BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:41 AM

Here Keith...I was wrong it was more than a 'couple of hundred' posts back...(slaps own head, and rolls eyes).....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:08 AM

hi all,
just to let you know.

my other half is wearing a ... 100% meat free lesbian   tee shirt, there were some lads down the park, only 14-17ish, but it took them ages to read the shirt and even longer to come up with the insult....DYKE!.

what is wrong with our edudation system?

surely if they wanted to insult us they could have thought of something better.

i dispair!!!!! i would like to hear insults that at least show some imagination or wit!!!

i imagine this was you when you were younger GfS OR AKE, especially since you seem to have no imagination here.

anyway,

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:30 AM

Also - ironic that EmmaB is complimented for a well-crafted and rigorously documented post by the ones whose position is completely undermined by said post. I compliment her also. She thoroughly documents that the jury is still out, but leaning strongly - as opposed to those who claim "[...never has been, never will be...]" A "never will be" just begs to be debunked. Never is an awfully long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:26 AM

"This is much higher that would be expected by chance, but you would expect 100% from a wholly genetic cause."

Not quite. There are genes that trigger other genes based on environmental influences. If this were not so, identical twins (with identical DNA) would have identical medical histories, and die on the same day. Of course, they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:40 AM

Definitely no single gene, but a complex interaction of many genes may be involved.
A gay identical twin has about 50% chance of the other twin being gay.
This is much higher that would be expected by chance, but you would expect 100% from a wholly genetic cause.
That, and other family clustering, means it almost certainly has a non genetic componnent if any genetic component at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:27 AM

Keith, you are correct, to the point that THERE IS NO HOMOSEXUAL GENE..NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE! I thought this was a done issue a couple of hundred posts ago! They probably thought we fell asleep at the wheel, such as politicos hope for, when they're trying to pass of bullshit as fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:19 AM

Don T, many of your list have survival value, e.g. pale and dark skin.
Albinism is a genetic defect, but there are genes that have no obvious survival value now.
The problem with a gay gene is that it is unlikely to be passed on at all
A gay gene would be lost from the pool unless the conditions I suggested apply.

(Being gay would then be a family trait and gay people would have more than average gay siblings and cousins.
This has not been observed.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM

Guest jOHN, I think you and Don First would probably discuss your points of view in depth. Your logic is just the one he abides in!

As to the other Don, your list, of traits, are great...and can ALL be traced back to a decisive gene......sorry about the one that the less scientific, and more political champions of valor and obstinate stupidity, seem to 'know about'!
Keith and Paco....glad to see some common sense still resides in the Mudcat forum! Coming into this thread, when you did, must make you feel like a stranger in a strange land...there certainly are some strange critters in here!...but..I agree with your sensibilities!

Now let me think....umm...how come porn addicts aren't crusading for equal rights?...or government subsidized porn?.....or even free medical, for callouses on their hands?...probably because they do what they do and shut up about it...sorta like people do with their spouses.
I wonder if therapy could change their minds.....or anyone's in relation to their sexual dispositions......and all along, the knuckleheads thought it was genetic...like race...good luck!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 10:33 PM

people are mentioning AIDS, it wasn't started by gays, it was started by a french bloke shagging a monkey.My mate Dave down the pub told me this ages ago, he knows about stuff like that, french goverment don't want anyone to know in case they stop buying french cars etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:20 PM

i don't want to grow up thanks.

i have tried to answer every question you have put to me, honestly and simply, it is a pity you cannot say the same.

all things considering i think i am being the grown up and you are being the whiney child, who tries everything to get out of giving answers and seeing someone elses point of view.

i might not have based my posts on statistics or on reasrched information, but i have posted them on my personal experiances.

you seem to be unable to refer to me in any other way than drrogetry(?)    when most of the time i have been civil when i haven't i have said sorry, do you pay me the same courtesy?... no

i think i frighten you ake, not only for what i am and believe in but the fact i hate what you stand for on this subject but have the manners to be nice to you.
i think that unsettles you more than anything.


take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,paco rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM

Yes. people who are infertile can marry, but people who ain't christian 'who wont to marry should bugger off and find their own religion!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM

"When two men can produce a child during their 'marriage' let me know. Until then please leave the santictity of marriage to us christian heterosexuals"

Paco R., I have two questions for you in response to that:

1. Should a heterosexual person who knows him or herself to be infertile be allowed to marry?
2. Should non-Christians be allowed to marry?

Don't tell me that your statement doesn't raise those questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:40 PM

Emma, I was aware that it was a student paper. But it was also a good compilation of information from several other articles that I had read. In the interests of not expecting people to want take the time to read a half-dozen more articles, which the student had summed up nicely. Especially when those who really should read them and think about them would probably read far enough to get the gist of the articles and then simply reject them without reading the rest.

Good one, Ake. But I don't have to be Galileo. I just have to be eventually proven right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:37 PM

""A homosexual gene would be doomed to extinction unless it was recessive and conferred some survival or reproductive benefit on heterosexual carriers.""

NONSENSE!   There are any number of genes in the human genome which have NO discernible survival potential, yet are obviously NOT doomed to extinction because of that.

Blonde
Brunette
Redhead
Pale skin
Dark skin
Albino
Blue Eyes
Brown Eyes
Hazel Eyes
Tall
Short
Fat
Thin

and on, and on, and on.......................................

Learn a little about heredity before making foolish statements.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM

A homosexual gene would be doomed to extinction unless it was recessive and conferred some survival or reproductive benefit on heterosexual carriers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM

Don that second link is to a student's 'paper' which

'reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College.
Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" '

As the student herself said however

'The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth.
Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality'
and
'Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful'

I think my posting record on mudcat would indicate that I do not believe in discrimination on the grounds of either gender, race, creed or sexual orientation and I have disagreed with akenaton on this issue outside this thread.

I too read Ian McKellen's article, written on the anniversary of Stonewall, and can only agree with his statement that
"There is still a lot to do in this country: we have to address attitudes and the rise in casual homophobia, the young people getting abused, even killed, for being gay"

As he also said
"There is a tradition in British theatre of actors such as Dame Sybil Thorndike and Vanessa Redgrave(who I have a lot of respect for) campaigning for social change."


As a qualified social worker and counsellor I have also disagreed most strongly with GfS's suggestions that homosexuality can be 'treated'; in fact the available evidence seems to suggest that to attempt to do so is potentially (and sometimes actually) harmful

Please folks let's keep this discussion to facts or, where these are simply not available, opinions that can be argued from sound principles and drop the personal attacks

Thanks
'Em'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM

Well I thought it a rather good piece of satire Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

Just can't get through a post without making some kind of snotty remark, eh, Ake?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:20 PM

As to whether or not gender orientation is genetically determined, THE FACT IS that the jury is still out. But there are strong indications that there are, at the very least, genetic components involved. These are two of the most objective and unbiased articles I have been able to find on the internet.

CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2.

But why do I even bother? I'm quite sure that those whose minds are already made up will simply blow them off as "gay lobby propaganda."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:03 PM

Omigod! 1700 posts! I didn't think you could do it, but you did. In-frikkin'-credible. My hat's off to all of you. Dare we hope for 1800?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:01 PM

ps that was the 1700th post !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:57 PM

To paraphrase one of your politicians....."You Mr Firth, are no Galileo!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:56 PM

When two men can produce a child during their 'marriage' let me know. Until then please leave the santictity of marriage to us christian heterosexuals

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM

I feel a bit like Galileo must have felt when Pope Urban VIII told him that his ideas about a heliocentric solar system had "hit the rocks."

The truth will eventually triumph, and I'm quite content with that.

Don Firth

P. S. And as far as heaping insults and abuse, Ake, you and GfS most definitly take the prize there. If anyone objects to being thought of as a bigot (a legitimate term descriptive of a set of attitudes), there's a way to avoid it. Stop being one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM

In repsonse to Emma's post, I would just say that if homosexuality were genetic I should be very easy for modern science to determine that fact. the genetic differences should be pretty marked.

In the event, it has proved impossible, and many emminent scientists have come to the conclusion that there is "absolutely no genetic difference between hetero and homo sexuals."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM

Well, except that the criticisms about GfS' post were completely accurate, Ake. It was just armwving.

For particular arguments based on facts, in support of Proposition 8, or in support of those who wish to see it overturned, there are only a small percentage of posters here who have gone to the trouble to male clear statements of facts--or for that matter of policy. The rest has been clouds of energized opinions floating back and forth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

With the exception of Emma's well crafted post, the last dozen or so have just been a heap of abuse with no value to the debate.

When the pro homosexual marriage "team" hit the rocks(as they have at this point), they assume their default position......doesn't everyone see how naturally they slip into the vicious personal attack mode.
They care about nothing but the small matter of silencing those who don't agree...it has now become a personal issue to them....they must not lose face. Well just for information,the last few posts have cost you any credibility that you ever had in this discussion.

In todays Times, Ian McKelleren the actor wrote in defence of homosexual "rights", his argument, or lack of one, was remarkedly similar to the one held by many here......"We are right and you are wrong; and if you continue to disagree or even speak, we will smear you"
The excrement they use is there for all to see in the posts above.
When reason fails to keep their position afloat, the mob mentality takes over.

I have written here for many years, in that time I have never had a post struck by Forum Admin, other than accidental Guest posting.
I never use any other handle than akenaton...and stand by everything I write. If I make a mistake I will immediately offer an apology, and certainly do not spend months arguing my case on threads like this is order to "wind folk up"......grow up Jeddy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM

I figure that has to be someone who has a master's degree in putting red herrings on hooks. I didn't know they offered master's degrees in that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 04:13 PM

"masterbater"

Better look that one up.

Not one, but two problems I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 03:26 PM

GfS's last post was conceptless, except for a blanket argumentum ad hominem against those who do not agree with his/her position, liberally mixed with straw man. He lumps us into a totally fictional group of people ("'folkies' who have been out of the mainstream loop for a few decades now..but miss the 'good ol' days") that more than amply demonstrates just how out of touch GfS is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM

'genetic masterbaters'

I'd like you to meet my wife, I call her 'Lefty'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM

You certainly offer nothing to support your histrionic assertions; and I do not see that jumping up and downand insisting they are reality-based makes them so, or even adds credibility.

For one thing, you seem incapable of making a simple declarative sentence offering facts; the vast majority of your posts have been sweeping generalizations,mostly of a negative camber, accompanied by energetic insistence and stylistic shrillness. But no hard data.

If all your dialogues are conducted this way it is a wonder you get through a day at a time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 12:57 PM

Good post, Emma!
As so far as some of the usual political hacks, homosexuality is, in fact, much on the level as 'genetic masterbaters' or 'genetic porn addicts'!....That doesn't make much sense, and neither do your uneducated posts. Neither Ake, or myself, are trolls...we just have a different opinion, based on reality...but, then, I guess, because you've substantially lost this premise of yours, you resort to your usual name calling tactics...as if that convinces anybody of anything, other than you've run out of other fiction!!
"We often wish to ennoble those faults that we wish not to correct!"
Just because, unlike the masterbaters, or porn addicts, homosexuals cry out and demand 'sacred victim status' means absolutely nothing at all..except to those who wish to champion that particular cause, especially 'folkies' who have been out of the mainstream loop for a few decades now..but miss the 'good ol' days'.
Perhaps getting dialed in, BEFORE you take up a 'cause', might be a good suggestion....
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 12:20 PM

I have not really joined in the discussion here about whether homosexual behaviour is a result of nature or nurture although I think, in many ways, it is absolutely pertinent to the original subject of the thread..

If it was possible to prove people were born gay it would probably give them wider social acceptance as an American Conservative think tank expressed it
"(it) would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism"

In the last decade polls have shown that this "biological" argument has gained momentum especially amongst young Americans.

Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights, which view point we have seen represented quite forcibly in this thread.

An alternative belief that has also been equally strongly expressed is the one that dominated the thinking during much of the 20th century that is to say that homosexuality is connected to upbringing.

Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped to produce homosexuality

Since then there hasn't been much science produced to support the old, generally rejected, theories tying homosexuality to upbringing and it has been argued that Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective.

Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem has proposed an intriguing theory for how childhood gender nonconformity CGN might lead to homosexuality which stresses environment over biology but still considers this pathway to be triggered by biological traits

The American Psychiatric Association finally removed "homosexuality" from its manual of mental disorders until 1973

In 1991, Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist in San Diego claimed he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied
A small clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men.
Although, theoretically, the clumps could, have changed size because of homosexual behaviour that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.
Studies of identical and fraternal male twins demonstrated that there was a greater chance of both being homosexual than the usual incidence in the population and homosexual brothers were found to share a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers.

However the studies for biological origins have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest.

The gay gene theory has taken some hits; a Canadian team was unable to replicate the findings and a team from Dean Hamer's own lab reported only mixed results after having done the first scan of the entire human genome in the search for genes influencing sexual orientation.

LeVay himself is quoted as saying
."But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."

In 2005 Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones

This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams; researchers had found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones; although again, admitted that it was conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.

During fetal development, sexual identity is set before the sexual organs are formed perhaps it's the same for sexual orientation


By now, there is substantial evidence showing correlation - though NOT causation - between sexual orientation and traits that are set when a baby is in the womb
The research suggests that early on in the womb, as the fetus's brain develops in either the male or female direction, something fundamental to sexual orientation is happening.
But -nobody's sure exactly what's causing it.

To conclude, all the research, at present, suggests that, while post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born

But there is simply no consensus about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. and, while the doctrines of the world's largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively, concerns will continue to be expressed about such unions on religious grounds
However, in the light of increasing research the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, said that he no longer believed homosexuality to be a life choice and, while still an opponent of homosexual relationships, warned that
"If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."


The legalization of same sex marriages (as opposed to civil unions) may also be argued by some to be an attempt to impose the concept of homosexuality as an immutable characteristic analogous to racial determinants in the absence of any empirical evidence.
But, if the theory of maternal stress during pregnancy resulting in the release of androstendione is correct then the process is environmental and potentially preventable.


Others may perceive societal impacts and indirect consequences of same-sex marriage (for example a redefinition of marriage opening the door to the right to have polygamous marriage)
I hear that there is a strong lobby for this oppressively paternalistic and ultimately (given the proportions of men to women in the population) socially inequitable form of heterosexual 'marriage' in some American states



I'll look in again after the next 1688 posts

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:57 PM

to both dons, a beer sounds like a fantastic idea, who is up for a game of pool?

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM

""Jeddy, the reason I am concerned about this, other than the obvious suffering being inflicted on homosexuals by ignoring it, is that I believe there is a political agenda at work here, involving PC"liberals" and homosexual activists to present homosexuality as "just another lifestyle".""

To the contrary Ake, we have been refuting allegations by YOU and GfS that Homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice".

WE have maintained that it is an "inborn" state.

If the best you can do is to attribute YOUR prejudices to US, then you HAVE INDEED lost the argument, as well as the plot.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:40 PM

As far as the two trolls here are concerned, at first I thought that the patronizing attitude they show to those who disagree with them (especially the ones who supply masses of documentation and scientific evidence for what they say) is deliberately and intentionally offensive. But I have revised that opinion. Offensive it is, but if they really believe what they say they do, it displays a new low in bloody-minded dedication to rank ignorance, solidly based on personal prejudice.

As my wise old uncle said. . . .

Don Firth

P. S. Let's all go have a beer and leave these two alone together. I mean, who knows. . . ?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM

i think the reason we can't leave it aloneis the fact that these two are spouting so much crap and i get outraged with what has been put forward as fact. i know they are out to wind us up, but i just can't help reacting,even though i know i am giving them what they want.

I MUST TRY HARDER!!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 04:02 PM

"Please DON'T hang in there. This is already the most pointlessly circular thread since the invention of the internet."

Actually Smedley - No it isn't. Believe me - there was a time here when a certain member thought we had a problem with censorship.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:12 PM

Once this thread pasted the first 100 posts it became bait for the 2 trolls GfS & Ake both bottom fish, fishing. Between the 2 of them I'd be amazed if they posted 1 musicial post out of 100. They live only here in the lower kingdom & when they breathe they spout vile, when the talk it's all shit.
Why do they come to this folk forum? Not for the music, they have absolutly no interest in folk music at all, so ask yourselves what is it that keeps them returning? I doubt, with their sensibilities that they even enjoy music, probably disdain it.

Stop feeding the unmusical bigots.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:06 PM

"refusing such "rights" to other minorities who behave in less dangerous ways sexually(for examples read the thread)"
I'll admit up front that I'm going to reply to that without re-reading the whole thread. I don't believe that there are other examples given of minorities who are denied marriage because of their sexual behaviours , unless the reference is to someone who wants to marry their sibling, parent, or child.

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

Please DON'T hang in there. This is already the most pointlessly circular thread since the invention of the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 10:28 AM

Only here, do 'grown up's have to be explained to, that there IS a difference between men and women..and anything else, as far as trying to 'define' that, is merely a behavioral CHOICE!...sorta happens when emotionally immature people get horny, and don't have it together enough to relate to the other sex, other than imitating them, to get laid!
To equate, this 'cause' to the real struggle of race, is absolutely the 'thumb suckers' mentality! As seen before, it is not a matter of race, creed, or color...or even gender,..just a matter of "I want to do what I want, and call it a different thing than it is!...Want to buy some health cigarettes?"
By the way, Father's Day, is a day that you thank your father, for having sex with your mom! Mother's Day is a day you thank your mom, for not swallowing you!
I got get caught up, on the thread, been away doing real things. Hang in there Ake!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 10:22 AM

There's a BIG difference which undermines that analogy. Laws like Proposition 8 tend to force the system toward greater promiscuity, not less, by demeaning the status of commitment. Same sex marriage does not expose a greater number to the "dangerous lifestyle" (which I think is a silly expression and semantically warped). It would tend to do exactly the opposite.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:16 AM

Amos, I agree that it is not homosexuality per se, but some behavioral/lifestyle factor(s).
I think that Akeneton's point is that society should not appear to condone or promote such a life style.

A similar situation?
In your country and mine parents have the right to withdraw their children from the vaccination programme.
In your country, if they exercise that right, they forfeit their right of access to the public school system.
In the interests of public health their civil rights are curtailed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:13 AM

Jeddy, the reason I am concerned about this, other than the obvious suffering being inflicted on homosexuals by ignoring it, is that I believe there is a political agenda at work here, involving PC"liberals" and homosexual activists to present homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and deny the very obvious heath risks involved in that practice.

The process of normalisation, involves the granting of "rights" like marriage and fostering, to a section of society who are involved in dangerous sexual practices while refusing such "rights" to other minorities who behave in less dangerous ways sexually(for examples read the thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM

Well, Keith, that's a reasonable question, and I do not have a hard answer. I am sure it has to do with the incidents of contact and there are a lot of cultural angles that surround that into which I have no insight at all.

If, for example, all gays were kept in ghettos, or self-elected themselves into ghetto-like conclaves to avoid being harassed, it would explain such a concentration of incidents in combination with the other risk factors mentioned above. But this is all speculation, I have no idea what the factors are. I am fairly confident, however that they are NOT simply the homosexuality per se. The social fabric in which homosexuals operate, may be. The known factors I have read of are unprotected anal sex and promiscuity. These make sense on purely mechanical grounds of transmission.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:25 PM

Amos, this may be peripheral to the main debate, but it has been raised and should be dealt with honestly.
You posted a page of data but no conclusions.
What were we suposed to understand from all that?
This debate is about western countries.
The epidemiology of HIV is quite different in third world countries, especially africa.
USA does not permit immigration of AIDS (or TB) sufferers.
UK does, and gives them free treatment for life.
That makes UK an attractive destination for many victims and the influx distorts our statistics.
We have 20% of aids sufferers who are straight.
Only 10 % of those were infected within Europe.
That makes only 2% of our AIDS victims are straights infected here.
1 out of 50 straight, 8 out of 10 gay.
But the gay population is only about 10 % of the whole population.
Thus a gay man has 400 times the risk of a straight person of being infected here.
Unless they are 400 times more promiscuous, there must be some other factor that does make gay men a higher risk for HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:12 PM

ake, i still don't understand WHY you are so worried about this.

you are not gay so why should it bother you so much?

"What we need to know is why so many homosexuals are affected....pure and simple!" WHY?

this has no bearing on the subject, are you saying that gay people with HIV/AIDS, should not have the right to be married? if this is the case please just say so!!

what aboout hetro people who have it should they be shunned too?

jade x x

i couldn't help myself!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:11 PM

Amazing! Swished right by it as if it wasn't there. . . .

Don Firth