BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

Mr Peekstock...you are wrong, recovering heroin addicts in the UK, who have committed no crime and are on the legal methadone programme are deprived of the "Right" to foster children...Quite rightly

Laws are made by politicians more in their own interests than society's, thus we get some minorities who are criminalised for certain behaviour and others who indulge in more dangerous practices, do so within the law......In these matters the law is an ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:57 AM

maybe not then AKE,i apologise. i still don't see why you are so against gays having the same rights. you didn't answer the questions though. although not terribly important i thought that it might make you think of what it is like to be on the receiving end of people like you.

your' earlier posts do go from poisonous to really rather well explained, even though i dissagree with you entirely, i can see why you would think that the gay community are trying to dictate to the church, if you ask me the church could do with a bit of a restructure. just like some of our archaic laws that have not been lokked at for hundreds of years.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:31 AM

You don't have to apologise Jeddy, I have heard it one hundred times...."if you hold a differing opinion to us, you must be a homosexual in denial", Its just another way of silencing dissent....Real bigotry in action in fact; and usually practiced by "liberals"......I don't accuse any of the pro's here of being closet homosexuals or have any wish to silence them, discussion is always good and I like to encourage it, unlike the "liberals" who are continually trying to scare people off or bring the discussion to an end. They know that discussion opens people's minds to different ideas.....they want to stick to the formula "if you don't agree with us, you are a homosexual in denial, bigot, facsist, or any other term of abuse which comes to hand.

A lot of people just arn't interested and I can sympathise with them, this thread has gone on for months....much of it repetition, but the "rights" issue is very important and should not be hi-jacked by one minority just because they have huge leverage in the media and entertainment business.   If something is continually promoted as being "so simple", it is usually a con, and minority "rights" are far from simple, as I have tried to explain in my posts.

One question for you Jeddy, why do Lesbians generally ally themselves with male homosexuals? The lifestyle, behaviour, and health risks seem so totally different.....Do you really think it is in the interests of lesbian women? they appear to be taking on all the problems of homosexuality yet leading a lifestyle more akin to monogamous heterosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 10:21 AM

You're going in circles, Ake. There is a clear case that a violation of uniform civil rights has occurred without any criminal offense having been committed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM

where's my post gone???? i will repost it later

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM

Hmmm, I never thought of being allowed to foster children as a "right". Of course society should refuse to allow people who look they won't be good parents to foster children. Equating being able to marry with being able to foster children is like equating pears and fish. Is this the best support you can come up with for denying marriage and other real rights to a group of people?

Akenaton, you have so far, in all the hundreds of posts on this subject, failed to support any of your statements. You say something, several of us refute it with logic and ethics, and you ignore our posts and move on to other statements which we refute. You then ignore us again, and either move on to yet another statement or go back to the original -- all without supporting your arguments in any normal way. Your words stand on their heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

I don't know how things are in Scotland, Ake, but in the United States, a person's civil rights can't be denied unless they have been convicted of a crime or have shown that they are mentally incompetent, and / or constitute a danger to themselves or others, in which case, any abridgement of civil rights must be by due process of law and is limited and conditional.

Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it a sign of mental incompetence or a danger to others.

[Now, before you hop on the AIDS wagon ("constitute a danger to others"), a person can be prosecuted if they knowingly expose another person to AIDS infection—or hepatitis or tuberculosis or any other infectious disease.]

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM

Haven't much time at the moment, but I'm just dropping in to say, "Thanks for reaching 1600." You have all done very, very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM

Some of the 1600 were yours LH so you have a share in the glory.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM

Ya know what, Little Hawk? Screw you.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM

If only Winona would take that attitude... (sigh)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:22 PM

Akeneton,
Since 1. You do not see lesbianism as a health threat to society

2. Your objections to the fostering or adoption of children by homosexuals seems to be primarily, if not totally, concerned with gay males.

Would you object to marriage between lesbians, if it were still prohibited for males?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 03:55 PM

right now i have time to repost, i just hope it doesn't go missing again, i never realised how annoying it is.

ake, i did not mean to insult you or block the arguement but i have known a number of people who have protsted too much.

i don't see how the lifestyles are so differnt. you SEEM to be saying that men are incapable of having the same emotional depth in a relationship as women, the men can be just as insecure and emotional as us, and just as broody. have you never known a straight couple where the man has desperately wanted a child and the woman doesn't? btw, the only things i get broody over are very small puppies lol

i am with you on that herion addicts should not have sole custody of children, purely on the basis that an overdose is so easy, i have witnessed first hand just how easy.   however i don't see how you can compare that to a loving couple who would give up anything for the sake of that child.

gay women(i hate the word lesbian, just my opinion)also get alot of hassle in the street maybe not quite so forceful but it is there, so it is nice to be around and support those who get the same and understand how it feels. maybe another reason that women in general feel so comfortable around gay men, is that they don't expect anything from them, we can feel safe around them, we can act and do as we please without thinking is he going to come on to me or what does he expect.

as for the HIV/AIDS thing, not everyone who has been infected gave consent, this happens to both men and women, you would be suprised at how many men.

but back to the issue of marriage. if there was a gay couple living next door to you and they decided to get married, how and why would this affect your' marriage, family or life living next door?

maybe i am just too broad minded but i still can't see why this is not a simple matter.

i d not object to biligamy(?) if everyone agrees then why not?

if i may say so you do seem to be sofening in your' thoughts on this AKE, i hope that you are anyway. we have to remember that this issue isn't just politics this is peoples lives and hearts and where emotions are concerned everyone has the right to be happy and has the right to love and be loved.

AKE, please be careful what you say to people, i do not agree with you on this, but i don't want you to get assulted because you said something to the wrong person.

take care all

jade x x

please don't get loste, fingers crossed, here goes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM

I'll have you know that when I was at the grocery store the other day there was a newspaper at the checkout stand. It said the Michelle Obama is going to have a baby to prove that the President isn't gay.

I thought it was bad enough to see that he was a socialist, muslim terrorist that was born in Africa. But now I find out he's gay too! That's just too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:36 PM

Ake, I can understand what jeddy is saying about gay women often preferring the company of gay men. I knew a young woman at the university who was gay, and during the time I knew her, she had at least three men trying to get her into bed. Their idea was that "All she needs is a good roll in the hay, and that will straighten her out!" And they, of course, appointed themselves to the job.

Around gay men, she wouldn't have had to worry about guys like that constantly hassling her.

And here's another bulletin:   more than one straight woman also prefers the company of gay men for essentially the same reason. They don't want to be hit on all the time.

And jeddy asks the same question that I have been asking all along: "if there was a gay couple living next door to you and they decided to get married, how and why would this affect your' marriage, family or life living next door?"

I keep asking and asking, and no one seems to be willing to answer.

It's a legitimate question and it deserves an answer. If it doesn't come, the only conclusion one can draw is that it would make no difference whatsoever—unless you allowed it to, and then that would be your problem, no one else's.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM

Well Don - If there were a gay couple living next door to Ake he would feel all "ickey". Is that a good enough reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, he could file a complaint at his local law enforcement agency and see how far "ickey" gets him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:22 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.

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.

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!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM

".....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Please document - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:58 PM

""if you hold a differing opinion to us, you must be a homosexual in denial", Its just another way of silencing dissent""


That's hilarious! You are claiming that liberals use this argument against those who agree with you, while GfS (who agrees with you) is using the identical approach to try to discredeit Don F.

Best laugh of the year

Don't you read your posts before pressing submit?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

AKE "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! "

i thought half the reason you were against gay marrage was not for the thing itself but because you didn't want these issues being shoved down your throat? ..... well which is it? the fact that a large group of people want to get married and are protesting and marching or that they don't give a toss and don't want a manogamos(?) relationship.    i don't see how you can think both at the same time.

why would someone getting married undermine anyones belief in god?
does the church persectue the marraiges that don't happen in a church, do they deny that those marriages are legal and binding? there are loads of marriage services that have nothing at all to do with religion, but we don't here the church banging on about that, WHY?....because although these people may not be religious they are NORMAL, methinks that gay issues are just an easy target.

i do not deny your' right to think or feel the way you do, i just don't understand why, and you don't seem to be able to anwer my questions in a way that makes any sense to me.

i am not trying to change anyones beliefs or change the church,but i think i have the right to say that i think that the church needs to look at its own behaviour before it tries to condemn mine, if i am willing to listen to those who think i should be in an assylum then i think the least anyone else can do is try to understand who i am and what i beleive in before condeming me.

i do not try to corrpupt kids, i do not start fights, i do not rob anyone or hurt anyone in any way so why can't peope just let me live my life in peace?

take care all

x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM

Ake, the body of Christian belief covers so many areas—all of life, in fact, to a devout Christian—that if the one's Christian beliefs could be undermined simply by the institution of same-sex marriage (remember, many Christian churches find no problem with it at all), then I'd say one's beliefs were never very strong to begin with. Within the canon of Christian belief, there are far many more reasons to include it than to forbid it.

I've been through this discussion a number of times and heard clergy discuss the matter extensively, so I know what I'm talking about here.

Don Firth

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.

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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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 - 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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 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: 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: 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
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: 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 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: 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