BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM

That's a possibility too, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:07 PM

(MMario, read it again- you'll see that John P was doing the same thing I did, using the analogy of 'putting up' with religion as compared with 'putting up' with homosexuality. I used race, not religion, but the approach is the same. Thanks, John P.)

"I've seen any number of couples who lived happily together for many years...then they got married and the relationship broke up in a year or two. I think it was possibly their subconscious ideas about "family" that brought things crashing down." Little Hawk

You may be right, LH, in fact, I'm sure that is the case at least sometimes. However, in my observations, I think that more often when a marriage breaks up relatively quickly even though the couple had lived together for years, it is because in all likelihood their relationship had gotten rocky- and they got married in an effort to shore it up. Just as people sometimes have a baby in the same effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

MMario, I was being facetious, ironic, making a parody. A joke, son. I'm experimenting with channeling Akenaton, tying to see how writing the things he does feels from the inside. All I can say as a result of this exercise is -- Let me out of here! My brain can't contain this much faulty logic, disinformation, and mean-spiritedness.

I'd try to channel Guest from Insanity as well, but the comma key on my computer is broken and the paragraph return key works too well. Besides, my fingers automatically put in periods when I come to the end of sentence-length thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM

The situation in the UK

The Lords Spiritual of the United Kingdom, also called Spiritual Peers, are the 26 bishops of the established Church of England who serve in the House of Lords along with the Lords Temporal.

The Lords Spiritual normally do not vote on matters of law or state in the House of Lords, but they have done so in special cases

The presence of religious leaders in the British legislature is strongly opposed by secularist organisations such as the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society who have consistently campaigned for their removal.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Reverend Michael Scott-Joynt, in the debate in the House of Lords declared that the current orthodoxy was that sexual orientation was "more akin to ethnicity than it is to religious belief".

Rt Rev Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester -
Criticised by Cheshire police after suggesting homosexuals should seek medical help to reorientate their sexuality.

The newly formed Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which counts five homegrown bishops among its backers, is aimed at congregations and clergy unhappy with the Church of England's position on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women as priests.

One of the English churchmen supporting the FCA is Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, who continues to draw criticism for his views on homosexuality, he has issued a 'warning' "The values of culture are not necessarily values of the Christian faith" adding: "We will resist compromise ... We need to make sure that God's will for human beings and their flourishing is set forth clearly."
He advocates in the press and the pulpit that homosexuals should "repent and be changed"

The bishop, who retires in September, was one of several high-profile clergymen to address congregations in the Greater London area recently to rally support.

Not all UK bishops share these views however, many in the Church of England are concerned about the tail wagging the dog

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:53 AM

jeddy - Yes, I'm a male. I would be quite willing and happy to be a female...provided I could also be a lesbian, that is. In other words, that's what I'd opt for if I was gonna be a female at present.

The marriage issue is not one I have much direct personal interest in, though. I've never married and I've never wanted to. I think it has to do with unresolved family issues. That is: if you go out with someone or live with them...then they're your friend. I feel safe and good around friends. But if you marry them.............they become....FAMILY!!!! Ouch. I do not feel particularly safe and good around family.

Yup. I think that's it in a nutshell. A troublesome issue indeed.

I've seen any number of couples who lived happily together for many years...then they got married and the relationship broke up in a year or two. I think it was possibly their subconscious ideas about "family" that brought things crashing down.

Actually, my friend Daylia (a female) put that forward as a theory awhile back when we were discussing why many people seem to get along fine living together and then they don't get along soon after they get married. She suggested it's because their "friend" has now become "family" in their mind....and I think that was quite perceptive on her part.

This would not be a problem, however, for people who are NOT deeply conflicted around issues of family. If family, to you, means safety, happiness, and good times....well, then, this issue would not come up when you get married, would it?

And that could account at least partially for some of the happy and enduring marriages I have seen around me.

Not that I'm saying there aren't other significant factors. I'm sure there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:48 AM

my right to a life untainted by any contact with religious people is being trampled.

Excuse me?

Since when is that a "right"? As a matter of fact, it contradicts the constitution!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM

Having a religion is a choice, but religious people get legal protections. Ake describes himself as extremely non-religious, but he doesn't seem to see the dangers inherent in the religious lifestyle. Given the number of religious wars that have been fought, and the number of religious people who have extra-marital affairs, it is completely obvious to any rational person that we need to make sure that religious people aren't brought farther into the mainstream of society. It's really just the "religious" agenda to get more and more special rights for church-goers. Trying to convince us that believers are normal is truly an example of Orwellian doublespeak. Pretty soon we won't even be able to say what we think about them! The God fearing minority will impose their will on the rest of us -- a mockery of freedom! A generation of silence! By allowing believers to run around just like normal people, my right to a life untainted by any contact with religious people is being trampled.

Nothing more needs to be said. The figures are there in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

Akenaton,
This really sums it up well. You say:

"...no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....but we should all be FREE to criticise others, and be criticised ourselves on our behaviour......how we treat our fellow humans, and what we practice..."

No one is being Orwellian here, and I don't see anyone trying to shut you up.

Your sentence addresses the very crux of the disagreement.

You think race is congenital and sexual orientation is a choice.
Many, many others think they are both congential.

Thus, we completely agree with your statement "...no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....", but we add "or sexual orientation".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:05 AM

20088? - good grief that should have given them enough time! :)

sorry, not my typo, just posting something that was in the press to explain why the ammendment will not be taken back to the Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:52 AM

"anything the HoL can do can only ever be a temporary - couple of months - setback to the will of the Government, if it is not minded to change its direction.

'Fraid not Royston on this occasion - it's all down to the 'timing'

'The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill had to become law by May 8th 20088, when prison officers' right-to-strike provisions expired under an industrial relations procedural arrangement.

For that reason the Waddington amendment was kept in the bill, but ministers made clear they were unhappy with it.

Justice minister Maria Eagle described it as "undesirable and unnecessary; it does not add anything to the law as it would stand without its inclusion." '

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:26 AM

Earlier this week a move to remove the threat of prosecution from those who go abroad with a loved spouse or relative to help an "assisted suicide" was defeated in the unelected House of Lords.

Peers and bishops heve also again thwarted the government by voting 186 to 133 to keep a "free speech" defence to the law on inciting homophobic hatred

Lord Waddington, a Conservative peer whose voting record has opposed equal rights for homosexuals, argued that the government should be "declaring boldly" that letting people express their views, including views other people may not like is what a free society is all about.
He argued that strongly urging someone to change their sexuality or criticising homosexuality does not constitute any intention to 'stir up hatred'

"In theory this means that individuals – such as bishops and comedians – are free to criticise homosexuality without fear of legal reprisals"
points out Riazat Butt in yesterday's Guardian
but adds
"gay rights groups said the threshold for prosecution under incitement to hatred laws was set so high there was no danger that people who criticised homosexuality would be subject to police investigations should the clause be dropped.
This being the case, what is it that really worries the bishops?"

The new law against incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlikely to be used frequently.

Similar laws against inciting racial hatred have only been used around 20 times in the 30 years since they came into force.


Law in practice?

Pentecostal Christian Theresa Davies, 58, is appealing her demotion to a desk job on the same salary after refusing to oversee same-sex civil ceremonies saying that it was contrary to her religious beliefs.
Her case mirrors that of Finsbury registrar Lillian Ladele. Ms Ladele, a devout Christian who believes gay couples are "sinners", took Islington Council to a tribunal in 2008 after they demoted her

Ms Davies wrote to every member of the Lords asking them to vote against Clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which would remove a previous law allowing people to criticise homosexuality.

"This clause, if enacted, will have devastating effects on freedom of expression for citizens like me... The introduction of civil partnerships has caused many Christians (and adherents of other faiths) considerable disquiet; whilst they can exercise legal rights, it is entirely wrong that someone should be made to act in a manner contrary to their conscience. I do not want to participate in civil partnership ceremonies as I believe I would be violating clearly mandated biblical principles."

In a recent discussion on UK radio it was pointed out that the bible clearly 'mandates' the punishment for any woman living under her fathers roof who is not a virgin

"Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

As it also decrees -
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..... for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
I may be looking forward to a warm afterlife unless I get rid of my walking trousers etc :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 AM

Yes Royston ...I am from the UK and understand the need for vigilance......Thank you for your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:56 AM

This is important in the context of this thread, as Ebbie and others have tried to equate "race" and "sexual practice".

The agenda is of course to silence all opposition to any given issue,
race is already covered by legislation and no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....but we should all be FREE to criticise others, and be criticised ourselves on our behaviour......how we treat our fellow humans, and what we practice.

This is more than anything else, what has motivated me over the last few months on this thread.....not "hatred of homosexuals", not being a "homosexual in denial", not being "afraid of homosexuals", but simply understanding that if we do not start protesting about the "liberal" agenda, we will soon be tethered by laws to such an extent that we have no voice and will have become what George Orwell termed "non persons"

Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights and must be defended strongly, if they take that right from us, we are nothing...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Royston
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:52 AM

Sorry to break up the cosy climate of goodwill...

Akenaton, forgive me if you know this (I don't know who is UK-based and who is not).

The House of Lords is an unlected chamber whose only statutory power is to house the "Law Lords", who form the highest court of legal appeal.

The HoL has no function in the passage of legislation except to review legislation and, if they object, to send a bill back to the house of commons for legistlators to think again and choose to ignore the HoL or not.

I am not up to speed on this piece of legislation, sorry, but thought it was worth explaining that anything the HoL can do can only ever be a temporary - couple of months - setback to the will of the Government, if it is not minded to change its direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM

Sorry to break up the cosy climate of goodwill, but the Orwellian "Liberals" have suffered a long overdue set back to their agenda.
They had tried to sneak through legislation which would make it a "hate crime" to criticise homosexual practice, by removing a clause in a bill which cited "free speech" as a defence against any such charges.

The house of lords has thrown out the amendment Here

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:59 PM

that may be true amos, but the thing is my tiny mind won't let me remeber them long enough to make sense of them from a dictionary, so i thought that LH could explain them like he would to a really thick person.. i.e.... me.

i also wanted to check that he knew what they meant.

are you a he LH? just wondering, i assumed you are.
fair enough for losing the bet, i would be intimidated too, although she is just a woman with womanly needs.

my brain is calling for sleep, so i will try and oblige.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM

Jade:

Man invented the dictionary just to help his fellows in situations like this.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:15 PM

Those big long words? Well, Amos and I sometimes make up big long words that just sound good...but you won't find them in the dictionary. ;-) You have to imagine what they mean. We also may use a real word, but out of context, just for effect.

As for cheating, well, yeah....the thing is, I stood to win a night of passion with Bette Midler this time around....and, well...I just find her a bit overwhelming.

So I deliberately arranged to break the rules and lose the bet...

There's method in my madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM

little hawk,
could you explain those big long complicated words that i can't even pronounce please?
i would be grtaful as i feel lie the dunce of the class, standing in the corner.

cheers
jade x x x

PS you did cheat abit!! i don't think you should accept whatever is was going to be next since alot of the last 100 has been you! x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:49 PM

VERY well said, Amos! Ooo-wah! You are so right. I am all of that and MORE. I am unconscionable, pesquitatious, and concupiscient in the extreme.

But....you used the word "coarse" twice in your otherwise brilliant description of me...or rather of my character flaws. That was not so good. I shall therefore have to reduce your A+ to just plain A. Watch those little slips. Other than that, you are clearly well on the way toward some sort of literary prize, possibly even a Pulitzer. Your name will one day resound amongst names such as Faulkner, Twain, Walt Whitman, Henry Miller, and Harry Lee Wigley. I get a small frisson just thinking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 06:32 PM

To take such a serious subject and turn it into a trivial came of supercilious quantity; and then to goad others about that game, instead of discussing the proper, serious topic of the thread; and then, finally, to CHEAT at your own game, denying others even the dubious satisfaction of winning at i...you are scurrilous, sirrah, a margay, a coarse and contumacious scamp, a coarse and unworthy blackguard, a reprobate rapscallion, an opprobrious ne'er-do-well, scandalous and lascivious lowlife, deformed and sullied in the eyes of all right thinkers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

Yes, it's true. I have no shame. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM

WHOOOOAAAAAAAAA! 2000!

Incredible.

But always remember this....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

Hold on......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:52 PM

1998...wait for it now....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:44 PM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

OK by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:38 PM

May I suggest that we have exactly four more posts and leave this hanging at 1999 just to torment LH?   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

There are any number of medical problems which tend, at least, to be linked to ethnicity. Those would be rooted primarily in heredity, rather than behaviour. But can anyone imagine that the medical problems of a marginalized, stigmatized group would receive more appropriate medical research and care, compared to a group with "mainstream" acceptance? Why would the dynamic be reversed, because a group is identifiable for different reasons? There is a whole field of athletic medicine, focused on a group who are identificable by their behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM

"...AIDS springs up between two or more previously uninfected homosexuals. In other words... HIV/AIDS is generated by homosexual activity."


                   It's like rubbing two sticks together to make fire!

NO, riginslinger. It IS possible to rub two sticks together and make fire. The former statement is not possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

Why does extending equal rights to gays promote homosexuality? Do you believe that continuing to make homosexuals second-class citizens somehow deters their sexual orientation?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM

"...AIDS springs up between two or more previously uninfected homosexuals. In other words... HIV/AIDS is generated by homosexual activity."


                   It's like rubbing two sticks together to make fire!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:26 PM

Ake, what I have tried to point out to you a couple of times (and it seems to have simply bounced off your steel helmet) is that the 43% in the pie-chart on the CDC's website does NOT say that that 43% of homosexual men have AIDS, it says that of ALL the people who have AIDS (including non-homosexuals and women), 43% of them are men. I grant you, that's a large segment of the pie-chart. But the way you are trying to present it is deceptive.

And as I have also pointed out before, by the same token, I think I could claim without fear of contradiction that 100% of those people who have prostate cancer are men.

You have to know what the pie-chart is supposed to cover. You can't just grab a figure and run with it—unless, of course, you're trying to bamboozle people. Not an unusual phenomenon, and easy to spot.

####

I know four male homosexual couples who have been in stable, monogamous relationships (whether anyone else recognizes them or not), one for over thirty years, and the shortest of the short-timers for at least six years. Two of the couples are good friends of my wife and I (one of the men in the thirty year couple was a friend of Barbara's in high school).

And NONE of them have AIDS.

So much for spontaneous generation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM

Ake:

There is absolutely no reason, as far as I can tell, to conflate extending equal civil rights regardless of sexual orientation with ignoring the figures concerning AIDS. They are independent variables, and have no reasonable link, although it is possible that enabling formal monogamy among homosexuals will reduce the contagion vectors just as people who get married reduce their chances of contacting syphilis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 08:06 PM

Yes I agree with you there Jade hepatitis is a big problem in this area due to the large number of heroin addicts in the small towns on the West Coast

I agree we need to concentrate on eradicating all disease, but this thread was specifically about homosexual marriage and while responding to another poster I stumbled upon the figures from the Centre for Disease Control, an independant body, who's data I can find no reason to distrust.

I had honestly never read any homosexual health figures before and what I read shocked and amazed me. I do not know why these figures are so bad, why so many homosexuals are affected,but I do know that answers must be sought.
To sit back and do nothing, to bury these figures and forget about them....or even worse deny them, is not an option.
I repeat, to deny these figures does not serve the interests of homosexuals or society at large...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM

please don't ask for the figures to back up my arguements because i have none. all the number crunching and science talk i will leave to those who understand it. which isn't me as you all know!!
i do try to understand but .. nope still not happening.

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:58 PM

Ake, the figures you speak of are carefully selected and interpreted by you, not unlike a person with a particular religious viewpoint carefully "cherry-picking" Biblical verses and putting them together in an attempt to provide a Scriptural basis for his particular belief. You're the one who's doing the wriggling

I take it, then, that you actually do believe in spontaneous generation? If so, I'd suggest you take it up with Louis Pasteur, who finally put that persistent medieval belief to rest once and for all back in 1864.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:30 PM

ake,
not to be too agressive or anything but it seems to me that you have enough time to post what are fairly long posts but not enough time to answer questions, whilst at the same time demanding answers from others, it seems a little one sided to me.

i have not the inclination to read through a bunch of statistics, that i don't really trust.
it is not just this i don't trust it is pretty much every survey and statistics list, numbers are too easy to manipulate, take a look at the schools table!!

the simple fact is that if EVERYONE would practice safe sex, there would be no extra problems.

you seem only able to see HIV as AIDS.
AIDS is the result of numerous infections at once that the body cannot fight because of the problems with producing white blood cells and antibodies. it is not HIV that kills people, it is the everyday infections that we all get.

but like i said if everyone used protection we would cut off it's life support, so to speak.

ebbies' point was just to illustrate the type of language you use. i for one don't see this issue as similar to the'black' cause, although things have been really bad for gays in the past, it pales to insignificance(?).

there are alot of deseases we need to spend time and money looking into and HIV/AIDS are just two of them.

maybe we should broaden the arguement for a while and say that maybe some dying from cancer cannot get married.

or meateating males cannot get married becuse prostat and bowel cancer has the highest rate of deaths in men.
could the same be said for women with a family history of breast cancer?

one of your' concerns AKE, was that gays should not be able to adopt because of their decreased life span but surely you can see there are decent arguements for some of the straight folks not to have children to pass down defective genes to?

i don't expect answrs from you AKE as i know you are a busy man but i hope i have given you something to think about!!!

i think we should all be concentrating on how to manage the sexual health problems of everyone rather than just THE MAINLY GAY DISEASE.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:03 PM

Wriggle away, the figures are there in black and white.
All you are saying is that you are right and I am wrong, you have no argument other than to call me a bigot, to equate what I am saying with racism is a sign of desperation and a lack of any clear answer to the points I made and the questions I asked.

Amos says that rights are only curtailed for criminal reasons this is quite wrong. "rights" are often curtailed for medical reasons,
psychiatric reasons, many reasons.

Its not so long since homosexuality was a crime, if the present health figures had been available then, it is probable that it would not have been de- criminalised.

Amos talks about the Natural world, in nature it is common for close relatives of most species to engage in sexual intercourse, yet extremely uncommon for same gender sex to occur.

Humans who engage in incest are criminalised even if they are incapable of having children and there are no other other health risks, yet same sex intercourse is allowed regardless of the huge risks cited in the health figures.

No one in the "mob" has even attempted to explain the homosexual health figures, and these are the crux of my argument, it seems madness to promote homosexuality in society while such a huge question mark hangs over the safety of homosexual practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:23 PM

Ake seems to be trying to convince others—and he may possibly even it believe himself—that AIDS springs up between two or more previously uninfected homosexuals. In other words, he appears to be claiming that HIV/AIDS is generated by homosexual activity. He has posted this contention several times.

This is the medieval belief in "spontaneous generation."

Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified. The second version is heterogenesis (sometimes called xenogenesis), in which one form of life emerges from a different form.

Modern epidemiologists, bacteriologists, and virologists consider the idea of spontaneous generation to be as rational as the idea that ships sailing too far offshore may fall off the edge of the earth. Both of these ideas were believed at one time, but modern science has long since shown them to be false.

Viruses are transmitted from one infected individual to another uninfected individual by various means. HIV seems to be transmitted in body fluids. And it can be transmitted regardless of the gender(s) of the individuals involved. A particular virus can mutate into a different form, in the same way that any living organism can (and viruses are particularly adept at this:   the wide variety of flu viruses, with a new variation almost every year).

But homosexual activity does not spontaneously generate HIV, nor does it cause some other virus to mutate into HIV.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:22 PM

Thanks, jeddy and Amos, for seeing my point. The point, of course, is that the language used in both cases is virtually identical.

tsk, tsk, ake. You have previously intimated that yours is a voice for the other side, and that it does not necessarily mean that you yourself are homophobic- may I say, sir, that you are definitely on the "other side".

You like to dispute that you are homophobia, but to be homophobic means to have a (quote) unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.(enquote)

Wouldn't you agree that you have a fear of or antipathy toward homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM

Ebbie's post is right on the money, Ake, and you know it!

My God, man, reading your last few posts alone, how can you--or anyone, for that matter--legitimately claim that your are not a bigot?

Condemned by your own posts. Case closed!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 03:35 PM

I have asked before: The highest rate of HIV in the world is in Swaziland, and males and females are affected almost equally. Should marriage be banned in Swaziland?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

It used to be used as an argument for legally outlawing miscegenation, Ake, have you forgotten? Adulterating the gene pool as a public health hazard?

The similarity is that you are using specious, shallow, unjustified assertions to support what is essentially a denial of equality under the law.

It might make sense to claim that the law should prosecute anyone who irresponsibly transmits an STD as being guilty of assault with a cellular weapon.

But you go further than this and link it to homosexuality, which is clearly an independent variable, and insist on treating it as a willful criminal act, which it is not, and therefore a justification for the suspense of civil equality, which is offensive, and narrow-minded, illiberal and inhumane of you. In these respects your posture IS similar to racism. I stress "similar", not "the same as" or "a kind of", and only because of these particular similarities.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:26 PM

Ebbie...your post is absolute nonesense and deserves no further comment!
If that is you're opinion I will not condemn you for holding it but cannot agree that the homosexual issue and the race issue are in any way similar.
I think you would find that millions of coloured people would be very insulted to have their struggle for freedom used in such a cheap manner.

Your last few posts have gone beyond the realms of civilised discussion, this one ranks about as low as the Christain Fundies who tortured the homosexual in a bid to cure him....these people are mad Ebbie end of story!

How many times on this thread have desperate people tried to link my argument to the racial issue?....There are plenty of issues in the UK regarding race...and they need to be discussed, the Sharia Law thread is a sign that this Forum is beginning to open up, but no sensible person can have any objection to interacial marriage or racial integration.

My point here concerns the health issues pertaining to homosexuality
There are no health issues concerning interacial marriage as far as I am aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:17 AM

ebbie,
isn't it weird that if you swap one or two words that statment takes on a whole new context, well done you.

i have been reading your' posts for a while and even i had to read it twice!!!

i hope that new readers of this will not take you the wrong way as we all know here that you were proving a point, and did it rather well.

i wonder if what you have written has made anyone think? it has me.


ake, re. abortion on demand, the only thing i think is wrong with this, is that young girls have now got it into their heads is that abortions are now a form of birth control. this scares me.
as asked before there are enough unwanted and unplanned pregnancies in the world as it is why would anyone want to force women into keeping the child, would you make exceptions? say if a woman was raped and ended up pregnant? or are you taking about giving birth and then putting the child up for adoption??

why put someone through that? it seems a barbaric thought to me.


no matter what the subject i believe in taking personal responsibility,whether it is sexual health, unplanned pregnancy, or down to the small stuff of how you talk to people and how your actions affect others.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

Re abortion.....Isn't "abortion on demand" an even worse option than the two you have cited?

OK, Akenaton, I said that no one was questioning your leftist/socialist credentials. Now I am. You sound just like any other totalitarian who wants to insert government into peoples' private lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 10:31 AM

Ake:

The difference is that rights are curtailed for criminal behaviour, not for civil, private conduct. Furthermore, your implication that it is homosexual activity that causes AIDS is so far-fetched as to be unreasonable. Furthermore, irresponsible transmission of the disease (or any other STD) is as much a hetero problem as a homosexual one. Although you dislike this assertion and keep boggling up the numbers to reject it, it remains the fact that transmission does not care whether the sexes involved are the same or opposite. Yet you have no conscience about allowing hetero transmission to continue uncontrolled.   

ANd using such dubious reasoning to support the treatment of a natural class of people as a set of social criminals reflects poorly on your respect for actual Nature, as opposed to the Victorian impression of it you may have inherited.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:24 AM

There are many sections of society who's "rights" are curtailed due to their behaviour....I am saying this for the millionth time!
"Liberals" would have us believe that "rights" are universal, but they patently are not....nor should they be.

The black man's lobby is strong and controls sports and entertainment generally, they have bullied and coersed the public into a tacit tolerance of integration and will continue to do so....with the help of "liberal" activists until all voices against have been silenced.

Unfortunately for them, social statistics tell a very different story.....that there is something very wrong with integration.

What I am saying is that any further integration of blacks into mainstream society should be put on hold 'till a serious and far reaching medical inquiry into the link between Aids and colour is thoroughly investigated.

Why is Black life expectancy so low compared to the White?
Why do Blacks have such a much greater risk of contracting the disease than Whites? Is it as Don claims......simply "happenstance"?

If you don't care, and want to continue integration regardless....you are doing no service to Blacks, your political ideals mean more to you than the lives of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:18 AM

Akenaton: Mr Peekstock says that I stated "AIDS was a gay disease" that is a downright lie.

And later: What I am saying is that any further integration of homosexuality into mainstream society should be put on hold 'till a serious and far reaching medical inquiry into the link between Aids and homosexuality is thoroughly investigated.

And later: you are doing no service to homosexuals, your political ideals mean more to you than the deaths of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Ake, do you really not see your lie here, your unsupported conclusion, and your doublespeak? Making your words stand on their heads is almost too easy, and you're so blinkered you don't even know it's going on.

Oh god, here I am again trying to reason with Akenaton. Bad John! Bad John!