BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 07:47 AM

Smedley,

I disagree with you.

For the reasons I outlined in my last post I believe Ake is homophobic.

I see GfS as holding no particular point of view except that which is different to all others and which ensures she gets as much attention as possible.

I get a feeling that she has a good heart but is misguided. She'd probably be a lot of fun in the real world, but you'd have to be realistic about her unpredictable behaviour.

Ultimately, in my opinion, she just wants to be listened to and loved.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 07:34 AM

"are simply not sufficiently literate to put their concerns on homosexuality and its promotion into mainstream society"

There are no sexual health concerns mentioned on this thread that are exclusive to homosexuals.

What Ake calls the dangers of homosexuality are in fact the dangers of unsafe sex for people of all sexualities.

The fact that he insists on ignoring this fact shows that his point of view is not backed up by his own rationale.

Ake's rationale supports an argument in favour of safe sex over unsafe sex.

It says nothing about homosexuals.

Yet he continues to talk about unsafe sex as if it the preserve of Gay men.

He continues to assert that homosexuality is an unsafe practice, despite having no rationale or evidence to support this view.

This shows that he is more concerned with proving that homosexuality is a problem than he is with the issues raised by his rationale and by the evidence he has provided.


In other words he has a problem with gays.


His other contention is that homosexuality is "promoted" in schools.

Ask him how this is done and ask for examples.

You will get no response.

Are there stalls in schools where gay people ask passers by if they want to sign up?

What aspect of homosexuality is promoted?

Is it the bit that plagues Akes fetid imagination?

Are there bumming classes?

No.

Is there a lot of homophobia in schools?

Yes!

How do I know? I know numerous boys and girls in primary and secondary schools and calling someone Gay is a surefire way to get a laugh or to start a fight and a great way to victimize and ostracize someone regardless of whether they are gay or not.


My daughter is at school. (do you have kids Ake?)


My daughters school, and every other school in the country, teaches tolerance for all sectors of society.

They do this to combat the behaviour I have described.

In other words, they protect the civil rights of their pupils and their pupils families.

As I have said elsewhere on Mudcat, My daughters childminder looks after another child who has two mums.

I am aware of other children with the same type of family.

The school does not tolerate teasing or other ways in which children of gay couples are subjected to homophobia.

The schoool does not tolerate homophobia against gay couples by either children or homophobic parents.

I would add that I do not think there is such a thing as a homophobic child. Children are by nature open minded and accepting until taught to discriminate by a bigot.

Ake for example would happpily teach kids that gays are sick perverts who should be avoided.

His smokescreen and his homophobia are both utterly pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 06:11 AM

The word 'homophobe' does indeed trip too lightly off some tongues.

However, it still merits use on some occasions.

Although you and I, ake will never agree about sexuality matters, I do not think it is a word I could reasonably apply to you (your attitude towards homosexuality strikes me as being too, erm, complex to be so briskly labelled).

GfS, I fear, is another matter. And yes, I had one verbal swipe at GfS but plese don't highlight that at the expense of ignoring the other, longer & more reasonable points I have tried to put to that person.

Back in the 1970s, you may be interested to know, the word 'heterosexist' had some political currency, coined on the model of 'sexist' or 'racist', to denote a person or viewpoint that subscribed to a view in the innate superiority of heterosexuality. I always thought it was a more useful, flexible term than 'homophobic' but the latter won out.

And if you have never met genuine hatred of homos, then lucky old you. Things could have been different, I'd suggest, if you were one.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 05:47 AM

The word "homophobe" is overused Smedley.....as you probably know.

All the people that I have met, who could be loosely described as homophobic, are simply not sufficiently literate to put their concerns on homosexuality and its promotion into mainstream society, into a properly constructed argument, so they fall back into the use of abusive terms.......I have never come across anyone who has genuine hatred of homosexuals...maybe I've led a sheltered life.

Also referring to "sanity the beast" does not encourage intelligent debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 05:15 AM

GfS - here I go again, making points I know you'll ignore, but hey ho....

As a homosexual, I have never given very much thought at all as to whether my sexuality is genetic or not. It doesn't matter to me, honestly it doesn't. Interestingly, it seems to matter hugely to straight people, on both sides of this rancorous debate. (Indeed, I sometimes get concerned when liberal/'gay=friendly' straights try and argue on this turf - I fear you're playng into the hands of the homophobes, so be very careful.)

I don't care why I'm gay, I'm just happy that I am. I don't see myself as some sort of 'lab rat'. Whatever the balance of biological and societal factors, my sexual orientation is part of (but not the whole of) my core identity. Why should it matter to anyone how it happened ? Please explain why it interests you so much - I would be genuinely interested to know.

And as for the notion of 'changing' sexual orientation, this does happen - it happens (as I've said before) when individuals feel pressurised to change, in various 'directions', by political or religious or otherwise ideological beliefs. This does indeed challenge the 'it's all genetic' argument.

It also happens when people fall so much in love with someone that their previous sexual choices seem unsustainable.

Two of my best friends are women who live together in the most loving relationship that I know. When they met, one was married to a man, the other recently separated from a husband. Both had two children. Neither had ever had same-sex relationships before. Even now they don't use the word 'lesbian' to describe themselves, unless others insist that they do.

Eighteen years later, they are still together. Everyone in the scenario is very contented, even the former husbands, apart from one of the women's daughters. I feel for her and I'm sorry that she can't find it to accept how things are, but in my view she has no right to elect herself the sole adjudicator on how her mother chooses to be happy.

I know, GfS, that you would instinctively zooom in on that one angry and unsupportive person & prioritise her wishes above everyone else. And this is because you always, always put the happiness of heterosexuals above the happiness of others. You are irretrievably prejudiced that way. You cannot take off those blinkers. You seem trapped in a mindset premised on venom and retribution. I feel sorry for you.

I have gone on about this example because to me the matter of sexuality is not about statistics & percentages & 'science', it is about the almost-always-messy world of emotions and feelings and relationships. It's a complicated world out there. I think you should acknowledge that.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 12:22 AM

I think this thread would go a lot more smooth, if we could all stop projecting what each other think, and re-acting to those presumptions. Ake's position, which is 'after the fact', about health issues, while being a valid concern, is not the sole concern, as he has stated in the
prop 8 thread. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that when he posted the health issues, and the AIDS/HIV stats, the thread got detoured, into those arguing if he was saying AIDS was caused by homosexuals, which, of course he did not say, nor is it true. So everyone starts re-acting to that argument, and insulting each other, when is people had just read what he was posting, ABOUT THAT SUBJECT, ALONE, there should have not been much controversy....but because things are taken out of context, misquoted, and argued defensively, instead of just taken in, we end up with these divisions...instead of building upon, and more insights shared.

As to myself, and asked why, the subject is of interest to me....originally, in the Prop 8 thread, I specifically stated, BEFORE, I offered an opinion, that I reserved offering one, unless I could dialogue with someone who was truly educated, on the subject...because I am!....Though the focus of my practice, did not focus on that issue exclusively, I did NOT want to engage with those who primarily were unschooled on the subject, other than their 'feelings' about it!..............which outcome is certainly obvious to what this has evolved into.

How come, with the max. of 2% of homosexuals being that way from birth, do ALL homosexuals claim they were of that 2%???...What about the remaining 98%???

Why do people INSIST on it being genetic, when the scientist conducting the studies, say that that is NOT conclusive???...nor can find the gene???

Why do homosexuals INSIST they had 'no choice', until they get out of it?????..and 'renounce' it???

How can homosexuality be such a brain lock, and yet an emotion, such as 'fear', as said by Don Firth, perhaps 'fear of going to hell', and they snap out of it????.......How come people don't 'snap INTO' it?

I've got more thought provoking questions....and that being said, I'm NOT ATTACKING homosexuals, or homosexuality, but I'm hoping that you THINK these questions through, BEFORE expounding some of your 'brilliant' expertise....because. frankly, some of you are making embarrassing asses of yourselves....respectfully, of course.

How, in San Francisco, can city government employees, can get sex change operations paid for with tax dollars, which include counseling how to cope with the operation, and gender 'transformation'...but you can't get them to pay for counseling, if you're feeling those tendencies, have a family, with children, and DON'T want to become homosexual...lose your marriage, and family???......Because some political hack says you have no choice, and can't change?????....Now whose CIVIL RIGHTS are being denied??????

Something to think about!
Learn HOW TO THINK...NOT WHAT TO THINK!!!!!!!!

Without attacking anyone,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 08:26 PM

"the dangers of promoting homosexuality as a safe and healthy lifestyle."

Who has promoted homosexuality as a safe and healthy lifestyle?

And where?


Smedley, you will note that even if I get an answer to the first question, I will definitely get none for the second.


"Marriage is to be redefined to accomodate homosexuality."


Can someone define marriage?


Are there exceptions to the rule?


Why are these ignored in heterosexuals but focussed on in homosexuals?


"This promotion is in fact a tactic to turn what should be a health issue into a political issue."


What promotion?


Where?


And how does it turn a health issue into a political issue?



The health issue is SAFE SEX and UNSAFE SEX


Bringing in sexuality makes it a political issue.


That means you Ake.



You are fixated on Gay Sex in an unhealthy way.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 08:09 PM

"The civil rights issue emerges as soon as a whole vast machinery of prejudices, discriminations and inequalities are imposed on me because of what I feel (less so than once, but progress is fragile and contextual), but are not imposed on you because of what you feel."


IMO, that is the single best post on this thread. Brilliant, Smedley.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 07:27 PM

"I am addressing the health issues associated with homosexual practice, and the dangers of promoting homosexuality as a safe and healthy lifestyle.Marriage is to be redefined to accomodate homosexuality."


Safe sex = healthy


Unsafe sex = unhealthy


Risks of unsafe sex = AIDS/HIV, HPV, Ghonnorhea, Syphillis, Chlamydia.


Those at the greates risk from AIDS are Gay men.

Those at the greatest risk from the rest are adolescent girls and young women.


HIV can become AIDS and kill you.

HPV can cause cervical cancer and kill you.

Neither can currently be cured but remain in your system till you die.




Ake's solution = to teach that homosexuality is not healthy.



The issue he deliberately distorts to excuse his homophobia is that of sexual health.


He deliberately ignores STI's in young women and AIDS in Africa.


Inconvenient evidence is ignored.


The same mantra is peddled again and again.



Ake    Some people are Gay .... Get over it!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 06:41 PM

HIV had its origins in African primates and is believed to be transmitted to humans by the bite of monkeys, especially humans who were hunting monkeys to sell illegally as "bush meat." The virus is transmitted from one human to another in bodily fluids. This can, and does, include by blood transfusion, which is why blood banks carefully screen blood doners. During both homosexual AND heterosexual sex, bodily fluids are exchanged. This is what makes HIV a venereal disease—but not exclusively a venereal disease, since it can be transmitted non-sexually.

HIV is NOT spontaneously created by homosexual practices. The concept of "spontaneous generation" (the idea that life forms such as mice, flies, and other vermin are created by heaps of rubbish or garbage, when in actually the vermin existed before the rubbish heap did and were attracted to it, not created by it) is totally untenable. Many scientists, including Louis Pasteur in 1859, proved that not only does this not happen, but that it is biologically impossible.

Male homosexual activity does not create the AIDs virus. This is a scientific fact that one of the debaters here absolutely refuses to accept.

One very effective way to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDs (in addition to the careful screening of blood—and, for that matter, organ—doners) is to strive to reduce the combination of unprotected sex and promiscuous sex. One way (embraced by many gays and lesbians themselves) is to encourage stable, monogamous relationship among gays and lesbians in the same way that stable relationships are encouraged among heterosexuals in order to reduce the spread of venereal disease AND the incidence of unwanted children conceive accidentally, along with, of course, the idea of the immorality of conjugal relations "without the benefit of clergy."

Consider the documented and demonstrated enthusiasm of the gay/lesbian community for the idea of the legalization of same/sex marriage (despite the unsupported denial of those who oppose the idea). This enthusiasm is shown by gays and lesbians themselves, and is not the product of the fictional "liberal establishment, dragging gays and lesbians kicking and screaming" postulated by at least one or more of the anti-same-sex marriage debaters.

As to the "causes" of same-sex orientation, although a "gay gene" per se has not yet been isolated, the evidence is certainly there that it is a hereditary characteristic has been pretty solidly established by the same methods that Gregor Mendel demonstrated in the mid-1800s. Same-sex orientation appears to run in families, same as eye-color or other hereditary characteristics, and in the case of male homosexuality, there are indications, as Ebbie points out, that the hereditary factor is transmitted by some members of the female side of an extended family.

Mendel establish what happens, and now, geneticists are establishing the mechanisms by which it happens.

Another connection with the female side is that the expectant mother does not release the necessary hormones to the fetus at the appropriate time in its development. Thus, although the Y chromosome determines the child's physical structure as a male, the mis-timed hormones determines the child's sexual orientation as female.

In short, geneticists looking for a "gay gene" may have been looking in the wrong place. The male homosexual may not carry the gay gene, the gay gene may have been carried by his mother.

Advocates of the "gender orientation is simply a matter of choice" school of thought may cavil at the fact that although these findings are not yet solidly accepted by all biologists and geneticists, they are accepted by a large number of them.

If the advocates of the idea that gender orientation is a matter of "choice" were honest about it, they would have to concede that there is far less evidence for their position than there is for the contention that gender orientation is determined by hereditary factors.

When the Central Lutheran Church congregation was discussing whether or not to adopt the "Affirmation of Welcome" in its entirety (including the gender orientation phrase), a gay acquaintance of mine said, "Considering that being gay can get you discriminated against, made fun of, hated, beat up, and even killed, why on earth would a person choose to be gay?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 05:38 PM

Ake, once again I refute the notion that 'causation' is at all relevant, except to those who still wish to stigmatise and (by implication) eradicate. I'll start being interested in what caused my sexuality once I've seen large numbers of heterosexuals do the same.

The whole 'cause' thing is (to interpret it kindly) a red herring, or (to be more suspicious) a strategy of persisting in discrimination.

I don't, by the by, need remindig of the havoc caused by HIV; I'm certain I've lost more friends to the virus than you have.

And as for your worries about homosexuality being 'normalised', it doesn't need to be, as it's already normal. It's what my normal self normally is, every normal day of my normal life.

It's just as normal as heterosexuality, or bisexuality. It is, however, less common.

I'm well aare that I can never persuade you or The Sanity Beast of this view, but on reflection I'm not primarily writing these posts for you. It's more a case that I would hate some poor conflicted soul who is in any sort of turmoil over being gay to read your posts (and even more so those of GfS) without some sort of measured, reasonable, queer response being offered as a counter-voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Ebbie, away from home, house/dog sitting
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 04:43 PM

I recently read a book that explored the 'causes' of same sex attraction and, given that most homosexual people don't propagate, why male (Female homosexuality has not been seriously studied) homosexuality has not died out

I don't have the book to hand - I am not home - but there were two hypotheses put forth:

1) It is possible that the 'gene' is carried in the female siblings of a homosexual male and transmitted to their own progeny to emerge farther down the line. There is some evidence to support that possibility.

2) The other postulation is that homosexual males have been persecuted, for generations, so that it has not been safe to come out, and therefore many men have married and had children, never daring to live openly according to their own desires. That, of course, does not mean that these closeted men have not had homosexual contacts- just look at some recent infamous examples of that- nor does it address bi-sexuality.

But they concluded that if #2 turns out to be the correct answer, the possibility exists that the incidence of homosexuality will decline as it becomes safer.

Speaking of 'safer', ake, you bang on about the "horrendous" health risks that homosexuals face- but I have never heard you say a word about hang-gliding, ice-climbing, mountain-climbing, or bungee jumping, or even the most dangerous activity of all: commercial fishing. You might even say that it is catching, since many children of the risk takers take up the same lifestyle.

For that matter, many children of obese parents also become obese, What should we do about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 03:08 PM

Smedely...Not to speak for Sanity who is well able to handle the arguments of anyone here, but dont you think the "liberal" establishment is much more obsessed with "same sex love" than either Sanity or I.
Sanity is addressing the "causes" of homosexuality because the "gay" lobby insists homosexuality is genetic, without one shred of evidence.
I am addressing the health issues associated with homosexual practice, and the dangers of promoting homosexuality as a safe and healthy lifestyle.Marriage is to be redefined to accomodate homosexuality.
This promotion is in fact a tactic to turn what should be a health issue into a political issue.
As I have said many times sexual minorities are not all treated with "no prejudice" nor should they be if the welfare of these same minorities and society at large is to mean anything at all

Before anything is normalised the reasons for the abysmal male homosexual health figures must be discovered.
If the present increase in the male homosexual Hiv/aids figures continues for say another five years, would you still maintain that no action needs to be taken(the why dont you leave us alone syndrome)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 02:07 PM

GfS, much as I am reluctant to engage with you during the season of goodwill, can I ask you why you are so obsessed with the 'cause' of sexuality ?

Or to be more precise, with the cause of *my* sexuality.

All I know & care about is that as soon as I had sexual desires, they were focused on people of the same gender as myself. I dare say you feel likewise about the other-sex pull of your heterosexuality. Why are you so incessantly desperate to deny that simple and easy to grasp pont ?

The civil rights issue emerges as soon as a whole vast machinery of prejudices, discriminations and inequalities are imposed on me because of what I feel (less so than once, but progress is fragile and contextual), but are not imposed on you because of what you feel.

Fundamentally, that is the basic issue at stake here, despite your ceaseless blustering.

The only cause I would be interesting in fathoming is whatever causes your monomaniacal obsession with same-sex love.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM

I have just read GfS lengthy post and can see where he is on this now better. But, Gfs, whether whoever is right or wrong about if it is genetic or a choice (Icertainly do not think it a 'condition'), and if it is that people will do as they will, straight or gay, just because they may be horny and not actually be in love, why should any of them be actively discriminated against?

My basic premise, is that ALL people deserve to be treated with respect and true EQUAL RIGHTS (that does not necessarily mean we treat all people the same but that we treat everyone with no prejudice) and that we make allowances for all the diversities that exist out there. So, on the grounds of race, religion, gender, disability, sexuality, etc., etc., no-one should be singled out.

In essence this is not about whether people are born a certain way. It is about treating various sections of the human race less favourable because they do not conform, cannot conform or are different to the so called majority. That can never be right.

I, say, we aqs folk singers actively discriminated against people who saing, say, country and western - gave them different set of lasw and rights - we would think that so very bad and wrong. We ALL share music, but we all have different tastes. Much of that is down to choice I guess. I still think in the case of sexuality it is not a choice but, even so, why should someone who is homosexual be tretaed differently than someone who is straight? And if they choose to have a one night stand then so what? Straight people do it all the time. And those who want to be married should be able to do so without the fibre of society feeling threatened by their inclusion. For that is what EQUAL RIGHTS is all about, make no mistake... it is about inclusion of minorities (if they wish to be included) and not exclusion.

Why do so many people struggle with that actual concept? I know I have equally made a long answer. It is on the things covered in your post not not aimed at you. It is a general reply.

I keep saying I will not make any more replies to this thread but still feed I need to to try to find some ground on which we can all agree and not feel so diametrically opposed on both sides. The sad fact is that this has been the case for years and I fear for some time to come. It most certainly is not about me wanting to attack anyone with a different view or opinion or about me being right (though obviously I have made a stand on a given side of this). Me being right is not important. Treating people right is. That is what matters.

Hope you all had a great Christmas :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 11:50 AM

Don Firth,
I'm sorry...I got the two Dons confused. Don Firth, I thought I was posting, in reply to you, and it was Don T.
That being said, I hope the post covers a few points we were addressing. I'm sorry, again, my mistake.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 09 - 11:46 AM

Don:"This is not politics! It is not pro-Gay propaganda! It is a matter of civil liberty, and civil rights under the law."

I hope this addresses your post.....
IF,(big 'IF"), the homosexual question, is a matter of being born that way (genetic, but unsubstantiated, and never proven), then, in deed, that is one issue. But in all the studies, even the ones you posted, those ACTUALLY BORN, with a condition, is no more than 2%,...and as low as .2%. This is not a matter of race, creed or color, or even national origin.
Now, if people are 'adopting' that claim, then it is THEM, that are infringing with other people's civil rights, by co-opting those who are truly born with homosexual leanings, to accommodate an acquired preference, either by choice, or by immaturity. Face it, whether hetero, or homo, people are far more inhibited about admitting who and why they chose to have sex with, and for what reason. Couldn't it be something as simple as they were just horny, and leave out the 'ennobled' crap about being 'in love', when after all, they were just 'in heat'??? Like it, or not, let's not feed each other a line of hogwash, which amounts to not much more than bar talk!...and make a 'civil rights' issue of it!!!!
Now if people want to live together, and do whatever they do, that is their own business. If, or when they want 'out', or want to go 'straight', which happens, contrary to your position, but inconsistent with the FACTS, as noted by several posts, including your own, then it is YOUR position, politically, that would DENY them help, or counseling. How is that equal civil rights???????

I think getting to the cause(s), is far more constructive than beating this issue, ad 'infinitum', and ad 'nauseum', and getting nowhere.

You've stated repeatedly, that homosexuality, was irreversible, but posted posts, that say differently. Joe as well, as with myself. So, why apply the 'civil rights' issue to where it clearly does not apply??
I personally think you may be sincere, with your concerns, but to apply them here, I also think you are sincerely wrong.

I was going to address another post, regarding this, and now by jumping off to this, I think, unfortunately, that it may just turn into the needless bickering, instead of getting to any understanding, as we were before.
I think exploring what IS the CAUSE, is key, to coming to an understanding, just how much the premise is, in regards to whether this is truly a civil rights issue....and I would think, that would concern you.......unless I'm wrong, and you are just waving the civil rights banner anywhere for anything.....and I think you may be just a bit more intelligent than that!

So, let's look into the CAUSE, before we make any claim, as to a 'cure'(Amos), or whether, people can re-define marriage, just to suit their sexual fantasies.

Doesn't that seem to be a more logical, honest and intelligent approach, as opposed to irrational doling out of applying a civil rights posture, which in FACT, would end up DENYING them of their real civil rights????....and psychological/medical aid, for a condition, that the same political agenda denies existing??? This is a deceptive distraction, which has potentially dangerous consequences, that reach far beyond this issue. Think it through.
Sorry, the thread took this turn...but let's make the best of it, and hope cooler heads prevail!
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 06:24 AM

""May we go on??...with your imperial permission..or do we have to endure more of your off topic meanderings?""

If you would really like to move on and discuss the issues, how about giving your response to some of the questions which heretofore you have studiously ignored, in favour of attacking other posters for their style of writing or knowledge of the English Language?

A couple of examples are repeated below, the first, a question in response to a comment from Ake, to which, I already know, he will make no sensible reply. The second, a statement by me, which I consider self evidently true, in response to his persistent claim that homosexuals are, as a group, promiscuous, and uninterested in marriage.

1. Exactly how would permitting same sex marriage "undercut" the nature or function, or the "fundamental purpose" of heterosexual marriage?

That statement is arrant nonsense.

2. The number of marriages so far taken up is immaterial. Civil rights are not granted on the basis of how many citizens suffer discrimination, but rather on the basis of ensuring that no citizen suffers discrimination.

This is not politics! It is not pro-Gay propaganda! It is a matter of civil liberty, and civil rights under the law.

So Gfs, you said you wanted to discuss. Let's have your response to the questions posed, and not the writing style.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 03:22 AM

··· and even the chaste and straitlaced and the virgins with no urgin's ···

YULETIDE LOVINGS 2U ALL

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 02:38 AM

Yes indeed — straight and gay; wankers and spankers; oral and moral; standers and bedders and sex·in·the·headers —

A MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OUR READERS

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 02:14 AM

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 01:42 AM

Ake, you might want to actually read some of the articles. Several of them completely contradict what you keep saying. The Williams Institute is a department of the UCLA Law School that analyzes data about gays and lesbians. You might want to read the article where they state that 5% of the households in the United States are made up of same-sex couples.

And further:

LOS ANGELES -- A new study published today by UCLA's Williams Institute finds that same-sex couples eagerly take advantage of the ability to marry or form civil unions when presented with the opportunity. More than 85,000 couples have already signed up for legal recognition in eleven states--40% of all same-sex couples in these states.

I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find the rest of the article.

Have a happy Christmas. We're having a houseful of guests for Christmas, so I doubt I'll be around until afterward.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 07:01 PM

Hmmmm... why not? 3000. Makes more sense than the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 06:59 PM

Pfffftt.... why don't yout make 703 next... much more apprpriate... 3000 posts... unreal.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM

gnu....you didn't claim your 700......every little helps...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 06:20 PM

So, there are far less fags and dykes? What a revelation! Kinda makes one wonder what all the fuss is about then, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM

It should be clear from my link that the Williams Inst is funded in support of a "Gay and Lesbian academic programme", that is why I printed the link in the first place.

Why should an organisation which supports a "Gay and Lesbian programme", print DUBIOUS statistics against homosexual marriage take-up.....That proves to me my figures are correct, I would not be able to say the same about the figures quoted immediately above this post.
For a start, the Scandinavian figures are over a twenty year period as opposed to a much shorter period in the Californian figures.
Also my article states that when homosexual unions are first introduced, ther is something of a rush....this soon tails off and drops dramatically as time progresses.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 05:18 PM

No, Ake, I think you managed to smack yourself in the face with that one.

I browsed through several of the articles posted on the Williams Institute web site, and just about everything I read directly contradicted the assertions and statistics that you've been posting all this time. If you're referring to a specific article, you'd better point it out, because it certainly isn't leaping out at anyone.

In fact:    CLICKY!!

Wipe your nose, Ake. It's bleeding on your shirtfront.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 05:14 PM

Ake ... thats disgusting ... I mean I know you are prone to graphic and depraved fantasies, but whacking off in public ...


P.S. ... the link you have provided is a press release, not an independant synopsis.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 04:54 PM

WHACK!!! (wipes away the juice)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 04:51 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 04:18 PM

Look out, Ake! Here comes one of those pesky flies again!

I can't verify whether the figures in the article you linked to are actually accurate or not because I haven't been able to find a reliably unbiased second source that will verify them.

AND

The article has a definite thrust toward a conservative bias, which is not surprising, considering that the article was from The National Review Online. The National Review is the Conservative magazine was founded in 1955 by the late Conservative pundit, William F. Buckley, Jr., and describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

In the past, the magazine supported Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Pat Buchanan as Presidential candidates. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with such think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin in both the online and paper edition.

I would not accept anything found in this magazine unless I was able to find corroborating information from another, far less biased source.

Don Firth

(SWAT!!    Hah! Missed me again!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 03:50 PM

Hahahahaaaaa! Pretty widespread... heheheheeee. I prefer a finger, myself.

Come on PEOPLE! 703 posts are not that far away!

Wha? Oh. Check the last drawn out, assinine bunch of crap... it was 2297 posts. Surely you can make it to a combined 3000... and far beyond. I have faith in you.

Merry Kissmeass!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 02:15 PM

I think it time for someone to remind that heterosexual anal sex is pretty widespread too, as a variaiton [or even, I believe, with some couples, at least at one time, as a contraceptive device].

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 02:07 PM

Smedley I'll re-post the Scandanavian figures.....They are interesting, please read them, and if yo've time get back with your views....Ake


LINK

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 01:46 PM

Ake,



"This state of conditionality seems to blow a huge hole in the "gay rights" argument? "


Only if you look at it in a shallow facile way and have the agenda of proving an untenable position.


To compare Gay with Straight you also have to examine the motivation of straight couples.

You assert that its all about procreation.

Not always.

Once you go east of europe it becomes all about money.

Even within Europe, there is social pressure to get married.

Some people get married at the age of 80 for the sake of companionship.

etc etc etc etc ....

Most importantly perhaps, when a straight couple gets married, the world says "congratulations".

When a Gay couple gets married, the world has a debate.



Thats when people like you come out of the woodwork and start banging on about your fixation with anal sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 01:34 PM

Sorry Smedley, I meant to add that ones "civil rights" seem to depend more on how vociferous ones pressure group is, than on fairness and equality...Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 01:30 PM

Hello Smedley, Thank you for answering so concisely and civilly.

Just a couple of points; in my link further up the thread,I cited figures from Denmark, Norway and Sweden, countries which legalised homosexual unions up to twenty years ago.....these countries show the take up of homosexual unions to be very low in percentage terms compared to heterosexual.
The figures also appeared to show that the few homosexuals who opted for Union or Marriage, did so mainly for financial and benefit reasons rather than the traditional reasons, like "providing a stable environment to bring up children"
The researchers seemed to come to the conclusion that this amounted to "redefinition of marriage"

On civil rights and health issues, many here say that civil rights should be given to all equally regardless of health issues, but that does not happen in the real world....people of different sexes who engage in incest are forbidden by law to have sexual intercourse, to marry, or even to join in civil union, because of "related health issues". Mating between mother/offspring, father/offspring is extremely common in nature

These people are denied their "rights" because of "health issues", while the homosexual health figures on life expectancy, hiv/aids etc are equally bad, or worse.

So as I have been saying for months "rights" are not universal, but conditional. Denial of rights also applies to other groups who are deemed unsuitable, like people who are suffering from addictions or severe psychiatric problems.

This state of conditionality seems to blow a huge hole in the "gay rights" argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 11:33 AM

"The Archbishop of York (Ugandan Born) has condemned the Bill going through Ugandas parliament"

Well that's something nice to hear =)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM

Hey folks,

You might think I'm crazy, but I tthought I'd just return to tthe thread topic for a minute ... before the "gays are unnatural and weird perverts" mob comes riding back into town ...

thought you might find this interesting.

The Archbishop of York (Ugandan Born) has condemned the Bill going through Ugandas parliament.


click here

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 07:41 AM

May I just add to that it disgust me that _anyone_, especially any person that calls themself a christian, would encourage the death penalty for _anything_.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 07:33 AM

GfS. I'm nnot uncomfortable with confronting anything like that. I just feel nthat this conversation mostly consists of verbally beating eachother right now and I thought it would be good to look at the actual topic the thread is about.

I referred to them as the "Church of Hate" because I do not think they act very Christian, and guives the rest of us a bad name. People immediately assume you are prejudiced against all sorts of things if you associate the word "Christian" with yourself. Now I'm happy to call myself a Christian generally as it most closely fits in with what I believe. However I really dislike it when I get associated with things like this just because of the name in common!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 06:30 AM

Returning to questions Ake asked me, further up this page.

I don't know if the 'take-up' of the option of gay marriage is low, as I suspect it depends on which particular concoction of statistics is at hand. I do have two observations, however.

Firstly, the commercialised gay subculture invests heavily (both financially and symbolically) in encouraging a lifestyle premised on hedonism. Generations of gay men have now grown up thinking that ''''the scene'''' (as it's commonly called, at least here in the UK) is the be-all and end-all of being gay. If you buy into that belief, then the 'settling down' option can look dull by comparison.

Secondly, a small minority of gay activists have vocaly criticised gay marriage as an 'impersonation' of heterosexual conventions and thus some sort of sell-out of homosexuality's radical potential.

Unsurprisingly, I don't share either view (it would make this post intolerably long to go into why, though if you're desperate to know, ask away).

Ake's second question asks if I equate homosexual rights with the situation of other sexual minorities. I'd have to answer that on a case by case basis, but my rule of thumb is that if sexual activity of any kind is conducted unexploitatively and by consenting individuals, then the law has no business in interfering. Also, at a slight tangent, I can think of plenty of heterosexual set-ups that wouldn't meet those criteria.


For what it's worth, one main reason my partner and I opted for a civil partnership was that it secured us some equality with married couples over things like inheritance & taxation matters (how romantic!!!!) and next-of-kin rights. My partner is a nurse and has witnessed ghastly occasions where a long-term same-sex partner of a patient is elbowed out of the way by a 'biological family' who suddenly appear, often after years of no contact, to seize the decisions over how the patient should be treated. I'd love to know what our most vociferous anti-gay contributors think about that - or about the case of a friend of a friend who was evicted from his home of forty years by the distant (and hysterically homophobic) relatives of his deceased partner.

I have gone on a bit!! Happy Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 05:43 AM

"Not even remotely interested on who was, or why they felt they had to cover it. That is only feeding a rationalization. We're going for ANSWERS!"

Before you can establish the significance of any higher power on their "change of heart" you have to rule out other possile influences.

That is the most basic form of scientific method.

Cultural taboo has been the most significant persuader of all consistently throughout history, so it has to be factored in.

Leave it out and your "actual answers" are meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 01:03 AM

With the caveat that I did not know these two really well, having encountered them in about four congregational meetings and talking to them face to face a few times, my assessment was that there was not all that much reasoning involved in their decisions. It was primarily emotional—the emotion of fear.

I believe that, from the start, from their first sexual awareness, they found themselves attracted to members of their own sex, and from what they had absorbed from the culture around them, they felt there was something wrong with them. They didn't respond to members of the opposite sex like most of their peers, schoolmates and such. They found themselves attracted to members of their own sex. And they undoubtedly picked up the general belief that what they were feeling made them "queers" or "fairies" or "dykes," as the case may be. Sexual awareness usually sets in in a big way during one's early teen years, and the pressure to blend in and be like everyone else is pretty strong. And to get the distinct impression that you are what others would call "a pervert—" Rough go for a kid. And then, added to that, the idea that if they followed their urges, they would be committing a "sin."

So. If someone who is a long practicing homosexual and is not of a particularly philosophical or critical mindset wanders, or gets dragged, into a revival meeting where they get a promise of "redemption" for their "life of sin and perversion," along with the threat of eternal Hell-fire if they don't, they might just "come forward" as the preacher bids them. Carrot and stick.

Interesting to note that, despite the numbers of people who come forward at revival meetings (such as Billy Graham's televised "crusades" some years ago), only a small percentage of these conversions actually stick for more than a few days. How well and how long they stick generally tends to be directly proportional to the element of fear of what would happen if they "backslide."

No, I think a true conversion comes with a lot of long, hard thought and soul-searching, not with a sudden burst of hope spurred on by fear coming from a charismatic, pulpit-pounding preacher.

So I believe that the only "powerful" thing that came to them was the aforesaid preacher and his emphasis on Hell-fire if they didn't repent, i.e. mortal fear. I don't think there was any real reasoning involved, strictly the fear and the promise of "redemption" if they "accepted Christ as their Savior."

"Renounced" as a form of "repenting?" Yes. And as I say, they didn't just renounce homosexuality, they renounced sexuality.

I did notice that these two people seemed to have an underlying emotional base of anger. They were both very confrontational, even when responding to fairly innocuous comments and questions.

Thanks, GfS, for an opportunity to put forth serious observations and opinions with the hope that they will be taken, in turn, seriously.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 11:44 PM

Elspeth, Your post is very telling. You are saying Christians are behind the death penalty in Uganda, while others are posting observations regarding people 'renouncing' homosexuality, and becoming Christian. When I read your post, it sounds as if you are getting uncomfortable about confronting what these people confronted, and their response to it. We are just probing.
Do you think calling Christians the "Church of Hate", when Don has posted the "Affirmation of Welcome", is consistent with being the open minded, liberal lesbian, who is looking for acceptance, by the mainstream??? After all, it was the homosexuals who are crying 'bigotry'....what is this, in light of that????
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 11:12 PM

Does anyone here _actually_ want to discuss the topic supposedly at hand?

If you want to know my opinion on it...I think these so called "Christians" are nothing of the sort (I wish they would find themselves a new name...you know "Church of Hate" or something like that...) and what they're doing to encourage the death penalty in Uganda is very wrong. It disgusts me.

Now, does anyone have something RELEVANT to say?

You know...instead of complaining about how eachother conducts a discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:52 PM

Thank you, Don, for your answer. In your answer you mentioned a couple of things that were not clear, as to what I was asking. I was not aiming at whether or not it was consistent with Christian beliefs, or even in fact if it was a 'sin' or not. What is of interest, and to more than just the two of us is, whether or not it mattered if your two 'acquaintances' did this, out of something powerful that came to them?...or something they reasoned with?..or out of an emotion?...or was it something they 'renounced', as a form of 'repenting'?
You did. in fact said they gave up having sex, altogether, which I think is pretty heavy-duty. Somewhere, as you noted, they seemed to think it was wrong, so they quit. If they offered any more to their explanation, I think it would be of interest. Joe seems to have something similar, in his acquaintances, however, in his situation, Joe said the man was married, now to a woman...and I believe, Joe's person was Catholic, not Pentecostal.
I know what my acquaintances claim, however, I was going to leave them out of it. I tried to get them to come on, but they didn't even want to discuss the matter, especially to people who were still into it....which I thought was a bummer. Nonetheless, it's how they wanted it, so I won't press them...for now. That being said, they did share some of their thoughts, in retrospect, and we've had some rather in depth conversations.
One way or another, let's hope this will be an enlightening experience, for not only yourself and me, but for anyone who is 'tuning in'!
Again, thank you for your answer. Please, if you will, clarify, what I inquired about, about your answer.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:19 PM

GfS, these two people are not friends of mine, they were merely acquaintances for a brief time. I met them when our church was discussing the issue of adopting the Affirmation of Welcome (and scroll down) some years back.

The main sticking point for a few people in the congregation was whether or not to include all of the inclusivity clause in the statement: ". . . . regardless of our race, age, gender, marital status, physical and mental abilities, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin, or economic status." A couple of people objected to the "sexual/affectional orientation" part, quoting a few Bible verses. So before we put the matter to a vote of the entire congregation, we had a couple of general meetings of the congregation to discuss the matter in depth.

Several people who were not members of the congregation and whom we had never seen in church before came to the meeting, including the two people in question. Out of approximately 250 people, there were about a half-dozen—including these two people, who I emphasize were not members of the church—spoke out against including that phrase, citing a number of Bible verses, and talking about "perversion" and "it's against God's laws."

The church's two pastors, the synod bishop, and the church council (which I was on at the time) had discussed these verses at length in terms of the history of the times, what modern theology has to say about them, and whether or not those prohibitions were relevant today, especially in terms of outreach to as many people as possible. Among other things, the matter is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor does Jesus say anything about it.

The two people in question spoke at length and quite passionately, talking about how they had led a "life of sin and degradation" until they had been "saved," at which point they renounced their homosexuality. I talked to them a fair amount, as did others, and learned that they had "accepted Christ" at one of the regular revival meetings held by a local Pentecostal church. Very fundamentalist. This church was focused totally on personal salvation and matters of stopping people from "sinning," whereas Central Lutheran is geared toward community service, taking what Jesus said in Matthew 25:35-40 as its primary mode of operating, feeling that, if this is rightly seen to, personal salvation will take care of itself. In short, Central "evangelizes," not by buttonholing you on street corners and demanding to know if you've "been Saved," but by showing by the example of what the church does.

GfS, for various reasons, which would be too long to go into here, but with sound theological roots, I think the phenomenon of "being Saved" is modern misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus. "Being Saved" is less theological and more emotional. Hell-roaring preachers often scare the stuffings out of the naïve by their vivid descriptions of hell-fire and damnation. I don't think Jesus wanted his followers to love their neighbors and take care of them when they needed care in order for the followers to avoid going to Hell, he wanted them to do it because it was the right thing to do.

Many people have given up a lot of bad habits by "being Saved." Alcoholics have quit drinking, smokers have stopped smoking, philanderers have given up messing around, and criminals have gone straight because they've been convinced that they were going to burn in Hell for eternity if they didn't "accept Jesus as their Savior" and renounce their sinful ways.

And convince a naïve homosexual that he or she will go to Hell if they don't give up their "sinful perversion," and he or she will probably do it.

Fear. Is that a valid "cure?" I think not.

I am not a fundamentalist. I am, indeed, Bible literate, but I do not believe that the Bible is literal history. It is myth, metaphor, and allegory. This is not to say that what Bible says is untrue, it's that, say, the Book of Genesis is a creation myth, in much the same vein as the Native American myth about the world being creating variously by Raven or Mother Turtle. When Jesus spoke of the Good Samaritan, I don't think he was talking about a real incident. He was responding to a question, and it's as if He'd said, "Well, let me put it this way: suppose this traveler had fallen among thieves, and. . . ."

Let me put it this way:   in talking to these two people and asking questions about them from people who knew them, I learned that whether they were "cured" of their homosexuality or not had not been established. They have given up sex entirely. Does that mean that they had been cured of their homosexuality? I think that remains to be demonstrated.

In a meeting of the entire congregation (this took place in the early 1990s, by the way), we overwhelmingly voted to accept the Affirmation of Welcome in its entirety. Out of a congregation of about 250 people, I believe there were about a half-dozen dissenting votes. We did lose three of the older members who couldn't accept it. They went to other churches. But within a very few months, we added several dozen new members to the congregation. And no, they were not all gay. Some were, but most of them were young people, including young (heterosexual) married couples, many with young children, who wanted to got to a progressive, open-minded church. One that practiced what it preached.

By they way, I'm no longer on the church council. I served a full six years. My wife, Barbara, is currently on it, though.

Does that adequately answer your questions? If not, ask further.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 09 - 10:10 PM

Lox:"Instead of asking them why don't you just look at history and the many famous homosexuals who covered it up and married women and even had kids by them."

Not even remotely interested on who was, or why they felt they had to cover it. That is only feeding a rationalization. We're going for ANSWERS!