BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Little Hawk, perhaps you should spend less time worrying about the dictionary definition of bigot and try to wrap your mind around how the word is commonly used in our society. But be that as it may, yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. Someone way up-thread pondered what to do about that, but I'm not sure there's a good answer. Suffice it to say that my intolerance goes toward trying to get people to not force others to live in a certain way. The people I am intolerant of want to get other people to live the way they think they should -- like denying a group of people normal civil rights.

Oh, and calling someone a bigot does not mean one is saying that person is nothing but a bigot. What an idiotic idea! You need to re-visit the lazy thinking idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM

bigot   Function: noun
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

####

Note, Little Hawk, that the definition found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says "members of a group." And in no way in hell does it apply to me or to others on this thread the way you are trying to say it does. Or that any given person is "nothing but a bigot" as you claim. A person can be prejudice against one particular group, and beyond that, love everyone else and be a generally all around fine person. BUT—regarding that one group, he is a bigot.

If I, and others, have shown "utter intolerance" for Ake's views on this thread, it is not because they are bigots, it is because he advocates restricting the freedom and civil rights of a particular minority group. YES, I am utterly intolerant of people who want to do that sort of thing!

And if that makes me—us—bigots, then, Little Hawk, make the most of it!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Another thing, John. It is facile to assume that being a "leftist" automatically means that one wants to give freedom, equality, and civil rights to all people. There have been some extremely authoritarian and oppressive leftists in the history of the world. Authoritarian and oppressive people are found on both the Left and the Right.

Yes, yes, yawn. Everything is a circle and opposites end up right next to each other. This is really basic stuff, and doesn't, of course, represent anything about what I think, or what I (or anyone else) generally means when they talk about someone being on the political left. But you know that. You always throw out this sort of silly misdirection when you can't think of anything real to say.

If I were putting as much energy into trying to prove that his opinions are "bad" and therefore that HE is "bad"...if I were doing that, which is what you and Don are doing, then I doubt I'd have much attention or energy left to understand his reasoning...

Earth to Little Hawk: I suspect that Ake has some very positive things about him, but on this topic his opinions ARE bad. He wants to deny civil rights to a group of people. By any ethical standard that makes any sense, this is bad. He has, so far, failed to come up with any reasons that stand up to any logical or factual analysis, despite repeated requests that he do so. You saying that I think this means he is bad in general or ALL bad is disingenuous and, dare I say it, an example of lazy thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

And by the way, Little Hawk, if I am intolerant of people who want to restrict the freedom and civil rights of others, and you are intolerant of me for being so—what does that say about you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 06:39 PM

Little Hawk has given a concise summary of my meaning, he is perhaps the most insightful person that I have ever had the good fortune to encounter.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, to denigrate someone so obviously fair minded and pacific.
He is a much better person than I.....you bite him and he will patiently attempt to explain his meaning or defuse the aggro with a touch of the whimsical humour that is all his own.
You bite me.... and I bite your fuckin' head off.
That's how I am, brought up the hard way; and try as I might I dont I'll ever change.

I don't really think you are stupid people always requiring explanations, you all know what I mean, your stance is just another way of giving yourselves the opportunity to twist my words and meaning.

Mr Peekstock says that I stated "AIDS was a gay disease" that is a downright lie. I cited a group of homosexuals in Los Angeles who were campaigning to have AIDS re- designated as a "Gay disease", so that funds and energy can be concentrated on the link between homosexual practice and Aids,and hopefully a cure related to that link, found.

What I did say, was that the link was obvious, Keith earier produced figures which suggested that if homosexuals comprised 10% of the population, they were 400 times more likely to contact the disease.
Homosexuals in fact, make up 2-3% of the population, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I am indeed familiar with Phil Ochs excellent song, he expresses the same sentiments as I do, yet I hear not a word against him from the "mob".

"the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society."
We are travelling full steam ahead integrating homosexuals into mainstream society, without any medical study being undertaken as to why the link between homosexual practice and aids is so massive, homosexual marriage, fostering of children by homosexuals ect are all devices to normalise homosexuality, before we know anything about the medical consequences. As I have said before on many occasions, people who engage in incest or polygamy are refused their "right to marry", the first group on health grounds....are they basically any different from homosexuals?

Don.. correct me if I am wrong, but did the Dems not support the invasion of Iraq en masse and did they not continue to support funding of the war well after it became obvious that Saddam had been "set up" and the prosecution of the war had become a disaster?
After it had become obvious that there would be no WMDs and no new sparkling "democracy"?
After it had become obvious that we "Liberals" would leave Iraq in a much worse state than when we entered it?...and that was after eight years of sanctions.

In conclusion, I don't need to defend my left wing credentials to you people...you only play at politics, you wear the liberal label, but in reality you are more wedded to the system than the neocons you despise so much.
I've lived and bled for socialism, risked losing my job and my home for being a "Commie"......just like some of the old time folkies to pretend to revere....Hawk is so right! you are a half dozen Don Quixotes on your knackered steeds tilting at windmills.....and if you need anyone to explain that analogy just go ask yer maw!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 06:46 PM

I am simply intolerant of people launching personal attacks on other people on these political threads, specially if they make personal attacks that use words such as "bigot" or "anti-semite" or "nigger" or "faggot" or "asshole", etc.... What's so hard to understand about that? You've done it to Akenaton and he's done it to you. Other people here have done it to Akenation and GfS and they have retaliated in similar fashion, and around and around it goes forever and ever, and people get more and more short-tempered and het up over it, and their rhetoric gets nastier and more accusatory. I encourage all of you not to launch personal attacks over your political differences...but just discuss the issues calmly and give your reasons for having the opinions you do on those issues.

To put it briefly, just stop trying so hard to prove that the other guy is a "bad" person...or that his opinion is "evil".

Now, tell me. How much time do you really wish me to spend daily on this thread? How many more of my statements will you conveniently misinterpret in some way in order to have something to fight with me about? How many more frenzied and intemperate questions will you ask me that are not founded in anything I really thought in the first place? And when will the Fat Lady sing? Soon, I hope... ;-) It's only curiosity as to what happens next that brings me back...a form of common mental addiction that we all fall prey to...plus I find it amusing at times. It's fun. I know perfecly well that I'll never reach any peaceful or reasonable resolution with you guys...so what do I come here for? Laughs, I guess.

Oh...thaks for reaching 1900 posts. I am now the proud owner of one of these:

Oh boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

Bruce.....Don linked to the Avert website near the top of this thread, I looked up the site and found it very biased, Any figures which question homosexual practice are ignored, the obvious linkis never mentioned....the site is very pro homosexual.

There are many such sites, some fundamental Christian and some pro homosexual .....both are to be treated with suspicion.

For truly independent data use CDC (Centre for Disease Control).Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:41 PM

No time to fully answer at the moment, Ake. Busy tonight

But let me just point out that the Dems did not support the Iraq invasion "en masse." There were a large number of them that were bamboozled by the phonied up intelligence reports, and there were, indeed, some who favored the invasion--mostly on the rather naive basis of removing Hussein and establishing democracy in Iraq. Yes, a distressing number of Democrats did support the war. But they were outvoted by Republicans in Congress in giving Bush war powers.

And beyond that, a feature of American politics that may have escaped you is that currently the Democratic Party is essentially centrist, not Liberal. The practical reason that most Liberals vote Democratic is because of the locked-in two party system. The Democrats are the most liberal party that has a remote chance of winning. It's a "lesser of two evils" situation, which genuine Liberals in this country are not happy with.

Third party candidates rarely get more that three or four percent of the general vote, so other than "making a statement," voting for a third-party candidate is essentially wasting your vote. In this advertising-driven country, third parties simply don't have the money it takes to run a sufficiently powerful campaign.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that what the Democrats do necessarily reflects the wishes of American Liberals.

More when I have time. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM

i am not trying to shut him up either, i have,as others have asked him numerous questions and he has not asnwered a single one whilst demanding answers from others.

i have tried to understand where he and others that think like him are coming from and guess what?.. no reply.
i have even tried to be his friend and have PMed him on a personal level, thinking we could put our differences aside, guess what?... no reply.

i get the hint ake, you don't like me and that is fine i can handle that without falling to pieces, but nobody can accuse me of not trying to be reasonable.

i have called him a homophobe because his in posts on here have been unable or unwilling to see the side of the arguement
that said i respect his regilious views, and am not trying to change them.

take care ALL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM

Little Hawk, you seem determined to side-step the issue, miss the point, fail to respond to points that other people make, and come to unsupported conclusions. Be sure to let us know when you have something new to say.

Akenaton, no one is asking you to defend your leftist socialist credentials. Just to explain why you think, in the face of so much contrary evidence, that AIDS and homosexuality are inextricably linked. And even if they were, why that means that having homosexuals be part of the cultural mainstream is a bad thing. I know you think you've explained it over and over, but every explanation you've made has been refuted multiple times, and you haven't answered any of those objections. I can see that the whole thing seems blindingly obvious to you, but please keep in mind that the obviousness is lost on a whole bunch of very intelligent people. When I am confronted with that much well-reasoned opposition to my ideas, the first thing I do is check my logic, my facts, my assumptions, and my emotional state. You?

I know that we are having two different discussions, which are using two different sets of values and two different sets of basic assumptions.

You have never addressed the civil rights issue at all. In this life we often have to compromise between two mutually exclusive ideas. Even if you think that gay marriage is a very bad idea for whatever reasons you have, isn't the denial of civil rights an even worse idea? You obviously don't think so, and this is why you are seen as a bigot, where bigot is defined as someone who wants to deny normal rights to people based on their membership in a specific group. It's sort of like abortion -- no one thinks abortion is ever a good idea, but most of us have concluded that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is an even worse idea, as is government interference in intensely personal decisions. We are asking you to conclude that the denial of civil rights is worse than the hypothetical danger of admitting homosexuals into normal society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM

OK, I need a break from this. Akenaton, I assume that your membership on Mudcat means you're into folk music of some kind. Are you a musician? What instrument do you play? Do you play Scottish music? Sing?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

Ake: Do you or do you not believe that if homosexuals are accepted into the mainstream of society, they will spread aids to the mainstream of society?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 12:37 AM

Ake has been and continues to be my friend. He, like most folks has ideas that he has considered and conclusions he's reached on this and other controversies of our times. He's a good man despite our views differing (as they do on this and one other issue). He may be the guy many folks need to single out as the 'bad' guy, but that doesn't make him bad. He's just another one of us with a view. And no, I do NOT recall Ake saying AIDS (HIV) was a gay disease. If anything I said indicated that, my apologies, Ake.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM

There is no need for an apology from you my friend at any time, I respect every opinion that you hold, no matter how opposed I may be to it, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs with no hidden agendas.

Like a very few others here, you wear your heart on your sleeve and it is a badge of courage!
Just for the record Bruce, I at no time thought that you made the statement you refer to. Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:35 AM

Jeddy I do not dislike you, in fact from what I have learned about you, I think I would like you quite a lot...in the real world.

I don't like discussing PMs on the open forum, but you know I have written to you to apologise for my earlier rudeness. It is difficult to strike up a relationship with someone who continually posts derogatory comments but I did not willfully ignore your latest PM, I simply have not had the time.
Nor have I the time to respond to questions which can be answered by a quick view of my posts
I have spent a lot of time explaining my position here, this is not a simple issue as others would like us to think, understanding the issue fully demands a bit of work, a bit of reading and most importantly a large measure of independent thought.....Now away ye go and practice.....:0) xx Ake

Froggie and John....you're playing games again!...Naughty boys!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:49 AM

John....You have referred to me as a homophobe, bigot and even pervert since our first encounter on the "Gay parents" thread I have responded from time to time by using derogatory language to you, which I think you fully deserve. Like Little Hawk, I see people of your mindset as the real "bigots" in society, though I do not generally use the word.

When Orwell's 1984 does finally come to pass, I expect to see you as one of the chiefs of staff in the "Dept of Love"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 07:28 AM

ake, i have tried very hard not be derogatry and i am sorry if you feel that i have been, i had hoped that we could be friends but thought that since i hadn't heard from you that you just weren't interested.

the problem is i fail to understand that people are very busy because i am not!!

i am thinking that i may not be as confident as i come across as.
although in a debate it is hard for someone to hurt my feelings, in real life i am a softy and like most folks need alot of reassuring.

it doesn't help that it is it TOTM and my emotions are running wild!!!!LOL

anyway now i have made all the men feel really uncomfortable i will go.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 08:16 PM

Hell, I'vw been married for 30 years ands have survived both sides of the Red Moon's Passage, so, no, you haven't made me uncomfortable. You live with your miracles, and I live with mine! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 08:43 PM

LOL amos thanks i needed that!!!!

love and hot water bottles are the same thing!!!!

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

Akenaton, I've never referred to you as a homophobe -- I have no idea if you are or not, since I can't see inside your head. Just as you don't know anything about my mindset in an Orwellian sense.

The names I have called you have been, in my world, names you have earned by your statements. I believe that denying civil rights to a group of people is bigotry. I believe that advocating government intrusion into people's marriages and sex lives, as you do by calling for gay marriage to not be legalized, is a form of perversion. I believe you have thereby forfeited the right to have your own sex life kept private. The names you have called me and the conclusions you've drawn about me are not supported by anything I have said.

Trying again, just because you seem like an intelligent person who thinks he's doing the right thing:
You have never addressed the civil rights issue at all. In this life we often have to compromise between two mutually exclusive ideas. Even if you think that gay marriage is a very bad idea for whatever reasons you have, isn't the denial of civil rights an even worse idea? It's sort of like abortion -- no one thinks abortion is ever a good idea, but most of us have concluded that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is an even worse idea, as is government interference in intensely personal decisions, like who you get to marry. We are asking you to conclude that the denial of civil rights is worse than the hypothetical danger of admitting homosexuals into normal society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:41 AM

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

The homosexual lobby is strong and controls media and entertainment, they have bullied and coersed the public into a tacit tolerance of homosexual practice and will continue to do so....with the help of "liberal" activists until all voices against have been silenced.

Unfortunately for them, the health statistics tell a very different story.....that there is something very wrong with the homosexual lifestyle.

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

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

If you dont care, and want to continue integration regardless....you are doing no service to homosexuals, your political ideals mean more to you than the deaths of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:50 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ake:

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

take care all

jade x x x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A


A

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

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

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

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

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

Condemned by your own posts. Case closed!!

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the medieval belief in "spontaneous generation."

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

take care all

jade x x x

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

jade x x x

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

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

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

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

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

Ake:

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


A

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

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

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

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

####

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

And NONE of them have AIDS.

So much for spontaneous generation.

Don Firth

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

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


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

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

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


A

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK by me.

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

:)

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

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

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

Hold on......

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

WHOOOOAAAAAAAAA! 2000!

Incredible.

But always remember this....