BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM

How so??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM

A civil status is being unequally administered on the basis of a pre-judgement concerning a personal attribute. The civil status needs to be administered equitably. What is so hard to understand about that? We are not talking about religion or any other form of sanctimony, thank you. We are talking about civil statuses and who may enjoy them or not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:53 PM

"We KNOW that it is NOT genetic, That's been beaten around earlier in this thread.....So, what is it???"

No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't. But there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that gender orientation IS genetic. The specific gene or genes have not been isolated yet, but the basic principles of genetics established by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century definitely point to this being the case.

I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be. Only a small percentage of genes in general have actually been isolated and identified as to their function, and the project is on-going. Trying to claim that gender-orientation is not genetic is way premature and no reputable geneticist would ever make that claim.

No matter how much you, personally, wish it to be true.

Also, attempts to "cure" homosexuality have been a dismal failure, usually resulting in high rates of recidivism, or recipients of these "cures" simply abandoning sexual activity entirely, which is hardly evidence of a successful cure. A fairly large percentage of the latter wind up suffering from serious depression, and there has been a fairly high rate of suicides by supposedly "cured" homosexuals.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

Amos Lightfoot: "A civil status is being unequally administered on the basis of a pre-judgement concerning a personal attribute.

Civil status, such as marriage, can not be with held do to race, creed, or color. Civil status, and the statutes regarding them are determined, by democratic process. That vote has never passed.

Perhaps we should be run by the courts, and their interpretation?...and if that was the case, under what grounds do you make an exception? Race, creed or color?? Preference??..of any kind??

Nobody, even our illustrious Mr. Firth, has been able to produce ANYTHING in which Homosexuals, should get preferential treatment, and/or exceptions to the law.

Donny Firth: "No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't. But there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that gender orientation IS genetic. The specific gene or genes have not been isolated yet, but the basic principles of genetics established by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century definitely point to this being the case.

I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be."


That is speculation. Since when have 'civil rights' issues, regarding the law, are passed on speculation?????

You need to do a bit better....shit, let's speculate that 2012 everything is going to be destroyed..and pass a law that we party till then, at government expense!!..EQUALLY!!

Nope!..Bad foundation to build a case on!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:05 PM

You know, after I posted my last post, I re-read Firth's again...let me comment:

First: ""No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't.""

Just think about your statement..."WE do NOT know"...so in my mind I don't want to believe it?????
Actually, I'd rather believe in what we DO know!!..How about you, Mr. Fantasy?

Mr. Fantasy First: "I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be."

Now you're a 'geneticists'....I thought you were a radio news guy, who just read what they gave you??....When did you promote yourself?..or is that just more of your 'fantasy speculations'?????

I can't believe that you want to go through this again...but then, just because it's you, maybe you do!!!

(Symptoms of psychotic, includes doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results...in other words, They just don't learn, from repeated mistakes!!)

Suggestion: Relax, just read the mail.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:26 PM

Rave on, little critter. There is ample evidence that gender orientation is indeed genetic to make the civil rights issue valid. You can be as snotty and insulting as you want, but it still doesn't make you right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM

I wasn't being 'snotty'...I was quoting you...and trying to make sense of it.

Look, chances are the 'marriage' ban will be lifted, but it would only come as a twisting of the law, as it stands. It doesn't make it right, but it IS agenda driven...not by rule of law.

That's what is called 'corruption'!

OK, back to your genetics research, Doc!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM

actually.....research HAS closed in on the issue

and more

Took me 15 seconds to find 2 quick articles. Many others out there...yes, including from those who do not WISH to believe the science, just as they do not WISH to believe in Global Climate Change caused by humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:32 PM

Wow. Interesting finding. Especially: "By using all these variables, we were able to predict sexual orientation in 95 per cent of the cases," she said.

It sounds like they are zeroing in on it.

I have a friend who is gay, as is his sister. Their brother is not.

Interesting stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:08 PM

Ah-HAH!!!

Try THAT on your little ukulele, GoofuS!!

Thanks, Bill! I felt sure they'd nail it sooner or later.

Don Firth

P. S. And you were being snotty, GfS. And childishly so. The idiot games you keep playing with my name when your back is against the wall is worthy of a petulant second grader.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:35 PM

GfS- What age were you when you chose to be heterosexual? You must surely remember such a momentus decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:43 PM

Besides-- what is special privilege about the right to have one's union with another recognized under law? We of the hetero persuasion take it for granted as a right.

Why should it be denied on the basis of sexua orientation?

And why are we doing Groundhog Day on this discussion?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 11:36 PM

That link was no more PROOF that it is genetic than the Popsicle man going by. Don Firth's posted link earlier was a study done after, the date on the link, posted more recently. That study confirms that it has not been isolated to a gene,..and it was done by a homosexual researcher. For that, I give him credit, for not having his outcome determined by his 'preference'.

As to the law, a black man and woman heterosexual, having a child,will have a black child....But in your thinking, a hetero man, and a hetero woman, will bear a combination of mutated cells, grouped together, to make a homosexual. THAT is the sticking point, boys and girls...and California is delaying lifting the ban, as of yesterday, because that very issue has been raised, among others, and now the Constitutionality is being challenged. The Ninth Federal Appeals Court agrees, and now the question goes on.

So, AH-HA, nothing. You are prematurely reading into what the link is saying, and the courts have not found that argument to be conclusive.

However, as I have said before, and continue to say, and I am accurate, the receptors can be conducive in grouping genes together,
in the womb, depending on the Mother, and her responses, and emotional state(if you will). The Mother and child are linked together, and those impulses are set up, during gestation.

Now, I've said that before, and whether or not homosexuality is looked upon as a moral issue as not, does not change that FACT!.
Can the same be said about pedophiles? ....or polygamists?....bestiality??..celibates??...necrophiliacs?...any number of sexual 'preferences'. It's just that this one has everyone emotionally whacked over it.

I'm sure the courts will have all that at their disposal.....until then.....

Objectively,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 11:56 PM

Seems clear ya don't know much about recessive genes or adaptation.

In any case, there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that it is not a matter of an act of will. So why legislate against it? That's just stupid, like legislating against tooth decay.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:03 AM

"Now, I've said that before, and whether or not homosexuality is looked upon as a moral issue as not, does not change that FACT!.
Can the same be said about pedophiles? ....or polygamists?....bestiality??..celibates??...necrophiliacs?...any number of sexual 'preferences'. It's just that this one has everyone emotionally whacked over it."

You cannot possibly lump all those together. It would be too insanely ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:47 AM

Where do bisexuals stand in all of this, is it the genes or a case of having their cake and eating it as well so to speak?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 10:18 AM

Like most other things in this world, sexual orientation is a spectrum, with some people completely one or the other and most people somewhere in between. Bisexuals are closer to the middle of the spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM

That is the most idiotic post I've read for some considerable time, 10:18am.
Homos and Bis are compose a tiny part of the "spectrum", the vast majority are heterosexuals,with normal sexual impulses.

If that were not the case, prospects for the continuation of the human race would be bleak indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:31 AM

Your VAST majority is typical distribution along a Gaussian curve, Ake. A bell-curve. JP's point is probably true--pure hetros are the ctral peak of the bell, and bi-sexuals to either side. It depends, of course on what you are charting and how you go about it. Nothing idiotic about it!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

Sanity is perfectly correct, if the scientists were anywhere close to isolating a homosexual gene, it would be trailed across the "liberal" media daily. It just does not exist, if it did exist, it would be the simplest thing in the world to isolate, given the "progress" made in genetic research over the past decade.

Sanity is also correct to question why "rights" should be granted to one behavioural minority and not all.

Marriage rights are denied to couples in incestuous relationships and many other types of sexual relationships...health grounds are cited.....I would submit that incestuous sexual relationships if not used for the production of children, are much less dangerous to health than the lifestyle of the average homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

You are quite right, but the avoidance of fertility is much harder to guarantee in incestuous marriages. Both my sisters were quite fertile, for example. (Not that I was even tempted!) SDame sex marriages are quite safer. And I woudl say to you once again that you really need to differentiate -- the health hazard is not caused by marriage and in fact is lessened by it. So you are defeating your own bias here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:48 PM

"That is the most idiotic post I've read for some considerable time, 10:18am.
Homos and Bis are compose a tiny part of the "spectrum", the vast majority are heterosexuals,with normal sexual impulses.

Good grief! JohnP's post didn't claim anything about total numbers!
"closer to the middle of the spectrum" refers to the position, relative to other configurations.

Of course, heterosexuality in more common! Genetics just determines occasional variations, like white tigers and very tall people!

Ake and GfS strike me as persons who are emotionally sure they know the 'truth', and therefore shove everything they read into some logical pattern that 'fits' what they are already convinced of.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM

"A safe lifestyle"?.....I think not

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:10 PM

Sorry, try again

Link to article

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:21 PM

C D C F A C T S H E E T
1 JUNE 2010
FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED...."HIV and AIDS among
Gay and Bisexual Men....CDC JUNE 2010.
Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all
races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in
which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of
new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000
MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
t MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Black
MSM
White
MSM
Black
Heterosexual
Women
Black
Female
IDUs
Hispanic
Heterosexual
Women
White
Heterosexual
Women
Black
Male
IDUs
Hispanic
MSM
Black
Heterosexual
Men
13,230
10,130
5,360
7,340
3,290
2,310 2,010 1,910 1,470
number of new hiv infections
subpopulation
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
Estimates of New HIV Infections, 2006, by Race/Ethnicity, Risk Group, and Gender for the Most Affected U.S. Subpopulations*
*Subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this chart.
Gay and bisexual men of all races and black heterosexuals account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
1 The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection,
rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
C D C F A C T S H E E T
2 JUNE 2010
t According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any
other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected
subgroups in the U.S.
t The primary ages at which MSM become infected differ by race:
• Young Black MSM: Most new infections among black MSM occur among young black MSM. In fact, there are more
new HIV infections among young black MSM (aged 13–29) than among any other age and racial group of MSM.
The number of new infections among black MSM in this age group is roughly twice that of their white and Hispanic
counterparts (5,220 infections in blacks vs. 3,330 among whites and 2,300 among Hispanics).
• White MSM in their 30s and 40s: Most new infections among white MSM occur among those aged 30–39 (4,670),
followed by those aged 40–49 (3,740).
• Young Hispanic MSM: Among Hispanic MSM, most new infections occur in the youngest (13–29) age group (2,300),
though a substantial number of new HIV infections also occur among those aged 30–39 (1,870).
White Black Hispanic†
13–29
30–39
40–49
>50
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
–
Estimated Number* of New HIV Infections in Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group,
United States, 2006
* Incidence estimates are adjusted for reporting delays and reclassification of cases reported without a known risk factor for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but not for underreporting
† Non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks are referred to as white and black, respectively. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race
Note: The "I" bars denote the data range for each confidence interval
t A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected
did not know it.
• Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with
HIV than other MSM.
• Among all of those who were infected, about half were unaware of their HIV status. Results were particularly
alarming for black MSM and young MSM, with more than two-thirds of infected black MSM, and nearly 80 percent
of infected young MSM (aged 18–24), unaware that they were infected.
t AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 279,000 MSM
with AIDS have died.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM

Yes, Ake...those are **statistics** which may be fact..(I haven't any opinion on the details),,..

But those statistics, even if they are absolutely accurate, have no bearing on morality, or who ought to be allowed to marry...etc.

They DO tell you that you should be careful taking a chance on wild one-time experiments with known persons in certain categories.. ☺ ... you will be careful, hmmm?

They also make clear that those IN such categories should be very, very careful of specific behavior and habits.

I'm sorry, but you have at some point jumped from something YOU don't like and disapprove of, to judgments about character or morality.

...and there ARE statistics that make clear that gay men in monogamous, stable relationships as close to marriage as they can manage are far less likely to contract AIDS...less even than many straight folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 04:57 PM

If some sexual minorities are disallowed "rights"on health issues, why should the demographic with the wost record on sexual health be granted those "rights"

It is also illogical to extrapolate that I "don't like" (hate) homosexuals, from my stance against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe and normal lifestyle,

I am sorry that the behaviour associated with homosexual practice has such a devastating affect on the lives of so many young men.

I am angry with political factions which are happy to see the suffering continue for their own selfish purposes(the pretence that all is well in the homosexual community), to justify "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:08 PM

Preventing kids with four arms and sexually transmitted diseases are both "health" issues in completely different ways. They're not the least bit related. Even if they were, letting gays marry makes for LESS risk of STDs, not more. Unless -- wait, I know your prejudices well. You're going to say that those queers just can't keep it in their pants even if they are married. (Unless heteros, who are perfectly monogamous.) Why did I bother to type this? A tiger can't change its spots and a homophobe can't change its prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:09 PM

I thihnk it goes without saying that promiscutiy mukltiplies the vectors of STDs in ANY population.

Marriage, of course, tends to reduce the rate of promiscuous sexual encoutners and reduce dramatically the number of partners.

It should be obvious even to you, therefore that allowing same sex couples to marry is a good act of social betterment, no?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

Bill......."and there ARE statistics that make clear that gay men in monogamous, stable relationships as close to marriage as they can manage are far less likely to contract AIDS...less even than many straight folks."

I see nothing logical in that statement.

The statistics from Scandinavia which I linked to way further up the thread prove conclusively that the vast majority of homosexuals have no wish for monogamy or marriage, the take up rate is extremely low, you are simply cherry picking a few cases, whereas the stats say that for the majority of homosexuals, promiscuous hedonism goes with the territory.

"Monogamous homosexuals are less likely to contract AIDS than many straight folks".....not very concise or scientific is it Bill?

Looks a little like personal opinion(or belief) to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM

The statistics from Scandinavia which I linked to way further up the thread prove conclusively that the vast majority of homosexuals have no wish for monogamy or marriage, the take up rate is extremely low,

So if so few are going to get married anyway, what harm is there in letting them do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

I'll tell you what the "harm" is!
The "harm" is the unnecessary sickness and death of thousands of young men, simply because it is not in the interests of the "liberal" lobby to investigate properly the obvious link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids

Richard Bridge and his ilk would call a proper medical inquiry.....oppression!

I call allowing young people to die for political advantage murder!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

My Gawd, GfS and Ake! You two guys are pathetic! All the facts in the world and you two clutch onto your beloved misconceptions all the harder. It's like trying to reason with a couple of rocks!

Waste of time. Live on in ignorance. But be aware that, like flat-earthers, no matter what you want to believe, the world is not the way you wish it were.

####

I remember an old movie cartoon, one of Wile E. Coyote's first appearances. Rather than the roadrunner, Wile E.'s quarry was Bugs Bunny. Not really an even match in the brains department! At one point, having been flummoxed several times by Bugs, Wile E. was sitting in a dynamite shack and making booby traps by boring out the middle of carrots and stuffing them with dynamite.

Suddenly, the shack begins to shudder, as if there were an earthquake. Wile E. looks out the one window, but he can't see anything in the dark. He goes back to work. But what you see is that Bugs has the shack hooked up to a tractor and he's dragging it onto the railroad tracks.

A few minutes later, as Wile E. continues making booby traps out of carrots, he hears a train whistle, very loud! Again, he looks out the window and sees the light from a locomotive engine swiftly bearing down on him!

He turns and looks at the audience with a silly, nervous smile and beads of perspiration breaking out on his brow, then reaches out and pulls down the window blind.

Then— Ka-BOOM!!!

Think of it this way, GoofuS and Ake:    You are Wile E. Coyote. Bugs Bunny represents Facts. The train is the Real World!

You two make quite credible cartoon figures.

But when you want to deny a whole category of people their civil rights, you're not all that amusing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 07:07 PM

Mousethief you seem to be saying(correct me if i'm wrong), that homos are no more promiscuous than heteros?

If this is your belief, would you mind explaining to me why homos are 44times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heteros....is there some other vector?.....Do you know something that we do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

Mousethief you seem to be saying(correct me if i'm wrong), that homos are no more promiscuous than heteros?

No, I am not. That's what you think I'm saying because that's the only claim you have an answer to. Allowing gays to marry is NOT going to make them any more promiscuous, and arguably will make them less so. Hence the level of "health" harm is at least a wash. Hence there is no good reason to deny them this right.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 09:27 PM

Within my wider social circle (including church), there are some five gay male couples who have been in stable relationships for years, in one case, over thirty-five years. At least two of these couples were married in church ceremonies, and are considered married by their church and their friends, whether the laws of the State of Washington recognizes their marriages or not.

One gay man is a member of the writers' group my wife and I belong to, and he and his partner have been together in a stable relationship for at least five years that I know of.

None of them has HIV/AIDS.

####

I find the only web sites that substantiate Ake's figures and GfS's contention that gender orientation is a matter of choice, hence curable with therapy, are sites such as NARTH, "the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," and a number of religious sites, including the Mormon Church, which was largely behind California's Propostition 8, and which also tried to push a proposition in Washington State to overturn a recently passed law allowing same-sex domestic partnerships. It lost in the election. Some of the anti-gay web sites are downright rabid, and display little regard for scientific evidence or rational thought. Not unlike our resident homophobes.

Two questions usually raised by opponents of the genetic basis of same-sex orientation:   since homosexuals rarely if ever sire or bear children, why doesn't homosexuality simply die out? The opponents maintain that this proves that homosexuality is not genetic, but a matter of choice. And why is it that the "homosexual gene" seems to be so elusive? Because, they maintain, it doesn't exist. Marked differences in brain structure in homosexual males has been established, but this fact is simply ignored.

Okay, both questions are answered by the fact that the "homosexual gene" is carried by one or more females in the family into which the homosexual male is born. And the gene in question seems to relate to an inconsistency, or "mis-timing," in when particular hormones are released to the male fetus when the female in question is pregnant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 02:45 AM

The figures I presented, are not "mine" but were gathered by The Centre for Disease Control.

Are you saying that their statistics and conclusions are incorrect?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM

Are you saying that their statistics and conclusions are incorrect?

No, I'm saying your conclusions are incorrect. The story you posted doesn't draw any conclusions at all about gay marriage. In fact it doesn't make any distinctions at all as concerns gay men in or out of long-term relationships. It's just not intended to answer that question. Or, to put it bluntly, it's irrelevant.

It says MSM are most likely to get HIV/AIDS. Ya-boo. What a surprise. But let's put our thinking caps on. Which MSM are most likely to contract AIDS, the men who are in monogamous, long-term relationships, or the ones who are not? Hmm. Hmm. This is hard. Can I use my lifeline?

But the study doesn't differentiate between men in long-term relationships, or not. Or indeed doesn't talk about any walk-of-life decisions at all. Nor does it support your view that if we allow gays to marry, it will increase the number of them contracting HIV/AIDS.

In fact, when it comes right down to it, this data has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of gay marriage. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Nichyego.

Why? Because it's just about MSM as an undifferentiated group. But the question of gay marriage has to do with differentiation: gay men who want to be married and monogamous, and gay men who do not.

And yes, I know, you've said there are all too few gay men who really want to be married. And I keep asking you why that's relevant, and you keep not answering.

In fact you have given no reasons whatsoever why gay men who wish to, shouldn't get married. None. Not one.

And of course nothing you have to say has anything at all to say about whether Lesbians should be able to get married, because Lesbians' incidence of AIDS is so low as to be irrelevant.

Not that MSM's incidence of AIDS has anything to do with it either -- sorry to be sloppy about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 04:21 AM

Mousethief I agree that gays should be allowed to marry to lessen the risks of HIV. There is every possibility if two men really love and respect each other they would not want to risk their relationship by being unfaithfull the same as a faithfull hetero one. In a hetero relationship there is no guarantee about anyone's orientation or faithfullness men are very good at being secretive. For instance if the husband has been a closet gay for most of a hetero marriage and goes out seeking rent boys etc. unbeknown to his wife surely this is far more dangerous. This is one of the reasons I sort of distrust bisexuality because if the bisexual is promiscuous as well, be it man or woman surely that is like a ticking bomb waiting to go off.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 07:01 AM

You completely misunderstand my stance mousethief, either because you are slightly dim, or intentionally.

As I have said many many times, I am not anti homosexual that would be illogical, as homosexuals are a fact of life.

I have always been against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy and normal lifestyle by "liberal" govts, and "gay marriage" is part and parcel of that promotion.

The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.

We need an inquiry now into the link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids......normalisation of that practice will delay that inquiry and lead to more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:32 AM

promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy and normal lifestyle

First of all, for many people, it is. Furthermore, your revulsion about the lifestyle is not of standing regarding the civil rights issue.

It has nothing to do with promoting an issue and everything to do with setting a standard of equitable regard for human beings under the law.

I think your revulsion is exagerrated and under-informed, but its irrelevant in any case to the legal issue.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:04 AM

Amos my friend, please stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that I was revolted by the lifestyle....I am revolted by the deaths which it seems to cause, and the people who appear to think that the granting of equal rights makes up for those deaths.

You talk of equality, yet only a few posts ago we discussed the unequal treatment of sexual minorities.

The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated.

Homosexual marriage would not improve the aids figures to any significant degree, and by the process of normalisation of a very dangerous lifestyle ensure that the deaths continue at an ever increasing rate.

If this rate of infection among male homosexuals continues, an inquiry will be forced upon us, but in the meantime,young men will still be dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:06 AM

And finally, there is no "promotion" involved in the civil issue. What is being "promoted" is equality under civil law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

Ake does not seem to be making any real argument whatsoever against gay marriage. He just opposes it because he opposes it. Legalizing gay marriage will tend to lessen the spread of HIV/AIDS rather than increase it, so if he is really concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDs, he should be all in favor of promoting stable, monogamous relationships instead of opposing them. He therefore contradicts himself and gives the lie to his stated claims.

And the argument that GfS advances for prohibiting gay marriage is spurious in the extreme. He says that allowing gay marriage will deny gays the right to seek therapy for their "perversion." But gay marriage doesn't deny anybody anything. If anyone wishes to seek therapy, gay marriage certainly does not prevent them from doing so. He wishes to force people into therapy, whether they feel they need it or not. By what right?

It all boils down to simple homophobia. And their revulsion and disapproval is simply their problem, nobody else's. Not a good enough reason to deny a selected group of people their civil rights.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM

Sorry, ake, I'm not dim, but I think maybe you are after reading this:

The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated.

Um, so if only 10% of all Americans said they wanted "X" -- would that prove that the demand for "X" wasn't driven by those 10%, but by politics? That's stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:58 PM

"The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated."

Ake, when the gay marriage law was passed in California, some 18,000 gay couples got married before Proposition 8 was put forward (by the Mormon Church and other out-of-state religious groups) and passed*. And if the "take-up rate" seems small, the fact that most states don't allow it might have a lot to do with that.

And--the issue is not being driven by some "liberal cabal," it is being driven by homosexual men and women themselves, many of whom go ahead and have marriage ceremonies, often in churches, as a simple declaration--whether the local law recognizes their marriage or not.

The civil rights issue comes in because gay married couples, even though their friends, family, and churches recognize them as married, are not granted the same legal rights and privileges granted by the state to heterosexual married couples.

* And the fact that Prop. 8 was passed by a narrow margin of voters does not mean that Constitutional Democracy was truly in action. Civil rights issues should never be a matter of popular vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 12:20 PM

This is my stance in a nutshell...what do you not understand about it?

None of our opponents has even addressed it. I will repeat it for the final time, an say no more until someone posts more misleading rubbish.


"The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.

We need an inquiry now into the link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids......normalisation of that practice will delay that inquiry and lead to more deaths.

"Gay marriage" is part of the normalisation process."......Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 01:51 PM

Homosexual encounters do not cause HIV, Ake; they are a vector for passing it on. Anything which reduces the number of MMS contacts will obviously reduce the frequency of that vector and lower the hIV statistics.

And let me remind you that the original development o f HIV was not among homosexuals but was a case of a transported Scot in Africa buggering a chimp because he could find no sheep and had forgot his Wellies. But, it was a female chimp--nothing odd about him...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

lol, Amos


ake, just in case you are counting, "when the gay marriage law was passed in California, some 18,000 gay couples got married", that means that 36,000 people got married. That is not an insignificant number. It is about 5,000 more people than the entire population of Juneau, the capital city of Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 02:19 PM

Ah, heck. 2400