BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 10:44 AM

Two mothers are better than one, study shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM

Oh, they were even in the shurb's white house offices! FROM HERE:

A FORMER head of the Republican Party says he wants to become an advocate for same-sex marriage, after coming out as gay.

Ken Mehlman, a former campaign manager for George W. Bush, acknowledged yesterday that he could have resisted more strongly anti-gay policies pursued by the Bush administration if he had come out earlier.

But the former director of White House political affairs and chairman of the Republican National Committee said it had taken him 43 years to "get comfortable with this part of my life".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM

Don... I have never said, or implied that 44% of male homosexuals have AIDS.....How could anyone know that? One would have to test the who homosexual community.
The CDC figure extrapolate the incidence of the disease from various samples, the rates of infection are shown on the fact sheet.

My remarks concerning low uptake of homosexual marriage were based on the scandanavian study which I linked to.

After the legalisation, there was a rush of mainly female "marriages", this soon fell away and the take up rate is described as "disappointingly low".
The study also found that a large portion of these "marriages" were for tax, insurance, or benefit purposes.
In general terms, it was found that homosexual "marriage" lasted a much shorter period than hetero marriage.

Throughout this thread, I have been citing "male homosexuality", in which high rates of promiscuity appear to be indemic.

There appears to be no physical health problems attached to lesbian "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 03:07 AM

Just got back from a major gig, so I've been away, for a week or so. Not going to go into this much, other than I read that some clown thought one could change a law of the land, and culture, with 'anecdotal evidence'...Sheesh, is that ignorance first class!!!!!

Second, its a good thing a lot of you aren't Judges. Your biases completely shroud the objectivity of the rule of law, and its intent.

That's all, folks.
To argue that, in depth, is to point out the shallowness, of one's thoughts.(if you could call them, that!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 04:22 PM

"While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men."

Okay, Ake, fair enough. Pretty deeply buried, and I combed through an immense amount of material on the CDC web site without finding that. How much time did you spend?

Two points:   first of all, early on you kept implying that 44% of homosexual men have HIV/AIDS, which is patently untrue. As I said way up-thread when you posted that "data," the way you were phrasing it was as if you were saying something like "Of all victims of prostate cancer, 100% of them are men." Well . . . yeah! Doesn't tell you much, unless you include the fact that only men have prostates. So that statistic, the way you were expressing it, is meaningless.

Second point:   as has been said many times by many people on this thread—and which you keep blowing off—is that this rate of transmission is a product of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se. The option of allowing gay men (and Lesbian women) to form stable, monogamous relationships, i.e. same-sex marriage, with all the legal rights, privileges, and advantages that heterosexual married couples enjoy, could change those statistics dramatically. The many advantages would ipso facto provide an incentive to same-sex oriented folks to form such stable relationships. There is really no difference between gay men cruising the bath-houses and gay bars and heterosexual men cruising the singles bars. It's not a "gay" thing, it's a male thing.

You keep insisting that gay men don't want to form stable relationships like marriage. If this were true, then how do you account for the fact that during the brief time that the law allowing same-sex marriage in Californian was in effect, before an out-of-state religious organization carpet-bagged their way into California and put forth and financed Proposition 8, some 18,000 same-sex marriages took place in California. That's 36,000 individuals who opted for the stability and legal advantages of marriage.

So who is the villain here? Those who would encourage stable relationships, such as the "liberal cabal" that you seem to despise so much (including a very large percentage of same-sex oriented folks themselves)? Or the interfering religious and "family values" groups, and others who feel they have the right to cram their ideas of morality down other peoples' throats?

Unfortunately, Ake, that includes people such as yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 11:55 AM

Should have added this final paragraph:

"This trend will continue. Nationally, a majority of people under age 30 support same-sex marriage. And this is not because of overwhelming majorities found in more liberal states that skew the national picture: our research shows that a majority of young people in almost every state support it. As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting pool, it's likely that support will increase, pushing more states over the halfway mark."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM

changing American attitudes (NY Times)

"A CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage — the first poll to find majority support. Other poll results did not go that far, but still, on average, showed that support for gay marriage had risen to 45 percent or more (with the rest either opposed or undecided).

"That's a big change from 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. At that time, only 25 percent of Americans said that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, according to an average of national polls."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM

"I was referring to the period in which Fidel Castro introduced compulsory testing, compulsory treatment in sanatoria and sexual education,"

Perhaps you should specify that you like Cuba's attitude toward the homosexual/HIV problem pre 1993. It appears you are not keeping up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 08:00 PM

The article you cite by Ellis, is simply a rant against "homophobia"
irrelevant to this discussion. The article was written in 1999 and the Aids and Hiv figure have worsened considerably since then.

I was referring to the period in which Fidel Castro introduced compulsory testing, compulsory treatment in sanatoria and sexual education, without these preliminaries, the relaxation of the rules we see today in Cuba could never have come about.

I note that since the partial liberalisation Aids figures have started to rise yearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 06:55 PM

Is this what you think the rest of the world should do? If so, I congratulate you.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/172.html

"In 1986, the Cuban government went through a rectification process (dubbed "a return to Che") in which it assessed the impact of the social and economic model of the Soviet Union in Cuba. The Cuban leadership made a conscious effort to combat and turn away from what they saw as mistakes the Soviet Union had committed in stifling democracy.

"Since 1986, the Cuban state has consciously tried to counter homophobia. Ian Lumsden, in his book Machos, maricones and gays, says there is "little evidence to support the contention that the persecution of homosexuals remains a matter of state policy".
In 1993, a sex education workshop was held in Cuba on homosexuality. Cuban physician Celestino Alverez explained that all laws regarding homosexuality had been repealed and that homophobia was a question of "prejudice, not persecution".

"In 1993, Fresas y Chocolate (Strawberries and Chocolate), a film criticising Cubans' intolerance of homosexuality, was produced by the government-run Cuban film industry (which can only afford to produce three or four films a year). In 1995, Cuban drag queens led the annual May Day procession, joined by two queer delegations from the US, one from the New York Center for Cuban Studies and the other from the Bay Area Queers for Cuba.

"The US activists joined with members of Cuba's Action Group for the Liberation of Sexual Choice and Expression to carry a 10-metre piece of the rainbow flag from the June 1994 Stonewall celebration in New York. They were cheered by Cubans who lined the streets.
The improvement in Cubans' attitudes to homosexuality are documented in the 1995 film Gay Cuba, which combines interviews with gay men and lesbians, government officials and average citizens, with musical performances and gay pride parades. The interviews which form the core of the film show that the changes in government policy and the opening of channels for the discussion and celebration of different sexualities have allowed gay Cubans today to lead much more open lives."

Earlier:

"During the 1980s, Cuba was also criticised for quarantining people with HIV. After much public discussion in Cuba, the incarceration law was lifted in 1993 and HIV patients enjoy free health care and housing, and full wages if they're able to do some work. In contrast to capitalist countries where most people with HIV struggle to afford decent medication, all HIV patients have always received free, high quality medical care in Cuba."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 06:49 PM

"If the rate of infection amongst homosexuals continues to rise, while the rates in all other demographics are falling, I feel we have no alternative other than to instigate compusory testing of high risk groups with isolation, treatment and education made available....along the lines of the Cuban model.People must be given the facts about homosexuality and Aids..."

I agree with that statement. But when it comes down to it, we cannot force feed the information to every gay male We can - and should - make the information available, but we cannot force them to assimilate the information. As the CDC says, it is the young men who are engaging in the least protected risky behaviors- that is very much like a young male that drives too fast - in all likelihood he will have more accidents than the older driver, but he likely will not slow down until he is older. Youth has its own behaviors.

"isolating" them opens up a tremendous can of worms. What are you actually suggesting?   

"...(isn't it disgraceful that these CDC figures were never published in the national press or national tv)"

I don't know that they were not published in 'the national press or national tv". Do you? Surely you don't keep up with everything that is published in the American press? I am sure that I rarely see a news item from Scotland.

I'm going to post a separate item about homosexuality in Cuba. I find it hard to believe that you agree with their position.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 06:20 PM

Without wishing to be objectionable Ebbie, I feel you have no right to ask these sorts of personal questions in a discussion like this.
If I decide to give out personal information,I shall do it voluntarily.
You would also be unwise to draw any conclusions from that response.

Homosexual behaviour has existed for millenea, it would be nonesensical to be "anti homosexual"

"liberalism" dictates that homos and heteros should be treated with absolute equality regardless of the fact that thousands of homosexuals are dying annually from a disease that nobody appears to fully understand....this mindset in defence of a political ideology is beneath contempt.

If the rate of infection amongst homosexuals continues to rise, while the rates in all other demographics are falling, I feel we have no alternative other than to instigate compusory testing of high risk groups with isolation, treatment and education made available....along the lines of the Cuban model.

People must be given the facts about homosexuality and Aids(isn't it disgraceful that these CDC figures were never published in the national press or national tv)

Only when people are made aware that something is badly wrong, can a start be made on tackling that wrong.
Perhaps the most distressing part of the CDC figures was the discovery that 80% of 18- 24 year olds who tested positive, did not know that they had been infected.
If compulsory testing is not brought in very soon, these young people will become a time bomb in the homosexual community.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 10:38 AM

OK. What do you propose be done about it? Are you on the front lines spreading the word and reminding young males to use proper protection against HIV?

Incidentally, do you have friends who are homosexual? Do you have friends that are HIV positive?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 03:00 AM

Do you people bother to read the thread at all, or are you simply focused on branding all opposition "homophobic?

I have linked to the CDC figures for June 2010 three times just above, even printing them out specially for those who dont know which button to press.

Typical that this important information is not widely broadcast...one has to go looking for it.....If this information was carried out to the general public, I believe the process of normalisation would be perceived quite differently.

And you think the media dont have an agenda?.....aye right!!

Final time children! CDC AIDS FIGURES 2010

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 09:49 PM

He gets it from places like this one, Don:

One of Several Places

I didn't check the CDC site for the stat.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 08:49 PM

You know, Ake, I've been all through the CDC's web site, and I can't find your 44% figure anywhere!

Are you sure you didn't just pull that figure out of your . . . ear?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 07:11 PM

I dont know what causes hiv/ aids.

HIV causes AIDS. HIV is a virus that attacks the human immune system. AIDS is a syndrome of secondary diseases that are able to attack the body because the immune system is weakened. At one time I could list all the diseases in the definition but alas that was 20 years ago and my brain isn't what it used to be. In fact I can't even remember what it used to be. Anyway you should learn at least the basics about this epidemic before you start spouting off about it.

There is no "investigation" into the numbers of AIDS cases in MSM because we already know why, what causes it, and what can be done about it. What more do you want to investigate?

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, no matter how many times you say that. If you say it again (and I know you will), that still won't make it true. Profligate sex with multiple short-term partners is a lifestyle, and one that greatly increases one's risk of contracting HIV (and many other sexually transmitted diseases).

And what lifestyle reduces risk of spread of the HIV? Why, monogamy! What a surprise, eh? Because "homosexuality" is not a lifestyle, and "monogamy" is! Amazing what logic and a dictionary can do for a person. I feel so edumacated.

Most large cities in the US (actually I'd wager all large cities and most medium-sized cities and population centers) have health initiatives already in place to reduce the cases of AIDS in MSM. (Well to be precise, lower the incidence. You can't do much about the prevalence at this time.) Some work better than others and none are 100% effective (as your statistics show). There are, however, many people both in and out of the gay community who are working like hornets to slow the spread of HIV. If you think they could do better, why not lend them a hand? I'm sure they could use your help, and that you could do a service, although small as but one person in a sea of people, to the cause. Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Go for it!

Impugning gay people's civil rights isn't going to reduce the epidemic. Really. Unless you lock them all up in a concentration camp and let them slowly die out (or kill them, I suppose). What will reduce the epidemic is education, safe sex procedures, and hopefully someday a vaccine. Inflaming public hatred and oppression of gays isn't going to help at all. At all. Really.

None of this of course will sink through. Nothing ever does. I might as well talk with a brick wall. Still I am nothing if not hopeful.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 06:25 PM

I dont know what causes hiv/ aids.

What I do know for a fact(because CDC says so) is that male homosexuals are 44times more likely to contract aids than heterosexuals...and the rate of infection is rising every year(homosexuals are the only demographic to show this ), among heterosexuals and even introvenus drug abusers, the rates of infection are falling.

If these rates of infection were to show in heterosexuals men or women there would be nationwide panic and a medical inquiry instigated immediatly.

Why is there no inquiry into homosexual infection rates as demanded by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian centre in 2006? How many have died since then?

The reason that there has been no inquiry, is that gay equality issues have become a "liberal" cause celebre.....and as the great Bill Shankly used to say, "liberalism" is not a matter of life or death....its much more important than that" (irony).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 05:35 PM

"""The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.""

Now who is putting words into other peoples' mouths?

There are just two on this forum who see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle".

The rest of us recognise that gay is not what they choose to be. It is what they ARE, like it or not, and no amount of twisting words, or pseudo scientific claptrap from you and Goofus will change that.

Given that fact, homosexuality is here to stay, and denying the right to marry is counterproductive in reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS, as well as discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation.

In pursuing that line of argument you are stepping almighty close to the legal definition of homophobic hate crime.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 04:47 PM

So, has anyone gotten in the last word yet? ;-) Did I miss anything vital and unforgettable in the last few months? No? Okay, then. I'll check back in 2011. (Maybe sooner if I get really desperate for entertainment.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 04:12 PM

LOL, Don!!

Chongo was probably on the scene at the time...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 03:38 PM

Once again, for the umpteenth time in the duration of this thread, Ake abandons all science and rational thought by reasserting the medieval belief of "spontaneous generation:    the idea the living creatures, such as insects, mice and rats, and miscellaneous other vermin (and as Ake seems to be postulating, viruses) are generated spontaneously under unsanitary conditions, without any kind of living forebears, such as parent organisms.

News Flash, Ake!!!!   Louis Pasteur conducted a number of rigorous experiments back in the mid-1800s that refuted this belief once and for!

The HIV/AIDS virus was essentially confined to African monkeys, and was transmitted to humans during the illegal poaching of primates for the "bush meat" trade. The virus is found in blood and other bodily fluids and is transmitted by this vector.

Not by homosexual activity per se.

One of the two people has to be infected already for the other to become infected by the virus. If there is no virus there to begin with, all the sexual activity of any sort between the two people in question will not create the virus.

This is basic epidemiology!!

Get it?

Reread this at least twenty times a day for as long as it takes for it to finally sink in.

(Of course Amos might have it right. Some horny Scotsman who happened to be in Africa, lovesick for his favorite flock of ewes [especially the one with the long eyelashes], turning to an infected monkey for solace. But the other monkeys observing this, wound up laughing among themselves and chattering, "Good grief! Of all the cutie-pies in the pack, he picked Ugly Myrtle!!")

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 02:19 PM

Ah, heck. 2400

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

lol, Amos


ake, just in case you are counting, "when the gay marriage law was passed in California, some 18,000 gay couples got married", that means that 36,000 people got married. That is not an insignificant number. It is about 5,000 more people than the entire population of Juneau, the capital city of Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 01:51 PM

Homosexual encounters do not cause HIV, Ake; they are a vector for passing it on. Anything which reduces the number of MMS contacts will obviously reduce the frequency of that vector and lower the hIV statistics.

And let me remind you that the original development o f HIV was not among homosexuals but was a case of a transported Scot in Africa buggering a chimp because he could find no sheep and had forgot his Wellies. But, it was a female chimp--nothing odd about him...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 12:20 PM

This is my stance in a nutshell...what do you not understand about it?

None of our opponents has even addressed it. I will repeat it for the final time, an say no more until someone posts more misleading rubbish.


"The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.

We need an inquiry now into the link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids......normalisation of that practice will delay that inquiry and lead to more deaths.

"Gay marriage" is part of the normalisation process."......Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:58 PM

"The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated."

Ake, when the gay marriage law was passed in California, some 18,000 gay couples got married before Proposition 8 was put forward (by the Mormon Church and other out-of-state religious groups) and passed*. And if the "take-up rate" seems small, the fact that most states don't allow it might have a lot to do with that.

And--the issue is not being driven by some "liberal cabal," it is being driven by homosexual men and women themselves, many of whom go ahead and have marriage ceremonies, often in churches, as a simple declaration--whether the local law recognizes their marriage or not.

The civil rights issue comes in because gay married couples, even though their friends, family, and churches recognize them as married, are not granted the same legal rights and privileges granted by the state to heterosexual married couples.

* And the fact that Prop. 8 was passed by a narrow margin of voters does not mean that Constitutional Democracy was truly in action. Civil rights issues should never be a matter of popular vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM

Sorry, ake, I'm not dim, but I think maybe you are after reading this:

The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated.

Um, so if only 10% of all Americans said they wanted "X" -- would that prove that the demand for "X" wasn't driven by those 10%, but by politics? That's stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

Ake does not seem to be making any real argument whatsoever against gay marriage. He just opposes it because he opposes it. Legalizing gay marriage will tend to lessen the spread of HIV/AIDS rather than increase it, so if he is really concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDs, he should be all in favor of promoting stable, monogamous relationships instead of opposing them. He therefore contradicts himself and gives the lie to his stated claims.

And the argument that GfS advances for prohibiting gay marriage is spurious in the extreme. He says that allowing gay marriage will deny gays the right to seek therapy for their "perversion." But gay marriage doesn't deny anybody anything. If anyone wishes to seek therapy, gay marriage certainly does not prevent them from doing so. He wishes to force people into therapy, whether they feel they need it or not. By what right?

It all boils down to simple homophobia. And their revulsion and disapproval is simply their problem, nobody else's. Not a good enough reason to deny a selected group of people their civil rights.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:06 AM

And finally, there is no "promotion" involved in the civil issue. What is being "promoted" is equality under civil law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:04 AM

Amos my friend, please stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that I was revolted by the lifestyle....I am revolted by the deaths which it seems to cause, and the people who appear to think that the granting of equal rights makes up for those deaths.

You talk of equality, yet only a few posts ago we discussed the unequal treatment of sexual minorities.

The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated.

Homosexual marriage would not improve the aids figures to any significant degree, and by the process of normalisation of a very dangerous lifestyle ensure that the deaths continue at an ever increasing rate.

If this rate of infection among male homosexuals continues, an inquiry will be forced upon us, but in the meantime,young men will still be dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:32 AM

promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy and normal lifestyle

First of all, for many people, it is. Furthermore, your revulsion about the lifestyle is not of standing regarding the civil rights issue.

It has nothing to do with promoting an issue and everything to do with setting a standard of equitable regard for human beings under the law.

I think your revulsion is exagerrated and under-informed, but its irrelevant in any case to the legal issue.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 07:01 AM

You completely misunderstand my stance mousethief, either because you are slightly dim, or intentionally.

As I have said many many times, I am not anti homosexual that would be illogical, as homosexuals are a fact of life.

I have always been against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy and normal lifestyle by "liberal" govts, and "gay marriage" is part and parcel of that promotion.

The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.

We need an inquiry now into the link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids......normalisation of that practice will delay that inquiry and lead to more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 04:21 AM

Mousethief I agree that gays should be allowed to marry to lessen the risks of HIV. There is every possibility if two men really love and respect each other they would not want to risk their relationship by being unfaithfull the same as a faithfull hetero one. In a hetero relationship there is no guarantee about anyone's orientation or faithfullness men are very good at being secretive. For instance if the husband has been a closet gay for most of a hetero marriage and goes out seeking rent boys etc. unbeknown to his wife surely this is far more dangerous. This is one of the reasons I sort of distrust bisexuality because if the bisexual is promiscuous as well, be it man or woman surely that is like a ticking bomb waiting to go off.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM

Are you saying that their statistics and conclusions are incorrect?

No, I'm saying your conclusions are incorrect. The story you posted doesn't draw any conclusions at all about gay marriage. In fact it doesn't make any distinctions at all as concerns gay men in or out of long-term relationships. It's just not intended to answer that question. Or, to put it bluntly, it's irrelevant.

It says MSM are most likely to get HIV/AIDS. Ya-boo. What a surprise. But let's put our thinking caps on. Which MSM are most likely to contract AIDS, the men who are in monogamous, long-term relationships, or the ones who are not? Hmm. Hmm. This is hard. Can I use my lifeline?

But the study doesn't differentiate between men in long-term relationships, or not. Or indeed doesn't talk about any walk-of-life decisions at all. Nor does it support your view that if we allow gays to marry, it will increase the number of them contracting HIV/AIDS.

In fact, when it comes right down to it, this data has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of gay marriage. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Nichyego.

Why? Because it's just about MSM as an undifferentiated group. But the question of gay marriage has to do with differentiation: gay men who want to be married and monogamous, and gay men who do not.

And yes, I know, you've said there are all too few gay men who really want to be married. And I keep asking you why that's relevant, and you keep not answering.

In fact you have given no reasons whatsoever why gay men who wish to, shouldn't get married. None. Not one.

And of course nothing you have to say has anything at all to say about whether Lesbians should be able to get married, because Lesbians' incidence of AIDS is so low as to be irrelevant.

Not that MSM's incidence of AIDS has anything to do with it either -- sorry to be sloppy about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 02:45 AM

The figures I presented, are not "mine" but were gathered by The Centre for Disease Control.

Are you saying that their statistics and conclusions are incorrect?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 09:27 PM

Within my wider social circle (including church), there are some five gay male couples who have been in stable relationships for years, in one case, over thirty-five years. At least two of these couples were married in church ceremonies, and are considered married by their church and their friends, whether the laws of the State of Washington recognizes their marriages or not.

One gay man is a member of the writers' group my wife and I belong to, and he and his partner have been together in a stable relationship for at least five years that I know of.

None of them has HIV/AIDS.

####

I find the only web sites that substantiate Ake's figures and GfS's contention that gender orientation is a matter of choice, hence curable with therapy, are sites such as NARTH, "the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," and a number of religious sites, including the Mormon Church, which was largely behind California's Propostition 8, and which also tried to push a proposition in Washington State to overturn a recently passed law allowing same-sex domestic partnerships. It lost in the election. Some of the anti-gay web sites are downright rabid, and display little regard for scientific evidence or rational thought. Not unlike our resident homophobes.

Two questions usually raised by opponents of the genetic basis of same-sex orientation:   since homosexuals rarely if ever sire or bear children, why doesn't homosexuality simply die out? The opponents maintain that this proves that homosexuality is not genetic, but a matter of choice. And why is it that the "homosexual gene" seems to be so elusive? Because, they maintain, it doesn't exist. Marked differences in brain structure in homosexual males has been established, but this fact is simply ignored.

Okay, both questions are answered by the fact that the "homosexual gene" is carried by one or more females in the family into which the homosexual male is born. And the gene in question seems to relate to an inconsistency, or "mis-timing," in when particular hormones are released to the male fetus when the female in question is pregnant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

Mousethief you seem to be saying(correct me if i'm wrong), that homos are no more promiscuous than heteros?

No, I am not. That's what you think I'm saying because that's the only claim you have an answer to. Allowing gays to marry is NOT going to make them any more promiscuous, and arguably will make them less so. Hence the level of "health" harm is at least a wash. Hence there is no good reason to deny them this right.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 07:07 PM

Mousethief you seem to be saying(correct me if i'm wrong), that homos are no more promiscuous than heteros?

If this is your belief, would you mind explaining to me why homos are 44times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heteros....is there some other vector?.....Do you know something that we do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

My Gawd, GfS and Ake! You two guys are pathetic! All the facts in the world and you two clutch onto your beloved misconceptions all the harder. It's like trying to reason with a couple of rocks!

Waste of time. Live on in ignorance. But be aware that, like flat-earthers, no matter what you want to believe, the world is not the way you wish it were.

####

I remember an old movie cartoon, one of Wile E. Coyote's first appearances. Rather than the roadrunner, Wile E.'s quarry was Bugs Bunny. Not really an even match in the brains department! At one point, having been flummoxed several times by Bugs, Wile E. was sitting in a dynamite shack and making booby traps by boring out the middle of carrots and stuffing them with dynamite.

Suddenly, the shack begins to shudder, as if there were an earthquake. Wile E. looks out the one window, but he can't see anything in the dark. He goes back to work. But what you see is that Bugs has the shack hooked up to a tractor and he's dragging it onto the railroad tracks.

A few minutes later, as Wile E. continues making booby traps out of carrots, he hears a train whistle, very loud! Again, he looks out the window and sees the light from a locomotive engine swiftly bearing down on him!

He turns and looks at the audience with a silly, nervous smile and beads of perspiration breaking out on his brow, then reaches out and pulls down the window blind.

Then— Ka-BOOM!!!

Think of it this way, GoofuS and Ake:    You are Wile E. Coyote. Bugs Bunny represents Facts. The train is the Real World!

You two make quite credible cartoon figures.

But when you want to deny a whole category of people their civil rights, you're not all that amusing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

I'll tell you what the "harm" is!
The "harm" is the unnecessary sickness and death of thousands of young men, simply because it is not in the interests of the "liberal" lobby to investigate properly the obvious link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids

Richard Bridge and his ilk would call a proper medical inquiry.....oppression!

I call allowing young people to die for political advantage murder!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM

The statistics from Scandinavia which I linked to way further up the thread prove conclusively that the vast majority of homosexuals have no wish for monogamy or marriage, the take up rate is extremely low,

So if so few are going to get married anyway, what harm is there in letting them do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

Bill......."and there ARE statistics that make clear that gay men in monogamous, stable relationships as close to marriage as they can manage are far less likely to contract AIDS...less even than many straight folks."

I see nothing logical in that statement.

The statistics from Scandinavia which I linked to way further up the thread prove conclusively that the vast majority of homosexuals have no wish for monogamy or marriage, the take up rate is extremely low, you are simply cherry picking a few cases, whereas the stats say that for the majority of homosexuals, promiscuous hedonism goes with the territory.

"Monogamous homosexuals are less likely to contract AIDS than many straight folks".....not very concise or scientific is it Bill?

Looks a little like personal opinion(or belief) to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:09 PM

I thihnk it goes without saying that promiscutiy mukltiplies the vectors of STDs in ANY population.

Marriage, of course, tends to reduce the rate of promiscuous sexual encoutners and reduce dramatically the number of partners.

It should be obvious even to you, therefore that allowing same sex couples to marry is a good act of social betterment, no?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:08 PM

Preventing kids with four arms and sexually transmitted diseases are both "health" issues in completely different ways. They're not the least bit related. Even if they were, letting gays marry makes for LESS risk of STDs, not more. Unless -- wait, I know your prejudices well. You're going to say that those queers just can't keep it in their pants even if they are married. (Unless heteros, who are perfectly monogamous.) Why did I bother to type this? A tiger can't change its spots and a homophobe can't change its prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 04:57 PM

If some sexual minorities are disallowed "rights"on health issues, why should the demographic with the wost record on sexual health be granted those "rights"

It is also illogical to extrapolate that I "don't like" (hate) homosexuals, from my stance against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe and normal lifestyle,

I am sorry that the behaviour associated with homosexual practice has such a devastating affect on the lives of so many young men.

I am angry with political factions which are happy to see the suffering continue for their own selfish purposes(the pretence that all is well in the homosexual community), to justify "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM

Yes, Ake...those are **statistics** which may be fact..(I haven't any opinion on the details),,..

But those statistics, even if they are absolutely accurate, have no bearing on morality, or who ought to be allowed to marry...etc.

They DO tell you that you should be careful taking a chance on wild one-time experiments with known persons in certain categories.. ☺ ... you will be careful, hmmm?

They also make clear that those IN such categories should be very, very careful of specific behavior and habits.

I'm sorry, but you have at some point jumped from something YOU don't like and disapprove of, to judgments about character or morality.

...and there ARE statistics that make clear that gay men in monogamous, stable relationships as close to marriage as they can manage are far less likely to contract AIDS...less even than many straight folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:21 PM

C D C F A C T S H E E T
1 JUNE 2010
FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED...."HIV and AIDS among
Gay and Bisexual Men....CDC JUNE 2010.
Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all
races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in
which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of
new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000
MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
t MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Black
MSM
White
MSM
Black
Heterosexual
Women
Black
Female
IDUs
Hispanic
Heterosexual
Women
White
Heterosexual
Women
Black
Male
IDUs
Hispanic
MSM
Black
Heterosexual
Men
13,230
10,130
5,360
7,340
3,290
2,310 2,010 1,910 1,470
number of new hiv infections
subpopulation
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
Estimates of New HIV Infections, 2006, by Race/Ethnicity, Risk Group, and Gender for the Most Affected U.S. Subpopulations*
*Subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this chart.
Gay and bisexual men of all races and black heterosexuals account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
1 The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection,
rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
C D C F A C T S H E E T
2 JUNE 2010
t According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any
other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected
subgroups in the U.S.
t The primary ages at which MSM become infected differ by race:
• Young Black MSM: Most new infections among black MSM occur among young black MSM. In fact, there are more
new HIV infections among young black MSM (aged 13–29) than among any other age and racial group of MSM.
The number of new infections among black MSM in this age group is roughly twice that of their white and Hispanic
counterparts (5,220 infections in blacks vs. 3,330 among whites and 2,300 among Hispanics).
• White MSM in their 30s and 40s: Most new infections among white MSM occur among those aged 30–39 (4,670),
followed by those aged 40–49 (3,740).
• Young Hispanic MSM: Among Hispanic MSM, most new infections occur in the youngest (13–29) age group (2,300),
though a substantial number of new HIV infections also occur among those aged 30–39 (1,870).
White Black Hispanic†
13–29
30–39
40–49
>50
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
–
Estimated Number* of New HIV Infections in Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group,
United States, 2006
* Incidence estimates are adjusted for reporting delays and reclassification of cases reported without a known risk factor for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but not for underreporting
† Non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks are referred to as white and black, respectively. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race
Note: The "I" bars denote the data range for each confidence interval
t A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected
did not know it.
• Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with
HIV than other MSM.
• Among all of those who were infected, about half were unaware of their HIV status. Results were particularly
alarming for black MSM and young MSM, with more than two-thirds of infected black MSM, and nearly 80 percent
of infected young MSM (aged 18–24), unaware that they were infected.
t AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 279,000 MSM
with AIDS have died.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:10 PM

Sorry, try again

Link to article

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM

"A safe lifestyle"?.....I think not

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf