experience, from those who pretend?....or choose sex over having their own???...and value that more???........Maybe YOU can explain the difference to them...perhaps in a sensitive way to let them know what a sacred thing that that is to you....as it is with most honorable men!

...and to TIA....as you have read, in some of my previous posts, I've maintained that I've talked about receptors setting up the response mechanisms of nervous and emotional systems of the fetus, during pregnancy....that the child's sharing of those systems, with the mother affects how they are set up....and you posted several things about the father, who seemed to be 'less than wonderful' to the mother....ya' think how the mother felt about the father MAY have had just a 'little something' to do with the orientation of how that baby was programmed with...being as the nervous and emotional systems are one with, and being developed in the formative stages of gestation????? Think of the mental and emotional 'climate' the child was in...especially in light of the fact of what the mother was going through!!!..Ya' think that may have had just a 'little' bearing on the matter??

....as far as 'Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole....those are genderless, (but with sexual innuendo) names that was used by a homosexual writer friend of ours, who was describing another homosexual couple that he was telling us about!
We howled.

A. I don't 'hate' homosexuals
B. Have had working relationships with some who were brilliantly
   talented.
C. They ARE reproductively impaired..I know it..they know it...and
   it a place in them of 'sadness', when they honestly confront that..
D. ....but they are NOT hopelessly stuck there.

MANY (most) have deep seeded resentments and emotional hurts, some justified, some they just held on to....and with those hurt sensitivities, one might think that to correct that, to the next generation...and to KNOW how important that it is, because how it impacted their own lives...well, there's the clue.....perhaps resolving to pass that to their own, and loving them in a way, as not to hurt..and to correct (not over compensating)...and still bear or father their own....only one way to do that!....unless they adopt..and teach their kids to 'overlook' that they have two mommies or two daddies....without the real impact of life coming through the filter of a real male and a real female...with all their differences and polarizations..........................it's not unhealthy.

I find that understanding the mother's mindset of her pregnancy...including resentments, disappointments, frustrations with the man who impregnated her, and the amount of focus and 'UN-forgiveness' should open up an opportunity for empathy and compassion to that woman.....as long as she could admit it.....just like her offspring...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 08:37 PM

Even if it were true that very few same sex couples are interested in long term, committed relationships, why should that prevent those who ARE interested in such a relationship from getting married? Granted, some will stray and become untrue to their partners, kinda like some straight couples, some will fall out of love, kinda like some straight couples, but some will remain faithful to the end, kinda like some straight couples.
If the high risk of failure is a reason for preventing marriage, then let's say that divorcees should not be able to marry. They've already proven that they aren't a good risk for a successful marriage.

Ake, I didn't mean to imply that anyone had said that same sex marriages would increase the divorce rate among opposite sex marriages, but many people have said that allowing same sex marriages would ruin the institution of marriage itself. I said that since it became legal for same sex couples to marry in Canada it has had no negative effect on my marriage nor on any marriage that I know of, therefore how can it be ruining the institution of marriage.

It still baffles me why you or anyone else objects to same sex marriage. How does it affect you? The only way it has affected me is to get me an extra couple of wedding gigs that wouldn't have otherwise had.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 07:03 PM

I wonder who will carry the banner of Toqemada here .... no prizes for guessing

As far as i am concerned we are what is called in Scotland as "a' Jock Tamsons bairns" and should be treated as such.
To misquote stats out of context as Musket says shows a lack of analytical skills. Guess who?
If you have a look at the "Scotland for Marriage Campaign" and have read or listened to the learned churchmen involved one of the tenets of their 10 points of argument is understandable they, dont want to marry people who dont conform to their interpretation of marriage, and dont want to be sued for not complying and involved in legal/damages costs.
The whole issue is very political, they are walking a tightrope between the liberals and hardliners and want to come out smelling of roses no matter the outcome.
The object of local polititions in all states and countries involved IN MY OPINION is to do the same and allow the religious groups to have a concientious objection allowed in law but allow marriage to be a right for all who publically want their status to be acknowledged and respected.
No doubt there will be wheeling and dealing in the meantime to achieve a result that satisfies borh sides of the argument.I have tried to keep my response as close to the title of the thread as posssible and not introduce "Red Herrings"
I find the thread a good socialogical excercise in the sense that all the colours of the rainbow are in view whether they are our favourite colour on not.
Have a good day :<) and in musical terms "All gods children have place in the choir"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM

No good plying Ake with logic!

If God himself removed HIV from the whole population, Ake would still object to Gays having equal rights to have their unions blessed.

He has a long line of ""other considerations", awaiting the development of a 100% effective vaccine.

His objection boils down to an objection to Gays, not to anything they might do, or want.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 05:41 PM

Ake, I don't know how things are in the UK regarding the legality of same-sex marriage or civil (legally recognized) partnerships [these two are NOT the same, incidentally], but I do know that people at one time were imprisoned for "perversion." I presume that the UK has become more civilized in recent decades.

In the United States, until recently there were no same-sex civil unions, and most certainly not marriages. Within recent years, some states are recognizing civil unions, but still not marriages—with the exception of a very few states, including, in the recent election, my home state of Washington.

There is a substantial percentage of same-sex couples who have been living together for years—decades—and are, in all intents and purposes, married. EXCEPT that, despite the fact that these people would like to declare their relationship official, only a few states have, so far, allowed them to do so.

This is not just a social thing. There are rules, laws, and privileges involved which apply only to married couples (but not to civil partnerships), regarding such things as property rights, inheritance laws, next-of-kin visitation rights in hospitals, and a myriad other things that are not open to same-sex couples who ARE in FACT, if not de jure, married.

Granting these people the same legal rights IS a civil rights issue.

Considering that the divorce rate in the United States (I don't know about the UK) hovers at about 50%, the fact that some same-sex couples don't necessarily stay together all their lives hardly signifies.

Ake, why does it matter so much to you? How does it actually effect you in any way?

And DON'T continue to beat your hum-drum about "gay men spread disease" because one the one hand, encouraging stable relationships should reduce the spread rather that increase it, as you seem to be trying to imply. That argument doesn't wash!!

After all, heterosexuals did a pretty efficient job of spreading the so-called "French disease" (syphilis) all over Europe in the Sixteenth Century.

Don Firth

P. S. Kenny B., it was several religious groups, including the Mormon Church, who poured money into California to fund Proposition 8, which rescinded California's new same-sex marriage law. Washington State just passed a same-sex marriage law, and I'm sure it won't be long before the "Inquisition" gathers its forces and charges in with flaming swords.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 07:21 AM

Religious Groups 10 reasons Marriage for Scotland Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM

Ty TIA u are a scholar

AKE says
"On the other hand, if a study of several thousand hetero/ and homo couples comes up with average duration times of approx 2 yrs for homos and 10 yrs for heteros, then I think those figures would be reasonable."

Note the word "if" That is conjecture and clearly usubstantiated guesswork and invented to try to try to justify your case. May I quote Shakespeare and say "Pish"
How can u possibly quote aids stats in isolation as an objection then resort to conjecture. The more u try to justify your dubious argument the bigger you dig the "hole of desperation" that your argument has fallen into and your credibility as an honest debater declines to all time low.
Read the case put by the churches in Scotland in the Scotland for Marriage campaign who are much more worried about how much it MAY cost them an legal fees and BAD PUBLICITY when denying the same rights to all. It was in a mailshot to every household in Scotland by the joint religious pressure groups. Not a word in it about the health risk and im sure if it was a legitimate argument they wouldnt have thought twice about using it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 06:25 AM

My objection is, that in the main male homosexuals do not appear to have an interest in long term relationships or monogamy, examplified by the low take up rates of civil union, or homosexual "marriage" where available and the short duration of these unions/"marriages" in general terms.

It seems to be accepted even here, that studies and health figures show that male to male sex carries huge rates of promiscuity endemic to that type of sexual behaviour.
As I have remarked before the comparison of male homosexuality and monogamy, looks very much like the one between chalk and cheese.

Gay "marriage" legislation......smokescreen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 09:33 PM

"……just as Don Firth is quite wrong to say, that because he knows several couples whos "marriage"/union has lasted a moderate length of time, homosexual "marriage"/ union is generally as long lasting as hetero marriage."

I did not say that, ake. Please do me the courtesy of not misconstruing or misrepresenting what I have said.

Since same-sex marriage has not been legal until very recently and only in a few states, one cannot say for sure one way or the other. BUT even without legal marriage, hitherto denied to them, the couples I mentioned, and the couples in PH Jim's link, have shown every sign of maintaining their monogamous relationships and of having melded their lives in the same manner as heterosexual couples.

Even when same-sex marriage was not legal, the relationships existed over many years, and continue to exist.

Let me put it to you this way:   going through a marriage ceremony, especially a church ceremony (which some liberal churches now perform) complete with friends and relatives in attendance (not to mention the expense involved in such a ceremony) is a public declaration that such a relationship exists. I have attended three such ceremonies that took place a couple of decades ago (recognized by the church and the attendees, whether the law acknowledged it or not) and they are still together and doing well. And I know of other such ceremonies which I didn't attend, and the same situation prevails.

It's obvious that you're objection that "gay men spread HIV/AIDs" in THIS circumstance does not apply. And, indeed, they should be encouraged, not opposed—IF one is truly concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDs.

So—what is your objection? How does it, in any way, affect you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 08:02 PM

The point I was making Ian, is that if I was to infer that because I know three homosexual couples who have separated relatively quickly, this means that homosexual "marriage"/union is generally of short duration, I would be quite wrong......just as Don Firth is quite wrong to say, that because he knows several couples whos "marriage"/union has lasted a moderate length of time, homosexual "marriage"/ union is generally as long lasting as hetero marriage.

On the other hand, if a study of several thousand hetero/ and homo couples comes up with average duration times of approx 2 yrs for homos and 10 yrs for heteros, then I think those figures would be reasonable.

PH Jim......Who said Homosexual "marriage" had an effect on Heterosexual divorce rates????

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 07:18 PM

Louse!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:54 PM

Its Burns Night 25 January

so remember "where ere ye be let yer wind gang free" And in BS term be careful not to touch cloth


"O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An foolish notion:"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:29 PM

I am still curious as to why it seems to bother straight folks if gay folks want to get married.
I also am curious as to why they think it's any of their business.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:27 PM

And also, ake, there is the matter of PHJim's post at 25 Jan 13 - 12:58 a.m. with it's link.

How do you explain that away?

They are in stable relationships, they are "monogamous," they are not spreading a plague, as you keep claiming, and other than their sexual orientation, they are just like anyone other couples--including the fact that some of the couples have children.

They are not harrassing you. Why are you harrassing them?

Don Firth
--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM

Akenaton, I know three gay married couples and two lesbian married couples personally. I am acquainted with several more such couples who have also been in long-term relationships, some having recently made their relationship official, since it is now legal in Washington State.

Let's DO try to stick to the truth, shall we?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:24 PM

Exactly Lighter. Correlation does not imply causation. Instead, correlated phenomena may be linked to some other factor (in this case level of education perhaps?) that could be considered as a causative factor.

Nate Silver acknowledges this, and closes with:

"At the very least, I would be surprised if there were any statistical evidence that interpreting the right of marriage to apply to same-sex couples would be injurious to heterosexual couples in any material way."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM

Since it's difficult even to imagine why *banning* same-sex marriage would result in a rise in divorce rates, or why allowing it would result in a decrease, it seems that the safest tentative conclusion is that there is no statistically significant causal connection between gay marriage and heterosexual divorce.

In less precise, everyday terms: there's no rational reason to believe that marriage equality has any significant effect on anybody else's likelihood of divorce.

Gay marriage, yes or no, is not responsible for either set of figures. They result from other factors.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 10:00 AM

Yup. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Statistical significance is required.

So let's ask the god of statistics...Nate Silver:

"Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates. Eleven of the 24 states (46 percent) to have altered their constitutions by 1/1/08 to ban gay marriage experienced an overall decline in their divorce rates, but 13 of the 19 which hadn't did (68 percent)."

Go look at the charts.

click

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:36 AM

Akenaton. STOP! Hold on...

Go back to your very last comment above, after the comma. You said "looking at an issue like this in a subjective manner is meaningless."

Agreed. Spot on. Good shot. Absolutely. Bang on. Appreciative nod in your general direction.

Now, find out who has been posting in the name of Akenaton above and try telling him that will you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:49 AM

Surely i dont need to explain how laws are manipulated

All you have is an "equality" agenda in place of an argument, in a system where anything real equality does not exist.

All the arguments and figures which underpin my view still stand.
I have read nothing here which brings them into question.

You are a "busted flush" Ian.

Guest PHjim.....I know almost everyone in my area. Over the past few years I have worked for three male homosexual couples.....they have all now separated one member moving on to a new partner. This in itself proves absolutely nothing.

Proper studies have been done which show that in general same sex unions or "marriages" last only a fraction of time hetero ones do.

If you are unable to access these studies, say so and I shall print them for you.

Don firth has been making your point for years.....he knows three homosexual couples who have been together for a number of years, but looking at an issue like this in a subjective manner is meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 02:50 AM

Dunno what the government's drive to encourage people to invest in pensions has to do with it? Perhaps the old fool has run out of ideas on the subject in hand.

Just think Akenaton, a couple of weeks time after the vote in Westminster, democracy as well as morality will be on the side of the angels. Who do you have left batting for your side?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 01:51 AM

You wish!..There is a lot to be said..and it may clear up missed perceptions,..and how we get from 'point A' to 'point B'....forthcoming.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 01:42 AM

Thanks, PHJim. That refutes both akenaton and GfS.

And that ends that. No more to be said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:58 AM

GfS said, "I'll bet none of you know a homosexual couple who have stayed together longer than your married counterparts...ya' think that is good for children?"

Same sex partners have not been able to get married for very long, but that doesn't mean there are not committed same sex couples.
My wife grew up in the village of Cannington in southern Ontario. There was a couple in that village, Timothy Findley and Bill Whitehead, who had been together since 1962. They stayed together until Findley died in 2002. - 40 years.
Here are some more examples: Committed Same Sex Couples


You criticised others for not answering your questions while you ignored mine.
Your marriage and mine doesn't suffer when two people of the same sex marry.
Why does it bother you so much?
In fact, why is it any of your business?