BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM

Most of us got there in the end Jon. I have learned several things which, whilst maybe not changing my mind ultimately, have certainly made me think and look at things from a different angle. I do try and stand in other's shoes sometimes... even walk a mile in some of them. Some I would not step into for all the tea in China!

I watched Starman this afternoon. There is a line in that Starman (Jeff Bridges) says: "Shall I tell you what I find beautiful about you? You are at your very best when things are worst.". He is talking of us as a species. In another favourite of mine, Contact, the Alien says to Jodie Foster "You are a remarkable species. Capable of such terrible nightmares and such wonderful dreams"

These things and more are true :-)

See you in another thread I dare say!

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM

By the way,
"Show me one, big mouth, that concludes, that homosexuality is solely genetic...and not behavioral"

There are innumerable personal stories, for decades, of people who led unhappy lives TRYING to be what YOU consider 'normal', and denying feelings that they remember from their earliest times about who they were attracted to.
For many years, almost no one could tell them why they could NOT overcome this...then gradually, DNA and hormonal studies began to show the anomalies which helped clarify things.

It is also the case that the situation is not 'either/or'. As might be suspected, if the science is accurate, DNA and hormones, etc. also mean many people are BI-sexual in various degrees, and have 'some' choices in exactly how they express it and manage their lives. In the meantime, there are STILL cases of Gays & Lesbians marrying to provide themselves with convenient 'cover' in order to hold jobs where people who think like YOU might cause them grief!

(yeah, I saw the lame insult on MY name)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:33 PM

MP, I'd agree that this thread has probably gone as far as it can and is probably past the point of polite discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:30 PM

Your emotional state is just fine, mp - the same cannot be said about others herein. Illegitimi non carborundum.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:24 PM

Just to let everyone know...

I have made a request for this thread to be shut down. I am not sure if I have that privelige as I started the thread but, if it is shut down it was me who asked for it and not the elves being censorial.

I actually think it has likely run its course and may quickly now fall into a battle. I have no wish to be associated with that happening. People get hurt. The thred will go but the topic will carry on popping up.

This is in no way a means to stop GfS posting a quote. I know he cannot do it as I have not clearly stated anything to do with my sexuality. He will not be able to deliver on it. I suspect the apology may not happen either but I'm not bothered in honesty. I have done my best to keep the thread on topic and to be reasonable with all my postings and replies even when some of us have disagreed. That is reasonable debate in my mind.

I never understand why these threads have to go into personal space though when the person being attacked is not being personal. It happens far too often sadly and my back is not broad enough to take it all at times. I've had a life of these types and there are times now, gladly, I can walk away...

Thanks to all the other postees

For the record. Akenaton and I have consistently disagreed and he has said quite a few things to me that have been borderline name calling. Some could have been seen as insults too. However, he has mostly always apologised when it has been pointed out and he has never ever got into personal name calling or attacks on those close to me. We are chalk and cheese he and I, I suspect, but to date he has not got down and dirty with personal comments. I acknowledge that in the name of fairness from where I am with it.

Best wishes everyone

I really must go and get my emotional state sorted out now. I've been told I have problems so it must be true. Anyone know a good book on Freud? Heaven forbid! lol

;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:23 PM

So.. if scientists are so honest as to ONLY assert that they have evidence 'suggesting' various genetic causes for homosexuality, this means that YOU may conclude that **"Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!"**?

You weren't one of those cigarette company executives who tried for years to hold the line at "No one has proven absolutely that cigarettes cause cancer!", were you?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

GfS... can you show me the post.. or anyone here, where I said I was lesbian? It is something you have totally assumed based on some of the things I have said which likely show a feminist slant. Here's some news for you. Not all feminists are lesbians. Although I am feminist on some things my sexuality is not a problem to me whatsoever. By your name calling and abuse once more I suspect that it is far more a problem to you. I'm not bothered personally. I am who and what I am but I certainly do not need to justify that you you or anyone. Nor do I need to wear the label on my sleeve. Apply what label you want: it will never make you right. Whatever your assumption on my personal dilemma, as you so wrongly comment, Be a man. Stand up and be counted and admit your mistake or show me where I put I was lesbian? Go on... quote it from my posts as you are so certain.

And please do not think you have been so smart as to get me to admit anything here. I'm not bothered as to being out or not. The reason I will not deny it is that I am not ashamed of it nor should I be. To deny it would be to let down others on this forum who are gay and just getting on with their lives. If you think that by launching an attack on my sexuality and my thoughts about my mum does you honour I am here to tell you that you are VERY wrong. You have shown how dishonourable you are by hitting at a place you think would hurt me. It's not hurt me. It has saddened me that a pseron on this forum would stopp so low with their tactics just to try and score points.

Taking it one step further further, whether I am lesbian, born that way or made that way, you have still failed to tell us all why it is wrong to afford people from differing backgrounds the same rights as the majority?

I will not engage with you about your faux psychological knowledge as regards my thoughts about my Mum. You have no idea whatsoever. How could you? If I were to use your psychological kind of assessment on you... but then that would make me as bad as you.

I have no need to make personal attacks on people who are taking part in reasoned discussion. I do not need to decent into personal insults and attacks on their parents either.

Have all the points you want. You have so earned them today. BUT my point and this thread is still valid. Has it got you anywhere launching a personal attack?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Smedley
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:58 PM

I have kept out of this thread for the reason that, sadly, any discussion about homosexuality in here almost always gets invaded by Akenaton (with his hobby horse about HIV) and GfS (who is deeply committed to an obsessive cod-Freudian belief that homosexuality is 'immature'). They, between them, make all these threads eventually untenable and they are now doing so again.

As one of the few Mudcat posters who is (if you'll pardon the pun) straightforwardly open about being gay, this saddens me, but does not surprise me. Respect is due to all of those (especially mauvepink)attempting to have a civilised debate about the issues until the Batman and Robin (shame the outfits don't fit so well) of Mudcat homophobia came steaming in with their hang-ups flailing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:46 PM

Bilge D: "Blanket assertions that "Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!" while ignoring the scientific studies..."

Show me one, big mouth, that concludes, that homosexuality is solely genetic...and not behavioral. Frotho tried, but the only one that came close, done by a homosexual researcher, concluded with no conclusion, other than, .."it MAY SUGGEST...(blah blah blah)"

I'm not interested in mere suggestions, on which to base 'scientific fact', nor your twisted interpretation of what 'civil rights' are based on!

..Nor did I 'insult' mauvepink....I honored her by telling her the truth. How the truth is perceived is not my responsibility!!

Go back to sleep!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:37 PM

the chosen nom de plume "Guest from Sanity" is beginning to look more & more inappropriate.

Blanket assertions that "Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!" while ignoring the scientific studies that show otherwise, down to direct insults of mauvepink...while making fun of 'civil rights'... just make me wonder about basic orientation.


*shrug*... "sanity" must be a suburb of Waco, Texas..(for this iteration, pronounced "whacko")

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:30 PM

Bullshit! You've stated on here that you are a lesbian. being that is your stated situation, rather than blame it on 'genetics', you might try looking at behavioral patterns, which harbor resentment toward your mother, and hating to confront that which you fear!!

Your response was very indicative of your dilemma, that instead of dealing with, you launder out to all the willing non-thinkers who blindly buy into your rationalizations!

I guess the truth, just about 'made your day'...though, you have posted some intelligent posts, it still doesn't address your emotional problems!

Even so,
Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 01:03 PM

Stupid to whom?

And you do not have a clue about my life, my likes and loathings, how I came to get here or what has influenced me. Petty name calling and insults to me also does not change the thread, it's topic or the basic tenets of decency to others. Shout, call and bully away if that is what gets you off and makes you feel better but please try not to assume you know anything at all about your target this time.



mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM

Mauvepink; "It matters not a jot really, for the purpose of this thread, whether homosexuality is genetic or not....."

...and yet the whole stupid argument hinges of 'civil rights' because idiots claim they are born with it, therefore are entitled to the guarantees to protect it!!!...and to marry, as if it was a normal, life sustaining place to be!!
MP, you've very adequately stated the far left's position on complete disregard for how misinterpretations of 'rights' are misused to further immature behaviors!...and I'm sorry, that you, yourself never developed past the stage where you could get it on with the opposite sex, without fear and loathing...to grow up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:48 PM

By the by it is also interesting that the picture of the fall, as painted by Michelangelo in the link you give, shows the people with navels (but they were not born), the women are quite masculinised, and none have pubic or armpit hair. Lots of pictures of Adam and Eve have them with navels.

The rather subtle point I am trying to make is that people's interpretation of the bible is very open to very different ideas and opinions and that intelligence is not always a pre-cursor of accuracy even when the words have been set out for millenia

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:30 PM

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.[Gen. 3:16]"

Stop right there! Since the fall men have found it hard to rule themselves and for many women a man who cannot rule himself will never rule them.

This whole domain game and blame trip on women at least let's men off. They have a get out clause. What did we women do to deserve that? lol

However, back on track, interesting piece I enjoyed reading even if my embryonic gills were producing steam when reading some of it.

best wishes

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 10:20 AM

Jon... thanks... will lok at it later. Just now Starman has come on with Jeff Bridges so I am going to lose myself in a rather lovely sci-fi film for a while that always makes me cry. Catch op later :)

What's not to be reasonable about? You have never treated me with any derision here and always with respect

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 10:13 AM

OH and MP, believe me that I have been through many "if God is perfect how did he create evil, why do bad things happen. etc. etc. rounds in my own thoughts". I don't find it easy at all and don't have all the answers.

My own background possibly makes it harder. I was very scientifically oriented at school but dropped out of A Levels in physics, chemistry and maths as I was bored with school. I also was a sworn atheist who hated religion. On a personal level much has convinced me that Christ is for real but many of the non believers arguments I read are places I've been in a "past life" and still can get involved in my own thinking/reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 10:05 AM

Thanks agian MP for a reasonable reply it is appreciated amongst all this noise.

IF God created everything and all is at his behest then homosexuality is also his invention.

I think the answer is that God did not create everything exactly as it is now. I suppose you might be interested in this Wikipedia article just to have a quick browse through.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:35 AM

I wondered what was happening with yours posts Jon. I see they have come through now...

Even scientists who work in this field are baffled by some of the gender/sexuality differences that are apparent in humans (and other animals for that matter). I am not sticking with this side of the thread though as it has no bearing in reality to the subject matter. What I will say is that lots of evidence has been found that foetues are subjects to various hormonal cocktails that can influence outcomes to individuals on seceral fronts. It's all been written up before on previous threads and I have no real wish to revist it again here.

Which brings me to your second question nicely...

I think I just answered before you posted it in my last posting before this. That I realise many people have a 'threshold' in their belief system that they simply cannot pass, no matter what they instinctively feel sometimes, as that would cause them to have a great conflict. Their default setting is in their faith and their belief. They have to go with that and I understand how that happens. I am not judging them on that as I clearly stated. I do not know how that feels so can make no comment really that would not be judgemental.

However, from where I do stand on this and my own belief system, "God's fairness and rationality", should it exist, would invoke me to apply a rational thought myself. IF God created everything and all is at his behest then homosexuality is also his invention. For him to judge someone for having something he invented would not be being quite fair would it? I say this in no mocking way. Believe me, I've been inside and outside myself with sucj thoughts and questions for many a year as I struggle to hold some kind of faith. THis is why I always seem to quote Jesus rather than God (yes, I know they are supposed to be the same). I find the two facintaing. God seems so vengful at the world he created. Almost like he is not very pleased at his creation but takes it out on them. The omnipotent being who, knowing full well how flawed humans would be, turned hi back and was missing when they sinned in the garden... the fall. I wonder what he was doing at the time? So that really messes with my head as I have been told he knows all things. I struggle with God... but no so in son. In Jesus I seing something fresh, new, compassionate, caring and forgiving. I truly believe that Jesus would not judge gay people and he would be ahppy to go change water into wine at their ceremony too.

So, you see, I am not without feeling or faith. I just don't have enough of the latter to take everything as gospel and obviously this can be conflicting too. What cause me no conflict is my own belief that if God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost does exists they will know my every thought and rationale on this. I will be judged by them in the end... or not. In the meantime I can only do what I feel is right and fair here

I hide behind no religion, no politic and no agenda other than one of fairness. You have to do what you have to do. Me too.

hope this helps

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:12 AM

Ah that went through.

Keeping it short this time. MP you've raised the questions again. Don't you think that there being genetically identical twins with differing sexual orientation if pretty strong evidence that it is not determined purely by genetics?

Onto the next bit.

Can you explain to me why I should put what I believe to be God's fairness and rationality beneath your judgement as to what is fair and rational?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:09 AM

Can;pt work out what's up with this thread at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:55 AM

Thanks for the link Jack :-)

Made for very interesting reading and some of the links within the article.

I have discussed the topic with some Muslim people that I know. AS with most Christians I know, most are not actually against two same sex people getting together. A great many think they should be allowed to marry. The conflict occurs for them in their faith and what they are told are it's teachngs. I think it's a hard call for them to make often and I certainly do not judge them for sometimes having to 'tow the party line' as their religion means so much to them. I have no idea what I would do if I were in thier shoes. The fact though that they have given it thought and in basis have no hardness in their hearts to allowing gay couples to marry heralds good for the future I feel.

Many people's instincts on this are actually positive until it comes to having to break with some other belief system they may have. Hard choices have to be made and I think because it is not something that directly affects them they stay with their belief system. No malice is meant in not making a stand. In their hearts they only wish well for their fellow humans. If they were totally free they would likely not bother at all that gay people marry.

The other side of the coin too though is that people with disagreement can often come to terms with the change when they get to be more fully aware of the issues and are educated by their faith to allow things to happen.

This is a far cry from even just a few years ago. Times are changing for sure. Not maybe as fast as they should but changing nonetheless. I hope some things never go back to how they were because, as a species, we need to look to the present and the future together. Doing it holding hands with someone we love, if that be our wish, seems not a great deal to ask

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:36 AM

Desperately trying to get back to the topic and not make this into another of those go around in circles with statistics threads where everyone starts calling each other really nasty names.

It matters not a jot really, for the purpose of this thread, whether homosexuality is genetic or not. If it is not genetic - and just because the actually gene or group of genes has not been found yet does not mean it is not genetic - the same applies, by logic, to hetrosexuality. No gnese have been found for that yet either. I happen to believe that there will be more than behavioural traits found that shows homosexuality to be genetic. You say there is no evidence and yet there is tons of it. There have been lots of studies.... but then we go back toi what has already been said so I'll stop on that

Behavioural or genetic or a mixture... makes no odds. No-one can come up with a fair and rational argument as to why gay people should not be able to marry that is not set around one or the other's ignorance, bigotry, religious beliefs and readings, etc (or any combination of these things).

Denying the rights of a legal minority - whether on gender, sexuality, race, religion, age, disablity etc - will always be wrong and discriminatory. It's not political in my case. It's about fairness for all. I have stated that so many times, There is no good reason to discriminate against gay people. It's that simple without any other proofs being needed.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 06:35 AM

Muslim angle on this - the nikah

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 01:53 AM

It is utterly astounding how, with NO FACTS to back up ANY claims that homosexuality is genetic, but rather only conjecture, and theories of 'may suggest' that some of the quasi-wannabe- political 'activists', adhere so stalwartly(read: stubbornly) to unproven nonsense!!!!!!! Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!..and the nitwits try to co-opt every 'cause' of some whiny group to champion...regardless of the irrationality of their politically based 'logic'!

You might consider leaving room, for the chance, that your talking points are generated from false ASSUMPTIONS, rather from fact! We've been around this tree before, and every time, you have come up dry!..but like most psychotics, and sociopaths, you don't seem to learn a damn thing! No proof = No premise, other than 'wishful thinking'!...
and your propaganda, is designed to coerce people in WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think!....but then, isn't that the basis for most all politically based positions??!!??

Let's be rational, here...try basing SOMETHING of your 'OPINION' on FACT....which, of course, if you had ANY, you'd be able to produce!
But, you have NONE!..got that??..NONE!!!

...not that that matters to the knuckleheads!

GfS

P.S. Greetings, Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 09:35 PM

Or perhaps if true, that it was something that crept into the church before being removed again. It does not seem to tie in with the letters of Paul at the start of the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 09:04 PM

Caligula made his horse Consul. It was the Celtic kings of Britain who had sex with horses (in public, as part of the coronation ceremony).

One point of Boswell's work (both in that book and in "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality") is to show that present-day Chritian intolerance of homosexuality is a historical aberration. Most of the history of the Church has a far more creditable record of tolerance than the present era.

Islam can show a similar mixed record, ranging from complete tolerance to complete intolerance. So can animism. One of the few belief systems never to have developed much tolerance to homosexuality anywhere was institutional atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 08:20 PM

There is NO relationship between HIV/AIDS and gender/sexual preference. It is transmitted by the exchange of infected bodily fluid, which might be semen, urine, blood or spit. An individual using proper precautions will neither transmit the infection nor be infected by someone else.

The recent increase in HIV/AIDS infections among gay white American males is entirely the result of their failure to use these precautions. This may be out of sheer stupidity or because of the mistaken belief that improvements in medical treatments make the precautions no longer necessary. This is a reversal of a long trend of decreasing numbers of new infections among this group, and may well be temporary.

In other parts of the world, different population groups represent a much larger share of HIV/AIDS cases. For example, in Thailand most cases are among female prostitutes. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the rate is pretty evenly divided between males and females.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:07 PM

Jack......Caligula married his horse!.....so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:05 PM

"How Accurate is the HIV Antibody Test




Q. How accurate are the HIV antibody ELISA and the HIV antibody Western blot?

A. When used together, the results from this two-part testing are greater than 99% accurate. The HIV antibody ELISA is a screening test and the HIV antibody Western blot is a confirmatory test. Results from an HIV antibody ELISA test should never be used alone to report a positive final result.



Q. Do the HIV antibody ELISA and HIV antibody Western blot test for HIV-1 and HIV-2?

A. There are two types of HIV (HIV-1 and HIV-2). Both HIV-1 and HIV-2 have been identified in the United States. The number of known HIV-2 infected persons in the U.S. is less than 100. The estimated number of people in the U.S. infected with HIV-1 is between 650,000 and 900,000.

Some HIV antibody ELISA and HIV antibody Western blot assays detect antibody to both HIV-1 and HIV-2. These are referred to as HIV-1/HIV-2 "combination" tests. Some HIV antibody ELISA and HIV antibody Western blot assays detect antibody primarily to HIV-1 and secondarily to HIV-2. Others detect antibody primarily to HIV-2 and secondarily to HIV-1.



Q. How accurate are HIV antibody tests in detecting the various subtypes of HIV-1?

A. HIV-1 is divided into two groups of subtypes. These two groups are referred to as Group M (major) and Group O (outlier). HIV-1 subtypes of Group M vary, depending on their genetic structure. (3) These include subtypes A through I. In the United States, the predominate HIV-1 subtype is B.

Most antibody tests for detecting HIV-1 were developed with the B subtype of the virus. As the genetic composition of a particular virus diverges from the B subtype, the likelihood that the test will be accurate decreases. Most tests, however, do appear to be able to detect antibody to most strains.



Q. What can cause a false-positive result in an HIV antibody ELISA test?

A. There are many reasons for a false-positive ELISA result. Some of the more common reasons for a false positive are:

Contamination: In a laboratory, samples may be placed in the wrong testing well; wells containing negative samples may be contaminated from adjacent positive wells; plate washers may malfunction. In addition, treated blood and blood abnormalities have been implicated in false positive reactions.
False positive reactions have been reported in 19% of people with hemophilia, 13% of alcoholic patients with hepatitis, and 4% of hemodialysis patients.
Pregnancy. If this is not her first pregnancy, a woman may react positively when she is, in fact, negative.
History of injection drug use.
Cross-reactivity with other retroviruses.


Q. What is the expected false-positive rate for an HIV antibody ELISA?

A. The false-positive rate is 1 to 5 per 100,000 assays."

Stats from CDC

Hardly likely to make much difference to the homosexual/hiv figures!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:58 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

I picked up his book The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe a few weeks ago, haven't done much more than flip through it since. He has what looks like conclusive evidence that the mediaeval Catholic Church (both Roman and Eastern) routinely celebrated same-sex unions and had liturgies specifically for that purpose.

If anybody wants to use them, he has orders of service translated from the original Latin and Greek in the appendices. There are a LOT of them to choose from. The sheer volume of evidence he assembles is astonishing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:50 PM

Ake, the CDC's statistics are not that incontrovertible.

"As a result of an increase in false positive rates with rapid oral HIV testing in 2005, New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene added the option of testing finger-stick whole blood after any reactive result, before using a Western Blot test to confirm the positive result. Following a further increase of false positives in NYC DOHMH STD Clinics during the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008, their clinics opted to forgo further oral screenings, and instead reinstituted testing using finger-stick whole blood.

"Despite the NYC DOHMH discontinuing oral screening due to the false positives, the CDC still continues to support the use of noninvasive oral fluid specimens due to their popularity in health clinics and convenience of use."

Source:

Burke D, Brundage J, Redfield R, Damato J, Schable C, Putman P, Visintine R, Kim H (1988). "Measurement of the false positive rate in a screening program for human immunodeficiency virus infections".
--The New England Journal of Medicine, issue 319.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM

Male homosexuals and intravenus drug abusers are the two groups most "at risk"

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.

A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%).

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:02 PM

It seems we might differ about exactly who would be compelled to be tested and traced.... and just how that might be accomplished. You might have a difficult time getting any cooperation for what *I* suggest if you begin deciding who is at risk and creating some way to corral them for compulsory stuff.....

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:01 PM

"Don Firth.....Your last post is a pack of lies."

No, YOU lie, sir. Again.

The evidence is out there. All anyone has to do is read your many posts on many threads. And they don't have to look too far, because you repeat the same stuff over and over again like a mantra.

How long did you have to wade through statistics before you found one that you could interpret as favoring your position? Scandinavia is not the entire world, nor do gays there represent gays all over the world. Yet, that's the major prop of your claim that gays don't want gay marriage, and that it's all the work of "liberal fascists."

By the way, any competent person with a grasp of political science can instantly recognize "liberal fascist" as an oxymoron.

And you haven't specifically said that the AIDs virus is "spontaneously generated" by homosexual activity, but you have implied it time and time again, and completely blew off any information about the actual transfer of the AIDs virus from primates to humans in Africa, probably through the illegal "bushmeat" trade. You implied that the virus started among homosexual American males. The virus HAD to come from somewhere, and you implied that that is where it started, not by infection from outside sources, but among gays themselves. How else but by spontaneous generation, then? Again, all one has to do is read your posts.

By the way, you're very fond of the word "compulsory," aren't you? Compulsory testing and contact tracing.

And considering the rest of your attitudes, it sounds like "Next stop, Buchenwald!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 07:48 PM

What would *I* do? Easy... I would educate about safe sex....for everyone. I would encourage research into medical cures and treatments. I would counsel anyone who has the slightest notion that they might carry any disease to not only be treated, but to be interviewed for a database of vectors to allow tracking of those at risk.....and.... I would also strive thru education to remove the stigma of BEING gay, in order to orient more gays into more wholesome, positive behaviors and relationships.
I probably could expand on this given more time and energy.

All that implies that I would NOT deprive them of their rights and privileges in such things as marriage & civil unions while the world drags its feet towards sane attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 06:53 PM

Don Firth.....Your last post is a pack of lies.

I have never suggested that 43% of homosexuals have aids.
Male homosexuals make up 43% of those tested positive for hiv in study.
The latest estimates are that one in five carry the virus, but the figure rises steadily
Male homosexuals are the only demographic in which infection rates are rising (including injecting drug users).

I have never said aids is "spontaniously created" by homosexuals.
Nobody knows why homosexuals are so suseptible to hiv/aids...but it is time we made an effort to find out.
Anal sex and promiscuity being the most likely means of transmission.
Both common traits in homosexual practice (CDCfigures)

Regarding homosexual marriage take up, the opinions advanced were based on a huge study in Scandanavia, an area which has had homosexual marriage and homosexual civil union for many years.

There is a large amount of data in the study and I linked to it in another thread.....I will try to find it and repost the link.

Bill..on this thread a few posts ago I asked YOU and your ilk what you intended to do about the homosexual hiv figures and got no response....I have set out many times what I would recommend and my views have been hinted at in the last CDCfact sheet.

If infection rates among male homosexuals continue to rise in such an alarming manner we will have no alternative but to instigate compulsory testing and contact tracing amonst "at risk groups"

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 06:35 PM

in fairness ,whatever the genetics or other factors ,those who did,nt choose to be gay[eg-failed straight relationships turning to homosexual alternative]honestly believe they cannot be otherwise.
i believe penny is correct in observing that christians also have and struggle with homosexual feelings.however not all such practise homosexual behaviour.
i reckon i,m wired to be an adulterer but by Gods grace i,m faithful to my wife.not that i want to make a straight correlation as i have not had to walk in the shoes of those with homosexual feelings.

bill-i may have missed it but did you ref studies that opposed the study akenaton quoted extensively from?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:55 PM

Fwiw, the Wikipedia article "Biology And Sexual Orientation" opens:

No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.

It mentions studies on identical twins and notes:

Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins (who are genetically identical), sexual orientation cannot be purely caused by genetics

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 04:11 PM

CDC.."incontrovertible" . But those are **statistics**, which by themselves prove nothing.

"Homosexuality is not genetic, has never proved to be genetic. Variances in brain function occur mainly through learned behaviour."

You are sadly mistaken on both counts. The scientific studies are there, and as I mentioned before, it is time for YOU to go read them, as I have read...and commented on the ones YOU tout! Do you require brass bands and bound copies hand-delivered to your door?

For months now, you have waved your arms and shouted **STATISTICS**, and several times I and others have tried to get you to commit to a plan or offer a suggestion about what to do about ANY statistics.... good or bad...and how **YOU** would deal with the situation.... apart from hinting broadly that 'they' should be denied freedoms which others enjoy. Care to answer any of those?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM

Sorry. That should read JohnP.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:46 PM

`Where do you stand on all this?` from JohnB.

I have stated my position on various and many other threads with essentially the same topic. You want to know--go look. You are an argument looking for a place to happen. I just don`t feel like helping you.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM

I've checked some of the "incontrovertible" statistics that Ake keeps quoting, parrot-like. What is interesting is how he cobbles the data.

Let me give you an example. One bit of data from the CDC states that of those who have contracted HIV/AIDs, 43% of them are gay men. Ake interprets that as "43% of gay men have contracted HIV/AIDs."

That's a bit like saying "100% of men have prostate cancer" when the statistic actually says that "of those who have prostate cancer, 100% are men."

Well—yeah!

Ake also pushes the idea that the AIDs virus is actually CREATED by male homosexual activity, and tends to downplay the fact that it is transmitted from an infected person to one who is uninfected. Not created spontaneously by the activity.

Bloody nonsense! This is the medieval myth of "spontaneous creation." The idea that vermin are created by unclean circumstances, for example, mice are created by garbage, not just drawn to it. This cockamamie idea persisted for centuries, until Louis Pasteur conducted a series of rigorous experiments in the 1850s that more than amply demonstrated that this idea was nonsense.

Join the 21st century, Ake!

####

The arguments that Ake puts forth about what gays want or don't want sound very much like the kind of arguments forth during the 1960s civil rights movement by those who were still fighting the Civil War about how African-Americans didn't really want civil rights, and the whole civil rights movement was being pushed by the "liberal fascist agenda."

Don't waste your time and energy arguing with a bigot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:39 PM

I `ad one of those blokes from the RSPCA in my cab the other day. I could tell by the whiff of "BONIO" on `is clothes. `e looked like `e`d just swallowed a wasp, which I suppose for a geezer like `im, that would be well out of order.
`e said, "Jim, quick as you like, could you get me to St. Adolfs Church in Soho please? I`m going to a wedding".
I said, "Sure thing Noah but, going to a wedding, eh? Why the long face? It`s a time of joy and celebration ennit?"
`e said, "We`re not going up there to celebrate anything Jim. We`re going there to protest. That Sandy from the poncy barbers in Kensington `as gone the `ole `og and is marrying `is dog!!"

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:36 PM

ake interestingly denies any inherited component to being gay. In heritance is now shown to involve mare than the chromosomes. There is research which shows that younger sons in families of males are more likely to be gay than their older siblings, or younger sons in families with older females.

Unless the older brothers are up to something affecting their brother's brain, the difference is likely to be due to epigentetic factors in the womb.

I waas going to point out that being a Tory may not be a choice, since research shows that Tories tend to have enlarged amygdalas, while left wingers tend to have enlarged anterior cingulste cortices, but since ake feels that brain changes are due to life style, that wouldn't let them off the hook.

Besides, however people get to be gay - and many in Christian circles have tried very hard not to be, aand failed - why shouldn't they have the right to get married if they want to? It is not an act that harms any but themselves.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:58 PM

"The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour" WHY?

All the other things humans do that are dangerous and unhealthy is part of mainstream

Why not answer the questions I asked you? Denying that homsosexuality is or could be genetic does not mean you could not have been gay yourself

Who is Miss Pink Bunny?

mp


Sorry I was not logged in on this system

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:56 PM

"The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour" WHY?

All the other things humans do that are dangerous and unhealthy is part of mainstream

Why not answer the questions I asked you? Denying that homsosexuality is or could be genetic does not mean you could not have been gay yourself

Who is Miss Pink Bunny?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM

Ake... "The CDC figures are incontraverable. The quote/link was informed opinion, based on studies by experts. You have absolutely no figures to explain the homosexual/hiv link."

No need.

Experts? Fer fuck sake. These "experts" are dealing with skewed data and if they were actually experts they would know the difference. Unfortunately, they don't. So people like you, who know less than the experts you quote, use their "findings" as fodder to promote your "arguements". Bullshit the lot.

Fact of the matter is, healthy people, gay and ungay, are not included in the data. So, the data is skewed from a purely statistical sampling viewpoint.

Fact is, the amount of skew is not determinable and is debatable... but only by those who wish to skewer other people for no other reason than their own lack of understanding, compassion and self worth.

As the old saying goes, figures don't lie but liars will fuck you over fer money or fun.

Have fun and I might be back in another thousand posts to see if youse all are.

Give me a fuckin break eh? It ain't rocket science. Live and let live. If you can't do that, yer not human.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM

I'm going to shout Discrimination!!..For all those people biased against folks who want to marry aardvarks!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:31 PM

"Imagine stating that we will take away the rights of hetrosexual people who eat junk food, are obese, smoke, drink alcohol to excess, or have unprotected sex or even the rights of straight folk singers for not knowing what real folk is.... whatever it is"


In the UK the "rights" of smokers have already been severely
and rightly curtailed.

Discussion is going on about removing "rights" from the obese.

The world is so unfair.

"rights" of travellers are curtailed to suit anti terrorist legislation, are all air travellers terrorists?

Its so unfair.

The list of curtailed rights is endless.

Equality is a myth....welcome to the unfair real world!