BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

The issue of marriage rights, as a part of civil rights of citizenship, is what the topic is about.

Pondering the etiology of AIDS/HIV is, essentially, irrelevant to the issue.


And imagining it is spontaneous is just absurd.

If, as Ake points out, we all know heterosexual sex can transmit AIDS then either Ake should take a stand against ALL marriage, or he should leave AIDS out of the question of same sex marriage.   There's no way to have it both ways!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM

Ake is predicating much of what he says here on the idea that HIV/AIDS is spontaneously generated by two previously uninfected homosexual males engaging in anal intercourse.

"Spontaneous generation" was a hard-held belief for many centuries, but it was duly slain by Louis Pasteur and a number of others.

A general survey of the idea of Spontaneous Generation

FYI.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:48 PM

Just cruising by to see how (if) things are progressing and this caught my eye:

"I am neither a doctor nor a scientist, how would I know the cause of AIDS?......"

THAT'S bloody obvious!!

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, what has all this to do with same-sex marriage (which will have the effect of encouraging stable relationships and decreasing promiscuity)? One would think that if someone is genuinely concerned about the spread of AIDS, he would be in favor of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:17 PM

Right Amos!...Can you explain in plain English what the fuck this means?

"You have presented no data and no theory that could possibly conceive your somewhat outlandish concept that AIDS was in any way more likely to strike a homosexual than a heterosexual, assuming other factors were equal just as diversity of partners and the kinds of sexual practices they engaged in. And, myself, I seriously doubt you will be able to come up with one."

I am neither a doctor nor a scientist, how would I know the cause of AIDS?......What I do know is that a far larger proportion of homosexuals develope Aids than any other sector of Western society.

Why do you keep on trotting out the figures for other sectors?...We all know that Aids can be transmitted by hetero sex.

The point in question is why New Aids outbreaks alway start among homosexuals and why such a very large percentage of them are affected by the disease.

I suppose what you are trying to say is that if homosexuals stopped having anal sex and being promiscuous the AIDS figures for homosexuals would drop......Well hell, thats pretty profound!

Unfortunately for the purposes of your argument......anal sex and promiscuity pretty well come with the territory!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:24 PM

"However, the issue is not AIDS, but civil rights and Proposition 8. It should be reversed promptly as an illegal infringement on a minority's civil rights."

well said AMOS!!!

no one seems to be able to convince me that it is not a good idea, in fact apart from the HIV/AIDS arguement, no one seems able to anwer direcr questions or be able to produce any backup for their opinions exect for the yuk factor, which to me is a personal thing and should be stated at such.

lets be honest people please!!!!

take care all

jade x x

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

HIV/AIDS WORLDWIDE

As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide -- 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years -- were living with HIV/AIDS. More than 70 percent of these people (25.3 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 16 percent (5.8 million) live in South and Southeast Asia.(1)

Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 8.8 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected. In 16 African countries, the prevalence of HIV infection among adults aged 15 to 49 exceeds 10 percent.(1,2)

Approximately 47 percent of the 36.1 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are women.(1)

An estimated 5.3 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2000; that is, about 15,000 infections each day. More than 95 percent of these new infections occurred in developing countries.(1)

In 2000, more than 6,500 young people aged 15 to 24 became infected with HIV every day -- that is, about five every minute.(1)

Through 2000, cumulative HIV/AIDS-associated deaths worldwide numbered approximately 21.8 million -- 17.5 million adults and 4.3 million children younger than 15 years.(1)

In 2000 alone, HIV/AIDS-associated illnesses caused the deaths of approximately 3 million people worldwide, including an estimated 500,000 children younger than 15 years.(1)

An estimated 13.2 million children younger than age 15 had lost their mothers or both parents by the end of 1999.(2)

Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.(1,2)

Mother-to-child (vertical) transmission has accounted for more than 90 percent of all HIV infections worldwide in infants and children.(1,2)

From NIAIDS Fact Sheet, here.

However, the issue is not AIDS, but civil rights and Proposition 8. It should be reversed promptly as an illegal infringement on a minority's civil rights.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:17 AM

When reading these stats, remember that as a proportion of the population, the risk is vastly greater for gay men than shown here.
These stats show only percentages of HIV victims not populations.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:13 AM

HIV infections acquired through heterosexual intercourse within the United Kingdom represent less than 10% of all HIV infections amongst heterosexuals diagnosed in the UK, according to a paper published in the March 12thon-line edition of the British Medical Journal. The authors, from the UK's Health Protection Agency, emphasise that HIV transmission amongst gay men accounts for over 80% of HIV infections acquired in the UK. However, they acknowledge that even though small numbers of individuals are infected with HIV through heterosexual sex in the UK each year, the number is growing and is likely to continue to do so, particularly amongst ethnic minorities.
Although there has been a substantial increase in heterosexual HIV in the UK, the majority of cases involve individuals who originated from, and were infected with HIV abroad, most notably Africa.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/0B40A041-6ED6-4E6D-8014-942C373655C5.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:06 AM

1. More heteros than homosexuals suffer from HIV/AIDS.

2. You have presented no data and no theory that could possibly conceive your somewhat outlandish concept that AIDS was in any way more likely to strike a homosexual than a heterosexual, assuming other factors were equal just as diversity of partners and the kinds of sexual practices they engaged in. And, myself, I seriously doubt you will be able to come up with one. This is like the guy who waved his handkerchief around and around on a corner of New York. He said it was to keep the elephants away, and when they said "Don't be silly, man-there aren't elephants for thousands of miles!" he smugly replied that proved it was working.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:43 AM

"In fact, the World Health Organization said that the vast majority of people with AIDS worldwide got the disease from heterosexual - not homosexual - intercourse."

True globally, but not true in Western countries where heterosexual infection is very rare, especially if you discount those infected abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:15 AM

Hello Ebbie.....I don't think I am wrong, nobody here has yet addressed the link between Aids/ homosexuality satisfactorally.

As Bruce has said, this has been an extremely long thread, if I am so wrong why have some of you spent so much time and energy tying to refute what I say?
If you really thought I was so wrong, you would have tired of this long ago and moved on to something else.
If you think my stance is getting shaky, read and think again, I sense a tone of desperation appearing in the "pro's" posts, as their real agenda on homosexual right becomes exposed!

And remember Ebbie, every cut and paste you read here(very few from me), was originally pruduced by someone with an "axe to grind" no matter how emminent they are.

I'll give you a tip Ebbie, one Iv'e used all my life....QUESTION EVERYTHING!!.......Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:07 AM

There was a thread about nuclear war that had fewer posts than this one. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:05 AM

Ake, stop and take another look- that article was not written by Amos but a knowledgeable physician. If you take the time to read it - and understand it - and if you are at all interested in truth, you should feel your stance getting severely shaky.

Unless you are a guy who finds it impossible to say, "Hey, it appears that I was wrong. Let me rethink this."

We would all respect you for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:28 AM

I think we can go back to Ronnie Reagan & thank him for part of what Ake is spouting. Ronnie denied aid, money & research to the AIDs outbreak at the beginning by putting it as sometime that belong & should stay in the gay community when in actually it was out it the hetro community just as well but with the power invested in him by God he swept it under the rug & just said "no".


So those that supported the unliberated Ronnie continue to be unliberal. Just say "No" is all they'll ever know.
Just keep saying "no" & everything will be alright Ake.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM

Amos ....Stop waving your arms about. Nobody knows if homosexual practice causes Aids, what we do know is that statistically and in real terms, a very much higher proportion of homosexuals develope Aids, than any other group.

The Los Angeles homosexuals are demanding a medical enquiry into why this link occurs. To get that enquiry they also demand that Aids be re-designated as a "homosexual disease" which can be transmitted to heterosexuals.

What do you not understand about that??....These people are in the front line, not like you, Don, or Mr Peekstock, merely "liberal" activists and highly unlikely to aquire the disease.
It's easy to be committed to homosexual rights from your position of safety, these people are concerned about bigger issues....like life and death!!

I would rather listen to them than listen to you, no matter how much you try to negate what they are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM

Proposition 8, however, is not about disease, except the disease of bigotry and discrimination. THERE's a disease for you. No-one knows where it was first detected. But the vectors are fairly well known. There's a few of them in this thread as an exercise for the student.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM

Making AIDS 'A Gay Disease'

(Click title for article)

New AIDS Disinformation Program Spread By
The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center
By Alan Cantwell, MD
c. 2006 All Rights Reserved
9-29-2006

"In an unbelievable and unfathomable turn of events, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has undertaken a new campaign to convince Gay/Lesbian/Bisexuals/Transgendered people that "HIV is a gay disease".

As a physician who has written extensively over the past two decades about the origin of HIV/AIDS, I am shocked and saddened by this misguided campaign to make gay men "own" and "end AIDS." The Center's gay media blitz is being conducted ostensibly to stop the excessive rate of new HIV infection in gay men in West Hollywood.

The slogan: "HIV is a gay disease" is certainly not scientifically correct for the simple reason that HIV is a virus, not a disease.
HIV, however, is the accepted cause of AIDS.

Is AIDS a gay disease? Of course not! In fairness the Center's campaign ad explains (in small print) that "OK, diseases don't have sexual orientations." Yet the full page ad I saw in the gay-oriented In magazine proclaims that "HIV has been, and continues to be, our disease." The full details of the new AIDS prevention campaign can be found on www.OwnItEndIt.org. People are encouraged to post their views on the site.

When the AIDS epidemic began officially in June 1981, it was widely considered exclusively a "gay disease." Now everyone should know that AIDS is a worldwide epidemic; and most AIDS cases are heterosexual, not homosexual.

During the early years of the epidemic when the cause was unknown and when HIV was in the blood supply, hemophiliacs were decimated by AIDS. Hemophilia does not cause AIDS - and neither does homosexuality. AIDS is caused by a virus, not by a genetic defect or by a lifestyle."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM

"IDS is a homosexual disease. False. Although AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) was first discovered in the homosexual community, anyone can get the disease regardless of his or her sexual preference. The high-risk groups include sexually active people with multiple partners, those who use non-sterile hypodermic needles, infants born to mothers with the AIDS virus, and infected blood transfusions. So don't be fooled into thinking that just because you aren't homosexual, you won't get AIDS. In fact, the World Health Organization said that the vast majority of people with AIDS worldwide got the disease from heterosexual - not homosexual - intercourse."

From here

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:13 PM

You are right--that was the first detection. But to relate that to a causal vector is entirely unscientific.

"AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[132] In the beginning, the CDC did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[68][69] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[133] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[134] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined "the 4H disease," as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[135] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[133] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[136] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[137]"

Source here

The risk vector is unprotected sex; it is increased by unprotected sex amongst already-infected populations. It is increased more by unprotected anal sex.

It is NOT increased by the gender of the sexual partner being the same or the opposite.

The partner's gender makes no difference in the transmission vector. Calling it a homosexual disease is therefore either rampant superstitious ignorance, or rednecked prejudicial bias.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM

No Amos, it was detected first in the gay community in California.
It was then traced back to Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:49 PM

And, just to be clear, it was first detected not in a homosexual community but in a heterosexual African community.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:35 PM

maybe the reason it hasn't happened was everyone was so scared, so thet made sure they were careful? even now people are unaware that you can't get it from touching kissing or hugging.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM

It was not happenstance that AIDS was first found in the gay community.
It was then not known outside that communuty in California.
Remember that it just presented as an upsurge in some known but previously rare dideases.
It took a long time to track down its viral cause, but it was clearly being caught, hence the A for acquired.
One early theory was that repeated exposure to sperm in the anal tract was the cause.
In the eighties it was assumed that it would spread in the heterosexual community as it did in Africa.
I remeber gravely telling my students that within ten years everyone would know personally an AIDS victim, becuse that was the current belief.
That should have happened years ago but it has not.
The reason is not clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM

I have blue eyes. And red hair, but I am balding. I don't wear jeans anymore and I have been celebate for about a dozen years.

OMG! Am I a procrastinator! Is their hope for me? I must seek out a priest and confess my sins... perhaps there is redemption in the way of the Lord Jesus! Hmmmm... he got down with prostitutes...

Say... would procrosstitutes be shemale hookers that are picky about who they fuck? Now, there is a thread. Self-mutilation for sexual preference.

Self mutilation? Hmmmm... if a shemale was into autoerotic self flagellation, would s/he be a masterbeater?

So many questions, so little sand in the glass.

Guess I'll go pound sand for another week or two. If you come up with any revalations, book a page for me eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:44 AM

Ake:

I am sorry. You've said this before, and I dismissed it, somewhat churlishly. And you might ask why? The reason is that the hypothesis that there is a causal link between AIDS/HIV and one's sexual preference is prima facie absurd. I can imagine the link, in some lengthy chain involving a homosexuality gene==>modified immune defense==>cellular vulnerability to virus or failure to recognize virus. I mean, it is conceivable, although it strikes me as very far-fetched.

But let me point out that this could only be true if homosexuality were a genetic disorder.

Imagine that!   It would mean homosexuality was no more a "choice" than eye-color.

Wouldn't that shake things up in the human rights department?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:36 AM

sorry i forgot to say that was to AKE, if anyone else got offended i appologize !!!

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 07:50 AM

how on earth can you say, that being liberal,takes away the research into a cure for HIV or AIDS? thi a a cross sexualitly, worldwide problem. do you not thnk that straight people want to find the answers too?

i am glad that you now seem to recognise the fact that it can be spread by the sharing of needles,but you still seem seem to think that it is a gay thing,when someone (can't remember who) up thread has already said it comes from eating african monkey meat. thus the spread of this was a hetro problem. the same someone also said that just because it was first discovered in gay males does not make it a gay disease.

sorry that i have paraphrased or if i got the two mixed up.

i think that you are one of those people who just love the arguement, and don't really care about educating others or finding a compromise in our beliefs.

so i will bid you farewell sir, this is not a climb down but since you don't answer questions or admit when you have been wrong or misguided then i see little point in carrying on.

i will keep reading and post only when i read something intelligent.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:45 AM

Amos... We don't really know why the link between homosexual practice and Aids occurs, all we do know for sure is that homosexuals suffer a far greater incidence of the disease than homosexuals, in real percentage terms. In addition to that, every new outbreak,(even those in Africa, where most of the transmission ts heterosexual)is first diagnosed in the homosexual community.
Surely this cannot be dismissed as "happenstance" as Don suggests we do?

The homosexuals of Los Angeles, want the disease officially recognised as primarily "a disease of homosexuality", so that funds and energy can be concentrated on a proper medical study of the behaviour and its consequences.....They see Aids killing many of their number and wish to defeat the disease. According to their literature, they are of the opinion that if resources are not concentrated in this fashion, a cure will never be found.

The denial by "liberals" everywhere to recognise the link, is actually hindering the setting up of the study, to the long term detriment of the community they say they are supporting.

Admission by the "liberals" that the link exists would of course raise questions about the safety of the practice of homosexuality on health grounds, and also the safety of the wider population through transmission of the disease, through bi - sexual activity, injection of drugs etc.
This in turn would lead to questions over the short term rights of homosexuals, which may have to be curtailed,(as happens with other sexual behaviour deemed "unsafe".)

So you see the "liberal" homosexual rights issue may not actually be in the interests of homosexuals in general, may be hindering the search for an Aids cure and leading to the deaths of more homosexuals.

Sometimes I think that the people who drive these issues(often non homosexuals with a chip on their shoulders) should take one step back and look at the bigger picture.


Most of the battles fought by us humans are more to do with personal glory for those who drive them, rather than any benefit which might accrue to those really affected.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 11:18 PM

i might be gay but i can still ...
have you never heard of things with batteries?   lol

what is it they call it,.. ah yes vibration white finger!!

this is getting rather silly, it is a good job i don't embarass easily.so any 'come' backs?

take care all

jade x x

p.s. still waiting for answers ake. x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:34 PM

Nar, nar, Ake ain't even hurt--it was only a flesh wound! Who needs legs to stand on, anyway? Take that!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:47 PM

Ithought lesbians didn't fuck off!

Please correct me if I'm wrong....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:26 PM

ake, don't you love me anymore?

when someone talks to you it is only polite to answer even if it is to say fuck off.

you have hurt my feelings!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM

Parting shot:

Feeling a little shorter now, Ake?

"Oh, I see! Runnin' away, eh?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

I am a Scot, Ake.

And, no, I don't want this thread erased. I want people to read it and judge for themselves.

Goodbye. The philistines are gathering, so I have work to do in the real world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM

My apologies Don....On reviewing the thread I discovered that it was your friend and accomplice Mr Peekstock who made the comment... pity he's buggered off to celebrate his victory :0) I could have nailed him again for that one

However, it's nice to see you all so pleased with yourselves...fair full o' it... the icing on the cake would have been if you could just erase this thread....then you would be really happy, "liberalism" triumphing over and silencing any dissent.

Not today! and not any day!....the Scots don't TAKE prisoners!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM

The only GOOD thing about beating your head against a stone wall is that it is such a pleasure to stop doing it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM

And Little Hawk, I'm sorry, but although I generally think that you are a pretty bright guy, I have to agree with what TIA says at 19 Jun 09 - 01:28 a.m. During this thread, you've behaved like a frivilous twit!

I remind you once again of what Dante said about people who aloofly maintain a "colorless neutrality" in the face of an ethical question.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM

Right, John. This is bloody useless. As my wise old uncle once told me, "My boy, don't waste your time arguing with an *****!"

One last correction and I'm out of here. I've got better ways to spend my time that by trying to educate the ineducable.

Ake:

"Don says that the reason there are more homosexual deaths, is that it started first among homosexuals. . . ."

I did not say that, Ake! Unless, perhaps, you are referring to Don T. But I don't believe he said that either. To avoid confusion, perhaps you had best specify which Don you mean, because from what I have written, it looks to me like, once again, you are refusing to get it right because it disagrees with what you want to believe.

What I said, way up-thread (in response to you trying to claim that HIV is "spontaneously generated" by homosexual activity, which is a totally medieval concept), is that the AIDS virus was first found in African monkeys and was transferred to humans through the practice (illegal, I believe) of hunting and eating "bush meat" (monkey meat), possibly by a hunter being bitten by an infected monkey or by consumption of the meat itself. It began to spread through Africa, and like such contagions, it then spread to other countries. It can be spread a number of different ways, not just through homosexual activity. It was an equal opportunity infection. And it still is!

It was first identified in the United States among homosexual men. This was happenstance. It could just as easily have been first identified among heterosexual Peace Corps volunteers, or Presbyterian missionaries from Scotland.

I would suggest, Ake, that you take off the blinkers. But, of course, that would mean that you would have to acknowledge mounds of evidence that contradict your prejudices.

And stop deliberately misrepresenting what I have written. When you have to do that, you are declaring that you have lost the debate!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM

OK, Akenaton, you refuse to acknowledge, rebut, or drop the issue. You lose. C'mon everyone, let's all go home. He's just saying the same nonsensical things over and over without being willing or able to support any of it. Why are we wasting our time with this fool?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM

oh something which i forgot to add: how many hetro couples live together in a common-law marriage? you would be up in arms if someone said that you had to marry or do it within a certain time or you would lose that right.

i do wish you would imagine yourself in the position where you had to explain yourself all the time, you would soon get fed up with it ake, and be squaking for the right to live in peace, just the same as the agy community are now.

i still don't understand why there has to be a vote on a civil human rights matter, as alot of folks have said, surely all man is created equal?


have a great day all

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM

Amos.. the lifestyle is extremely dangerous to those who practice it.

What, then do you mean by "lifestyle"? It's an empty generality. Unprotected anal sex is dangerous, I am sure. Promiscuity is dangerous. Are these, in your mind, automatic concomitants of two men or two women loving one another? My point is that you have created a large, ugly generality about what is dangerous, and as a result you are defending rank prejudice and discrimination. The things that are dangerous are dangerous when heteros do them, but no-one is crying out to prevent marriage among heteros who do them. You cannot take this one attribute and assign it to the whole class, because it is an individual attribute, not a class attribute, especially when in doing so you are justifying injustice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:17 AM

AKE, why don't i join you in what i am confused, but then i have just woken up!!

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:14 AM

I need to refute nothing Mr Peekstock, just read the statistics regarding homosexual practice/Aids/Homosexual promiscuity!

You can declare me the loser 'till you're blue in the face, I prefer to stand by what has been written here.
Anyone who reads this thread in the future, will have an objective document to study and may make up their own mind as to who or whether there is a "winner" or "loser".
Personally, I think society is always the winner when objectivity and freedom of speech are allowed to be heard.
Of course you might have completely different ideas on what freedom means?

Amos.. the lifestyle is extremely dangerous to those who practice it.....they are people too you know, not just pawns in the "liberal" game.
That is the whole point the Los Angeles homosexuals are making, the link between homosexual practice and Aids is massive in real terms, denial of this is simply stupid. The Los Angeles people are determined to find out why and stop the deaths.....not just allow them to continue in the cause of "liberalism"!
Don says that the reason there are more homosexual deaths, is that it started first among homosexuals, and given time things will even up and hetero deaths will soon outnumber homo deaths. This of course is correct, due to the huge difference in scale between the hetero and homo populations....What he fails to address is why every new outbreak of this disease ALWAYS shows up first in the homosexual community.

Tom....please read CDC figures on homosexuality/promiscuity.

Jeddy....There may be reletively large numbers marching in support of homosexual "marriage" and other homosexual issues, by when given the oppotunity to avail themselves of their "rights" how many actually do so....the numbers are miniscule and tend to bear out what the figures state on homosexual practice/ promiscuity.

BTW I would just add that lesbians seem to be more monogamous and less promiscious than even heteros....why dont you come and join us? :0)....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:28 AM

PS.
And LH, your glee at the length of this thread is condescension pure and simple, and superiority run amuck. You accuse us of needing to "win", and then celebrate your own particular brand of "winning". Welcome to our level.

BTW, I do respect you, but must point this out so that I can win :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:25 AM

Akenaton,
The highest rate of HIV in the world is in Swaziland, and males and females are affected almost equally (and there are offically no homosexuals there). Should marriage be banned in Swaziland?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:35 PM

phew, for a moment ther i thought i had done the wrong post to the wrong thread, glad to see my paranoia is in check. LOL

j x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM

good point AMOS, isn't syphilis the one that drives you insane, affects your' skin and then kills you if left untreated?

that was what i was trying to say but you are far more eloquent than i.

what happens with the other common deseases i wonder,, hepititus a/b/c whatever?

what about gonarhea(?) what does that do?

urm i have run out because i don't have to pay attention due to the fact that both me and my mrs are faithful,but these deseases are making us the worst country for STDs and teenage pregancy. but you don't hear anyone say they are discusting and should be kept at arms length do you? we frown upon it but do not shun the kids involved.

now don't start thinking that i am all for sunning them, they are the ones who need the most support of all and some education wouldn't go amiss.



how the hell did i end up there?????

i still stand by it but i am sorry for the SLIGHT thread drift.
have a wonderful night everyone

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

There is nothing about the lifestyle that is dangerous, Ake. There is a transmission vector which has a statistical correlation with certain sexual practices when they ar epursued unprotected. The same statistical correlation can be found relating to unprotected hetero sex as a transmission vector for syphilis, but no-one goes around saying its the "hetero lifestyle". That's just armwaving. Butt-buggery, whether done by heteros or homos, without protection, is a good way to pass on a disease. Any disease. That has nothing to do with the issue of the right to marry being denied some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM

I've answered this a dozen times....marriage doesn't concern me personally, if I believed in God or was a Christian I would be very concerned that my beliefs were being undermined.

Not relevant -- this doesn't have a place in a discussion of whether or not gay folks should be denied civil rights. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it.

What I am concerned about is the campaign by homosexual activists and PC "liberals" to normalise a lifestyle which according to the current medical statistics is extremely dangerous and destructive.

Who is interpreting these statistics? Is it just you, with your contention that AIDS is a gay disease? Do you understand that everyone can get AIDS, gay or straight, and the fact that a higher percentage of gay folks have AIDS just means that it hit that community first? Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it. Also, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being PC "liberals" (thus making their opinions immaterial? or what?) is a put-down of almost everyone else on this thread; in short, it is an ad hominem attack. This is generally considered to be bad form if you want to be taken seriously. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it.

Right from the start I have stated that Homosexual "marriage" was a device to normalise the practice, there has been no evidence presented that the mass of homosexuals are interested in monogamy or "marriage" .....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Again, not relevant. If even one gay couple wants to enjoy the benefits of marriage and are denied it, their civil rights are being trampled. In fact, tens of thousands of couples have sought marriage -- the evidence is easily available. What statistics say otherwise? Please direct us to them. Has a reputable organization really canvassed a relevant sample of gay people and reached this conclusion? You are making statements that have no basis. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it. Also, what evidence do have that being homosexual is not normal? Virtually all professionals in the field of medicine and mental health disagree. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it.

In the interest of drawing this thread to a close, if you don't choose to acknowledge these points, refute them, or drop them, I will declare you the "loser" of this debate. You have to support what you say if you want to continue this conversation. If you can't, you should admit that you don't like gay marriage simply because of the "ick factor" and for no other reason.