BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 04:12 PM

On the program "This American Life" this morning, the narrator described how a psychiatrist noted that all the homosexuals that she knew of—who were undergoing psychotherapy or counseling—were doing so, not directly because of their same-sex orientation, but because of other psychological difficulties, primarily such things as depression and anxiety engendered by the abusive attitudes some people had toward them due to the fact that they were homosexual—not because of their same-sex orientation per se. And it was this that led them to try to seek a cure for their "aberration," not their sexual orientation itself.

So—she rounded up a group of gay men who were not undergoing psychotherapy or counseling, and who, to all appearances, seemed to be perfectly normal and happy just as they were. No salient psychological problems, save their same-sex orientation, which some may have regarded as a problem, but which they did not.

She gave these men a big battery of standardized psychological tests—the whole ball of wax. Then, she took the results to a group of psychiatrists and assigned them the task of picking out any psychological problems. The panel was unable to find any problems of significance. And—NONE of the subjects were identified by the panel as homosexual!

So—is same-sex orientation a psychological aberration? Not so even a panel of psychiatrists would notice.

Now, GfS:

The matter of whether or not same-sex orientation is a condition that needs to be cured or whether or not attempted cures have ever been successful (not) has been gone over on this and the other thread time and time again. I have posted the date several times. And your "refutations" have all taken the form of calling me an "asshole" and saying that the data is "bullshit."

That is hardly what anyone could call "rational discourse."

As I have pointed out several times, there are no documented cases on record (save by unreliable sources such as you, or Richard Cohen, who is completely lacking in training and credentials) of "successful cures" that did not leave the subject in a worse psychological state than before. Often these "treatments" consisted of aversion therapy—presenting homosexual images to the subject, then electrically shocking the subject if they responded. The end result was a group of people who were suffering from anxiety, depression, who avoided the situation by simply abstaining from sexual activity entirely, and in at least one study of 202 subjects, six suicides.

You keep lying by saying that I would prevent same-sex oriented people from seeking psychotherapy or psychological counseling if they are convinced that their orientation is an abnormality. Not true! I have never said that. If they wanted to give it a try, okay. But I think they should at least be made aware of the results (or lack thereof) of previous attempts and the possible psychological "side-effects" of undergoing such therapy. The depression—and the suicides—of the cited study came basically from the fact that the therapy was oversold, and when it didn't work, the subjects tended to blame themselves for the failure. The vast majority of those who participated (78%, as I recall) finally said "To hell with it," and simply returned to their former same-sex activity. But on the other end of the spectrum, as I noted, six of the subjects were so depressed by the failure to achieve a "cure" that they killed themselves.

And as to my "political stance" being "fed" to me, don't be an ass, GfS!! (Sorry. I shouldn't ask the impossible of you.). I see things perfectly clearly, thank you, and I am slave to nobody's "political agenda"—a favorite stock put-down used by both you and Ake in lieu of a sensible response. It signifies nothing in the real world.

And about hopping on the "clue train."

GfS, you couldn't get a clue if it were the middle of clue mating season, you rubbed your body with clue musk, then dashed out into the middle of a field full of horny clues and did the clue mating dance.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM

Don T, you are priceless!
Keep posting mate.

Royston, it will be an ethical minefield.
I fear that many parents, if given the choice, would prefer the standard model with grandchildren down the line.
If they are not given the choice, people will get round it.
Gender choosing is not supposed to happen now, but male births significantly outnumber females in some communities.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:30 PM

I SAID:-    ""The Three Wise Monkeys.
As far as I can recall, originally One blind, One deaf, and One dumb.
In this instance all three blind and deaf, and one could heartily wish that all were dumb as well.

Don T.""


KEITH REPLIED:-    ""Don T, we have been on opposite sides throughout, but you have risen above that.
You have recognised that, like the famous monkeys, I have shown wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
You are a fair man.
From your interest, AIDS is clearly an important matter for you.
I expect that you are grateful that I have uncovered some erroneous statements that would have left you operating under serious misconceptions.""

Talk about missing the point!

You, Keith, were indeed one of the three monkeys to whom I was referring, along with Ake and GfS. The word that was out of place was "wise".

Deaf and blind, and the more I hear, the more I believe "DUMB" as well, in its modern sense.

Think twice before you assume that I am complimenting you. That would be the "serious misconception", as you have said nothing on this topic that would merit it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 11:05 AM

Don: "You ARE a boring little twit. Hell, GfS, why don't you just have a bunch of rubber stamps made?"

You either could read them, or understand them anyway.

here, here's a thought to consider, oh wise one...same thing I gave to Ebbs:.....GfS: "Finally you asked! By the absurdity that it is a genetic defect, if you will, and equating it to race, creed, color, and giving it the status of equality, as such, under civil rights, if a homosexual seeks to not be homosexual, for whatever reason, and people have posted of those who did just that, you deny them counsel...because you say that they can not switch from homo to hetero sexual...which is in complete error! What would they counsel for..if it doesn't exist?? How would that be covered under Obama's(or any) health care bill????? Would you want to deny them the 'pursuit of happiness'?.....or deny them the opportunity to have and raise their OWN from them, (genetic) family???...because of some stupid political position?????????? You want a political posture to allow what people can, and can't WANT??

Ummm, ....any lights going on?

Your political stance fed to you, that has left you 'hung over' from when there were valid issues, has both deceived you, and blinded you. Now they are working to destroy the very basis on which they were founded.......

"A wise teacher does not take a student into his own throne room, but brings him to the threshold of the student's potential"

Hop aboard the clue train, Don!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 09:22 AM

Keith: I think it very likely that a genetic cause will emerge.
People will then have to decide if it is a genetic "defect" and if parents will be allowed to make choices about the sexuality of their babies.
This is the current position with Down's and other conditions.

I agree with you about the genetic component. I'm interested in your opinion: Do you think that society should move to "treat" (by which we mean, in the short term, to abort) a feotus that displays a genetic trait, which of itself causes no harm or prejudice to the life that follows that could not be prevented by people just being nice and showing respect to each other?

We are coming back to Eugenics aren't we? Prejudice and bigotry harms people, so rather than stop prejudice and bigotry, let us just cull the victims? Would that be a better world for anyone? Where do you stop with the list of victims that should be culled?

The Down's analogy is a poor one, I hope that you will reconsider it. Parents receiving an in-utero diagnosis of Down's have an agonising choice to make (whatever they decide), but they have to make it because their child may be utterly dependant on constant, life-long, painstaking care and financial and material resources in order to realise their potential.

Whereas a gay person just requires people not be nasty.

For the record, I believe that abortion is problematic and too freely resorted to. I don't believe that Down's is necessarily a reason to abort a foetus - I have known too many people with Down's syndrome who are just wonderful people leading good lives with the right support and care. But I recognise that people struggle to make difficult choices and they must be supported to make and live with those choices, whichever one they made. All choices have consequences, and the decision by a couple to abort a pregnancy they hoped would be a cherished child must be absolutely heart-breaking for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 08:25 AM

Royston, I question this.
"After a long time the profession came to the realisation that homosexuality could not be treated. It had no symptoms, it was natural in other species, as well as humans"

It can be said to have symptoms. That is how it is recognised.
There are many conditions regarded as diseases that occur in other species as well as humans.
No treatment has yet been found, but it may.

We may not regard it as a disease, but that remains a valid point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:58 AM

Lox, I do not have such a good memory of Ake's posts. My version of his belief seems more likely, but he can and no doubt will speak for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:55 AM

I think it very likely that a genetic cause will emerge.
People will then have to decide if it is a genetic "defect" and if parents will be allowed to make choices about the sexuality of their babies.
This is the current position with Down's and other conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:34 AM

Just to put some background on this.

Clinical Psychiatry classed homosexuality as an aberrant, treatable condition. A 'disease' in the true sense of the word; that being homosexual, per se, caused mental harm.

After a long time the profession came to the realisation that homosexuality could not be treated. It had no symptoms, it was natural in other species, as well as humans.

The profession realised that they were treating symptoms - depression, self-loathing, anxiety, self-harm, in a tiny minority of homosexual people where the root-causes of the symptoms were not being homosexual but were the results of how the patient was abused and mistreated and harmed by other people for being homosexual.

So the profession realised it had simply been wrong, and reversed its position. The "problem" was societal prejudice, of which the clinicalisation of homosexuality had been a prime-mover.

Yes, some pseudo-scientists argue differently. They normally have quite obvious politico-socio-religious affiliations. They are a fringe group as in creationists, global warming-deniers and the like.

Only ignorant, ranting bigots pay them regard - because ignorant ranting bigots appreciate, selectively, what they have to say, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:21 AM

Keith, you miss the point.

Ake says that homosexuals are a scourge suffered by the rest of humanity, not that that homosexuality is a scourge suffered by homosexuals.

Unless you mean that Cystic Fibrosis 'Sufferers' are a scourge on the rest of us then your analogy is false.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:19 AM

But you consider that settled fact to be subject to future revision and you say that we should support or excuse ranting bigots.

You answered my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:14 AM

I doubt it Royston.
I do not regard homosexuality as a disease.
That should answer your question quite clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:11 AM

Thanks, Keith. You have answered my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:52 AM

Royston, do you deny that 50 years ago, medical science regarded homosexuality as a disease?
There is no new science on the subject, just a difference of perception that could even reverse again.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:44 AM

Keith, is this more evidence of an opinion that you might hold?

"I think that Akeneaton does regard heterosexuality as a disease.
Before denouncing him, remember that that was the mainstream public and medical belief within our lifetimes. The change is not due to any scientific breakthrough, just a change in perceptions.

We can disagree, but it is a valid point of view."

Because when you argue against "liberals" you tell them that settled scientific conclusion and evidence is the only thing to be considered. So the only view that can be tolerated is that homosexuality is not a disease, isn't it? That is the settled scientific position.

Or are we to understand that you assert ignorant ranting bigots are deserving of some special protection, indulgence or consideration?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:43 AM

Typo in post to Lox.
For heterosexuality read homosexuality.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:40 AM

Royston, this new approach is to test everyone, but only in high risk regions.

"By testing people in high-risk regions and immediately treating putting the patients on medications that reduce their viral-loads, Williams said that public health officials could "render HIV-infected people not infectious."

"We've been using drugs to save lives, but not stop the infection," he said, adding that proper treatments makes someone 25 times less infectious. "It's time to look beyond that."

Kenneth H. Meyer, professor of medicine and community health at Brown University, said that public health officials have been moderately successful in getting people onto anti-viral treatments. But as people live longer, the trend of more new infections than deaths will continue, especially in high-risk regions.

He cited statistics that while the number of HIV- infected people in the United States is 1 in 300, it's much higher in hot spots like Washington, D.C., where the prevalence is 1 in 15 people"
http://news.aaas.org/2010/0220battling-hivaids---test-all-treat-all.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:23 AM

Don Firth, what were Ake's statistics used to argue?
If it was to argue that AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of Msms and a rarity in the general population, then whatever your friend told you, that was the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:19 AM

Lox, Cystic fibrosis is a disease you are born with.
Homosexuality is a condition you are born with.
Both groups will miss out on certain experiences which the rest of us think of as joys of life.
Both groups will go through unpleasant experiences related to their condition.
Both are at a heightened risk of acquiring an infection that will kill them before their time.

I think that Akeneaton does regard heterosexuality as a disease.
Before denouncing him, remember that that was the mainstream public and medical belief within our lifetimes. The change is not due to any scientific breakthrough, just a change in perceptions.

We can disagree, but it is a valid point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:24 AM

I don't have to answer anything because you haven't said anything that hasn't been answered many times before, both by me and by others. You keep singing the same song over and over and over and over and. . . .

That's why I suggested that people read what's already been posted.

You ARE a boring little twit. Hell, GfS, why don't you just have a bunch of rubber stamps made?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 11:00 PM

Ebbie: "GfS, I didn't miss the pun- I gave it a little smile of recognition then went on to the pertinent point."

What is the 'pertinent point', that you're not addressing? Actually, its the whole point of this stupid 'controversy', that you and the politicos are ignoring. So let's deal with that. Did you give what I posted any deeper thought?

Now check this out:

Don: "I don't think I need to answer GfS's little tirade (running in circles, frothing at the mouth, and peeing his pants), do you?

GfS: Nice way to say you CAN'T answer it, without admitting that you have been WRONG!

Speaking of running in circles, and tirades, and frothing at the mouth..............:

Don: "Just read what I wrote, read what he wrote, and make up your own ninds."

GfS: What the hell is 'own ninds'......ooops, a little too much frothing going on there, ol' chap??!!

The weak accuse others of their own bullshit!

Love and kisses,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:49 PM

Oh Ake, you must learn to read. If you can read then you must learn not to tell lies. I am not calling you a liar, those are the two explanations for what you have said, so you tell us. Ake: Thick? or a liar?

A South-African researcher is about to trial an universal testing programme in South Africa and will give ART to all positive people, regardless of CD4 or viral load.

That is an UNIVERSAL testing programme. Not a selective one.

It is not supported by the WHO: they have said they WILL support it IF it produces good results. In South Africa.

I am already on the record as saying that I believe UNIVERSAL testing programmes are probably a brilliant idea in any country.

But unfortunately it isn't happening any time soon.

And a selective testing programme; whether aggressive, vindictive or otherwise, is still nothing more than one of your deranged fantasies.

Compliance is better in Africa, because the affected groups in The West are marginalised, not just poor. What that statement means, Ake, is that if IDU's and MSM's were not marginalised [by bigotry] then compliance would be better. This is what all the experts agree on: that prejudice and bigotry kills people.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7035256.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:34 PM

Royston.

"The global Aids epidemic could be contained within just five years by testing everybody in high-risk regions and immediately treating all those who are found to be HIV positive, according to a leading scientist.
In the absence of a vaccine, an aggressive treatment programme is the first promising way of controlling a condition that affects 33 million people worldwide and kills 2.1 million every year, he said. It also has the potential to halve tuberculosis infections associated with HIV and Aids.

Two randomised trials of universal testing and treatment are to begin in South Africa shortly, and the World Health Organisation (WHO) has indicated that it will back the strategy if they prove successful. The approach is also supported by Anthony Fauci, the influential scientist who leads the US National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is funding further trials in areas of Washington DC and New York where HIV is widespread.

Projects in Kenya, Botswana and Malawi have shown that regular testing and good compliance are achievable in Africa. "Compliance in Africa is actually much better than in developed countries, because in the latter HIV tends to affect intravenous drug users and other marginalised groups, whereas the victims in Africa are just poor," Dr Williams said."


Dont you just LOVE the PC press
" Compliance in Africa is actually much better than in developed countries, because in the latter HIV tends to affect intravenous drug users and other marginalised groups,"

"Other marginalised groups" contains the Male homosexual demographic the highest of any and about four times higher than IDU's

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:13 PM

Keith,

More pointedly, Ake meant that homosexuals themselves are the scourge, suffered by the rest of society.

Unless you are saying that cystic fibrosis sufferers are a scourge on the rest of us then you'll have to forgive me for continuing to find your analogy more parallel universe than parallel.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:08 PM

"Lox, if I referred to cystic fibrosis as a scourge, it would not mean I was bigotted in my attitude to anyone.
That is not to imply that homosexuality is a disease, just a condition that you are born with."

Keith, you know better than that - I hope ...

Cysric Fibrosis is a condition suffered by those infected.

Homosexuality is neither a condition, nor is it suffered by homosexuals any more than heterosexuality is suffered by heterosexuals.

In fact, reading this thread, i was under the impression that much of the criticism of "promiscuous" homosexuals was that they enjoy it too much ...

Your last posts is a bit surreal and out of character for an impartial statistician.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:44 PM

GfS, I didn't miss the pun- I gave it a little smile of recognition then went on to the pertinent point. You see, that is part of your problem- you would love to think of yourself as superior in some way. You know what a police officer once told his audience in a seminar on the criminal mind? He said that the one constant of the criminal is that he thinks he is smarter.

Not that I'm making any implications. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:33 PM

I'm only coming back on here to respond to something new.

Ake, I'm not having a go at you.

I can't find any indication of WHO policy being as you suggest, I have searched extensively. Where did you get that information from? Contact tracing happens all the time in all countries as a part of diagnosis counseling, but "aggressive" and "aggressive testing", I don't understand what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM

Don, if the statistics are insignificant, why are the WHO contemplating an agressive testing and contact tracing programme for homosexuals, IDU's, and "sex workers"?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:58 PM

I'm not a statistician, Keith, but a friend of mine is (he works for the census bureau and deals with statistics all the time) took a look at some of Ake's posts. He commented that the way Ake interpreted some of the statistics was like—and I stole his phrase and posted it on the Prop 8 thread—claiming that all those with prostate cancer are male.

As they say:    "Well, DUH!!!"

It may sound impressive and learnèd, but it's not statistically significant. It ignores the bigger picture and tells you nothing beyond what is self-evident.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:06 PM

I don't think I need to answer GfS's little tirade (running in circles, frothing at the mouth, and peeing his pants), do you?

I'd say it speaks volumes--not about me, but about GfS.

Just read what I wrote, read what he wrote, and make up your own ninds.

I wonder how he can manage to get around with all those bullet holes in his feet.

(Okay, back to the real world.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:17 PM

Ebbie, you missed the pun. try re-reading it slowly, and don't assume you know what it is before hand.
GfS.

P.S. Is that ALL you got from the post???? I mean you missed that one, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:30 PM

GfS, just because you don't know the distinctions between lay and lie, don't assume that others also do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:06 AM

Lox, if I referred to cystic fibrosis as a scourge, it would not mean I was bigotted in my attitude to anyone.
That is not to imply that homosexuality is a disease, just a condition that you are born with.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:02 AM

Don Firth, I have not agreed with all of Ake's posts, but I have not spotted any slanted statistics from him. Unless you can direct me to some, I will say that you are wrong about that.

Royston has certainly provided skewed statistics, starting with his first Jan 10th post and continuing with his "5 fold increase" posts.
They appeared to show a change in the pattern of infection, but the change was really due to the arrival of thousands of infected and high risk people from sub Saharan Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:57 AM

Don T, we have been on opposite sides throughout, but you have risen above that.
You have recognised that, like the famous monkeys, I have shown wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
You are a fair man.
From your interest, AIDS is clearly an important matter for you.
I expect that you are grateful that I have uncovered some erroneous statements that would have left you operating under serious misconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:30 AM

Oh, here she is!..the driving force behind Don's nonsensical cheerleaders!

Ebbie: "How in the world did you get the idea that any one of us - saying that we wanted to - would wish to deprive anyone of therapy that they want to have? And just how would we go about denying them such a right?"

GfS: "Finally you asked! By the absurdity that it is a genetic defect, if you will, and equating it to race, creed, color, and giving it the status of equality, as such, under civil rights, if a homosexual seeks to not be homosexual, for whatever reason, and people have posted of those who did just that, you deny them counsel...because you say that they can not switch from homo to hetero sexual...which is in complete error! What would they counsel for..if it doesn't exist?? How would that be covered under Obama's(or any) health care bill????? Would you want to deny them the 'pursuit of happiness'?.....or deny them the opportunity to have and raise their OWN from them, (genetic) family???...because of some stupid political position?????????? You want a political posture to allow what people can, and can't WANT??

Ummm, ....any lights going on?

Ebbie: "Guest from Sanity, you may not be aware of it but you are impressing no one. I'd lay money on it."

GfS: "Ahhh yes, 'to lay'.....object of the proposition.(wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 12:16 AM

GfS: "Anti-homosexual???? YOUR the one who is denying them of their rights(if you had your way), of getting counseling SHOULD THEY WANT IT, because you want to 'define' them into a category, that denies the reality of their situation!...and you THINK you're a 'champion' of civil rights????? Your a deluded village idiot!"

How in the world did you get the idea that any one of us - saying that we wanted to - would wish to deprive anyone of therapy that they want to have? And just how would we go about denying them such a right?


GfS: "Yeah, and you'll see the difference between wit, satire, and political insanity, taken to the absurd!"

Guest from Sanity, you may not be aware of it but you are impressing no one. I'd lay money on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:33 PM

You'll love this!

Don: "I will not waste my time re-reading GfS's screed just above because it is copy-and-paste from a previous post of his...."

GfS:And because you are a brain locked ideologue who might learn something from ANOTHER point of view..other than your quasi-pseudo 'concern' about your misinterpretation of 'civil rights'

Don: "This whole discussion here on Mudcat started on another thread having to do with California rescinding the same-sex marriage law, despite the fact that such laws are being passed in one state after another and will continue to be passed at an accelerating rate. The proposition in California was not put forth by Californians, but by out-of-state fundamentalist religious groups, who consider homosexuality to be a sin."

GfS: "Wishful thinking..regardless of the FACTS! The people of California voted it down because they don't agree with it..PERIOD!"

Don: "This is a direct violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state as set forth in both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California. Whether it was voted in by a narrow majority of California voters or not is irrelevant. It is still un-Constitutional."

Constitutional??? Since when did you give a flying fuck about the Constitution???!!!?? You must be not watching the news about what this (along with others) administration is doing to our Constitutional precess. The only thing you know about the Constitution is 'freedom of speech'..because it allows you to run your mouth, about things you know NOTHING about!"


Don; "Nevertheless, this thread brought several people out of the woodwork to express a spectrum of anti-homosexual sentiments, not based on any legal or constitutional positions, but upon their own prejudices. When challenged, they tried to support their positions by citing various studies of dubious scientific validity and by inundating the thread with carefully selected and edited statistics."

GfS: "ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!! Every one of YOUR plastic fantasy land, 'arguments' have been blown away...and you just can't get over it...like some child, whose mother took his thumb out of his mouth.
Anti-homosexual???? YOUR the one who is denying them of their rights(if you had your way), of getting counseling SHOULD THEY WANT IT, because you want to 'define' them into a category, that denies the reality of their situation!...and you THINK you're a 'champion' of civil rights????? Your a deluded village idiot!

The thesis of one of the more prominent opponents of same-sex relationships, tried to claim that homosexuals, homosexual men in particular, are not just plague carriers, but plague creators, invoking the medieval notion that HIV/AIDs is created by male homosexual activity, not just that the virus can be transmitted that way, if and only if one of the two is already infected. This "spontaneous generation" idea was debunked by many of the more enlightened scientists early on, and definitely put to rest by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s. Nevertheless, this person continued (and continues) to assert the same medieval nonsense.

GfS :"Medieval??"...rolls eyes. Methinks he's really grasping at straws!

Don: "The other more prominent opponent of same-sex relationships involved the claim that same-sex orientation comes as a result of early psychological problems and, in the end, is simply a matter of the individual's choice. And that same-sex orientation can be cured through counseling, when, in fact, if such deeply rooted psychological problems were the source of same-sex orientation, they would require, at the very least, extensive psychotherapy, not just "counseling."

GfS: "Only a downright idiot would interpret what I've been saying, and the truth about what I've said, as how you convoluted that priceless gem of biased crap!...YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T GET IT! I Think you've blinded yourself, by poking yourself in your 'I'..and what you heard some political activist told you, that SOUNDED sophisticated and 'hip'"

Don "This person cites the work of people such as Richard Cohen, a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" who "counsels" his clients by lying on a sofa with them, caressing them, and assuring them that they are loved. A book that Cohen wrote to this effect has been used by an American fundamentalist religious group to support the Ugandan anti-homosexual laws, going to far as capital punishment for homosexuals."

GfS: " Again, nonsense! I only posted about Dr. Cohen, as an example of an ex-'gay', going straight. In those post(s), I also said I didn't agree with his methods...but do you think our wise bullshitter, comprehended what he was reading???? N-O-O-O-O-O!...He just blabs on, like like a precocious little 'mommies little helper'..ignoring any thought from anyone else. Methinks he just skims the posts from those, who he disagrees with..just looking for a line, or phrase, which he can expound his moronic blather...and ignores the rest. How else could one explain such scrambled lameness?? How else can he rationalize away, that it is he, who is discriminating against homosexuals..by his sheer naivete??..then starts accusing others who happen to know more on the subject than he does??..WHAT An ASS!!"

Don; "This person, when confronted by the studies refuting the so-called "cures" claimed in a study by Robert Spitzer, merely ignored the data presented, reiterated their claim that same-sex orientation is merely a matter of personal choice, and became personally abusive toward me."

GfS: "The key word here that Don the moRON, uses is 'merely'. I have never alluded to that...so he must be talking about someone else....like one of the voices in his head!

Don: "He becomes especially abusive when I, or anyone else, quote or post links to sites that indicate that same-sex orientation is not a matter of choice,...

GfS:...Even if those same links conclude that all the other possibilites explored have been ruled out.."

Don: "...but there are strong INDICATIONS that it has a genetic component. Same-sex orientation TENDS to run in families, appearing even when the relatives have no contact with each other, and there is SOME INDICATION that the gene or combination of genes is carried by the females of a particular line and results in the mis-timing of the release of specific hormones in utero to a developing male fetus."

GfS: "(The caps I inserted, from his original text).....So, you think its an established FACT, yet??....or tends to be an indication????

Don: "Granted, the specific gene of combination of genes have not been isolated yet,..."

GfS: " .....NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!!"

Don: ".....but research continues, and geneticists are confident that it is only a matter of time."

GfS: "..as long as there is grant money for a wild goose chase, they'll ride as long as they can. Maybe they can find another 'indication'......extend the grant and it might make it up to a 'tends'. Meanwhile, they'll issue a report, and let the moron activists make meringue out of diarrhea.
Even the post, YOU posted, by a homosexual researcher, couldn't find support for any of the popular 'theories'!...That don't matter....just keep headin' on!

Don: "Rather that being willing to admit that the possibility (probability according to geneticists involved in the research, since all other factors are present), this person categorically denies that such a gene exists or will ever be found."

GfS: "The 'researchers'(?) should try, as I posted, looking at the development of receptors, during pregnancy, and factors that could influence their development.......oh oh...Don can't wrap his brain around that concept...I must be a bigot, then...(at least he can spell that word)!

Don: "Both of these people attribute those who are not strenuously opposed to legally recognized civil partnerships or gay marriage..."

GfS: "False again. Civil partnerships is one thing marriage is another. So he combines them, for the spin..blah blah blah"

Don; "...as slaves of the "liberal agenda." And are, indeed, "liberal fascists!" Thereby demonstrating that they have no idea of what "liberal" or "fascist" really means."

GfS; "The rest of that sentence is so stupid, why comment on it..it's self explanatory, that you haven't got a clue!"

Don: "This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. No matter who complicated the opponents try to make it sound."

GfS: "Yeah, not a medical, psychological, emotional, spiritual issue...just a civil rights issue...because you're a one trick pony..and have a one track mind. Therein lies your narrow mindedness!..but you can't see that, either!

Don: "Recently, one of these people in particular, one who has been especially free with the childish personal insults (such mature epithets as calling me an "asshole") has chosen to attack me with accusations of lying about him—when I quoted something that was posted under his own "handle"—which he now denies having posted, going so far as to claim that it was me who authored it and posted it under his name. But Joe Offer has confirmed that it came from his computer, not mine. (Now, how could I have managed that, I wonder? Bloody clever of me!!)."

GfS: hey, I call them as I see them! Now you want to make an issue, not addressing the topic, but of a post that I did not post..and Joe said he wasn't all the way sure.....but you'll run with it....just like your 'tends' and 'indications' and 'some'....and anyone could have put my 'handle' in....blah blah blah."

Don: "I suggest that anyone interested (and who has their gag reflex well under control) merely read some of the posts for themselves and make up their own minds as to who it is who is actually posting the "outrageous lies and disinformation" and doing the "name calling."

GfS: "Yeah, and you'll see the difference between wit, satire, and political insanity, taken to the absurd!"



Don: "Crystal clear."

GfS: "Yup!"

Don: "By the way, I have not followed the wrangle between Keith and Royston because after being inundated with carefully selected and skewed statistics by Ake, and trying to follow them, I simply don't have the stomach to go through the same song and dance routine yet again!"

GfS: "...and because he's obsessed with locking horns with anyone who isn't impressed with his self image, and other accompanying bullshit!'

Don Firth
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:02 PM

Yup!

Just read the posts!! It's all right there.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:42 PM

Oh! Is that right?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

Keith,

Not true I'm afraid.

Ake's posting history is a catalogue of biggotted assertions against Moslems, Immigrants, Gypsies and homosexuals.


On the subject of the latter, Which aspecct of his assertions that homosexuals are a "scourge", or that they have a natural propensity to abuse children do you find not to be bigotted or not to be a lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM

I will not waste my time re-reading GfS's screed just above because it is copy-and-paste from a previous post of his. It was psychobabble then and it has not improved with time. It's still psychobabble.

This whole discussion here on Mudcat started on another thread having to do with California rescinding the same-sex marriage law, despite the fact that such laws are being passed in one state after another and will continue to be passed at an accelerating rate. The proposition in California was not put forth by Californians, but by out-of-state fundamentalist religious groups, who consider homosexuality to be a sin.

This is a direct violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state as set forth in both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California. Whether it was voted in by a narrow majority of California voters or not is irrelevant. It is still un-Constitutional.

Nevertheless, this thread brought several people out of the woodwork to express a spectrum of anti-homosexual sentiments, not based on any legal or constitutional positions, but upon their own prejudices. When challenged, they tried to support their positions by citing various studies of dubious scientific validity and by inundating the thread with carefully selected and edited statistics.

The thesis of one of the more prominent opponents of same-sex relationships, tried to claim that homosexuals, homosexual men in particular, are not just plague carriers, but plague creators, invoking the medieval notion that HIV/AIDs is created by male homosexual activity, not just that the virus can be transmitted that way, if and only if one of the two is already infected. This "spontaneous generation" idea was debunked by many of the more enlightened scientists early on, and definitely put to rest by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s. Nevertheless, this person continued (and continues) to assert the same medieval nonsense.

The other more prominent opponent of same-sex relationships involved the claim that same-sex orientation comes as a result of early psychological problems and, in the end, is simply a matter of the individual's choice. And that same-sex orientation can be cured through counseling, when, in fact, if such deeply rooted psychological problems were the source of same-sex orientation, they would require, at the very least, extensive psychotherapy, not just "counseling."

This person cites the work of people such as Richard Cohen, a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" who "counsels" his clients by lying on a sofa with them, caressing them, and assuring them that they are loved. A book that Cohen wrote to this effect has been used by an American fundamentalist religious group to support the Ugandan anti-homosexual laws, going to far as capital punishment for homosexuals.

This person, when confronted by the studies refuting the so-called "cures" claimed in a study by Robert Spitzer, merely ignored the data presented, reiterated their claim that same-sex orientation is merely a matter of personal choice, and became personally abusive toward me.

He becomes especially abusive when I, or anyone else, quote or post links to sites that indicate that same-sex orientation is not a matter of choice, but there are strong indications that it has a genetic component. Same-sex orientation tends to run in families, appearing even when the relatives have no contact with each other, and there is some indication that the gene or combination of genes is carried by the females of a particular line and results in the mis-timing of the release of specific hormones in utero to a developing male fetus.

Granted, the specific gene of combination of genes have not been isolated yet, but research continues, and geneticists are confident that it is only a matter of time.

Rather that being willing to admit that the possibility (probability according to geneticists involved in the research, since all other factors are present), this person categorically denies that such a gene exists or will ever be found.

Both of these people attribute those who are not strenuously opposed to legally recognized civil partnerships or gay marriage as slaves of the "liberal agenda." And are, indeed, "liberal fascists!" Thereby demonstrating that they have no idea of what "liberal" or "fascist" really means.

This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. No matter who complicated the opponents try to make it sound.

Recently, one of these people in particular, one who has been especially free with the childish personal insults (such mature epithets as calling me an "asshole") has chosen to attack me with accusations of lying about him—when I quoted something that was posted under his own "handle"—which he now denies having posted, going so far as to claim that it was me who authored it and posted it under his name. But Joe Offer has confirmed that it came from his computer, not mine. (Now, how could I have managed that, I wonder? Bloody clever of me!!).

I suggest that anyone interested (and who has their gag reflex well under control) merely read some of the posts for themselves and make up their own minds as to who it is who is actually posting the "outrageous lies and disinformation" and doing the "name calling."

Crystal clear.

By the way, I have not followed the wrangle between Keith and Royston because after being inundated with carefully selected and skewed statistics by Ake, and trying to follow them, I simply don't have the stomach to go through the same song and dance routine yet again!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:00 PM

The Three Wise Monkeys.

As far as I can recall, originally One blind, One deaf, and One dumb.

In this instance all three blind and deaf, and one could heartily wish that all were dumb as well.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:43 PM

Keith, You are absolutely correct!..Meanwhile, it is those folks, of whom you speak, that have posted some of the most outrageous lies and disinformation....and did it, while they KNEW they were lying!!!

The rest is just name calling.....and as the old saying goes, 'You know when the debate is lost, when the loser resorts to name calling!'

All the best, Keith!

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:22 AM

What GfS, Akeneaton and myself have all had in common here, is that we have all been told, not that we were wrong which you can reasonably expect in debate, but that we were liars and bigots.
Even though we told no lies and spoke no bigotry.

Royston's belief that the pattern of infection was changing and new groups were now at risk proved wrong.
No shame in that but it would be unforgiveable if, as seems likely, he knew it was false but pushed the lie because it suited his twisted ideology, while calling me "liar."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:12 AM

This is my position..as stated before when I wrote this thread. When I go back over my posts, subsequent to this post, there IS a CONSISTENCY to this frame of mind. Only when I had to be 'misinterpreted', (by design), called names, and accused falsely, did I have to address the moron, in particular, who was INTENTIONALLY SPINNING lies...and false accusations.

Shortly after, came the other bogus post, in question...which i will not even address much more.
Certain people will believe what the WANT to, and create their own 'reality'...but who cares?

Now for all those who need a refresh, of what I was/am saying,and why...here it is!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM

Thank you both for clarifying, "political rhetoric", because that's exactly what I meant, when I wrote it.
Just open your minds, just for a moment. I am not writing this in any contentious manner, but rather trying to give you something very salient, to consider. (A wise man hears all the matter, before he speaks)
As I've said MANY MANY times, especially during the primaries(you can go back and check), is that the right wing, and left wing are on the same bird! (I used an analogy of a boxer, in the ring, beating his opponent, with a right, another right, then a left, a left hook, then another right.)..What he is beating up, is US!!! Both the wings, and political parties these days are nutzo, do not represent the people, have everybody bickering over shit, that they TOLD you is important, while keeping us distracted from the major shit going down!
When I first started posting on this particular thread, I already knew what was going on with the homosexual agenda, verses the actual hurt, pain and resentments that not only bring on homosexuality, but how they, through this issue, are only evading confronting any honest help, or solution, to a situation that they have found themselves in, because they FEEL helpless to do anything about it!!
Now its become a political issue, which is comfortable, and far enough away from their inner needs, and their sense of being helped out of it, to have a normal life, being able to survive and reproduce,(as ALL living organisms on this ball spinning in space), and have to confidence to raise their own natural children, with the woman that bore them with him. Why??? Because their sensitivities,(needed ones, and gifted ones), were neglected, or perceived of being neglected, when they were young?..For the male homosexual, a needed, and not fulfilled place in his heart, from his father...so he resents his masculinity. Why??..Because a child, even you, either created or expected certain attentions, and love, security, and bonding as a given, to and from your parents. It is one's reality he lives in. When he is denied those things, or perceives he is being denied these things, he FEELS two things as a result. One, the realization that he is resented by his father, which leads him to feelings of worthlessness, to be loved by him, and hopelessness, that it will ever come from him. Two, resentment of his own masculinity, because he is like his dad, in that way, can't get the love and attention, gravitates, to the mother, resents the dad, and takes on unforgiveness to him, and learns more feminine traits to communicate closer to the mother..to be of interest to her!
In other words, the love inside them, towards their dad, he sees as ineffective!!
Listen to me,..open up...these two things are prominent, in virtually all homosexuals. The reverse for lesbians, except in cases of sexual abuse, and or, being with a man, who usually they feel ineffective with.
You have heard homosexuals say, "I FEEL like a woman trapped in a mans body(and vice versa)"...Ok?....Who gets trapped??!!?? VICTIMS!!!! Yes, VICTIMS..and who is victimizing them?........a combination, of neglect, and their sensitivities. That's how powerful it was! Ever notice some of the most brilliant artists, are homosexual??...Why? Sensitivities, and learning to speak to the other side of themselves, giving them sometimes a wider perspective!
I had originally thought of sharing a story with you, about a friend of mine, I mentioned in another post, I guy I knew, who was the most brilliant, composer, sound engineer, laser engineer, it think I had ever met, up to that point..and still heads and shoulders above many since. He taught me volumes about sound, and composing, that still is ahead of the pack. He finally opened up to me, when he finally felt no threat from me, or condemnation, but rather objective, caring, interest in him,, and his true inner needs. He and his father were distant, due to a long history of mutual bitterness, and disapproval. This guy was in the USMC Marine Band, had scholarships for music, and could play a variety of instruments..and WELL!
When we talked about sensitivities, I pointed out to him, that being sensitive was a huge quality, and being as he knew that, and we both acknowledged it, and he was gifted with it, I asked him, if instead of either resenting it, or hiding it, why not nurture it, in a child of his own, being as he knew so very well, how valuable, and powerful it was. Just hearing that, tears welled up in his eyes, and he admitted that he always wanted to do that, but didn't think he could because he had been Homosexual so long, that he lost touch with that ability, of what he really always wanted to do.
Not long after, he found his partner, Mark had come down with something he just could shake...and not too long after, Mark died of AIDS. Mark had the same issues with his dad, and in that, they found 'common ground'.
Deeply saddened, bordering on mourning, we talked more, and he opened up more. I asked him if his father had ever heard his incredible recordings. He was resolved to the thought, that his dad wouldn't like them, be interested in them, or him, and so his father never heard it.
Making a long post shorter, I'll skip the details of our conversations,(unless anyone is curious), and he took his recordings, and masters, up, and was going to get 're-acquainted with his dad, in Sacramento...possibly with the hopes of reconciling with him. Turns out, he stayed up there with him for better part of a year....and then died from AIDS, with his father, taking care of him, to the end.
So Dale, (the guy), you told me, that you wish you could have known before, and sooner...so where ever you are out there,..I'm honoring your wish..to all the other 'Dales' out there. I told you I would have, if I would have know sooner too!
Now, dying of AIDS was not the issue, I was trying to underscore. He could have died, for any reason....The thing is, my children's generation, is also denied of that genius and that gene pool is forever lost...NEEDLESSLY!!!!!! THOUGHTLESSLY!!!
What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals,..well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate...OR..you really can, consider another side.
Thank you.
GfS

Spin it all you want..I don't care!
...and as far as 'owing you an apology' Don......Don't flatter yourself!...Shove it!

Sincerely,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 07:13 PM

Ake,

Read this from Joe.

"There are 74 messages from that group of IP numbers, and all (except a few no-name ones) were signed by Guest from Sanity. That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer."

So the post came from GfS's computer.


Then,


"Despite evidence to the contrary, I'd tend to believe whatever GfS says about the message in question."


Did you get that? "evidence to the contrary" ...


Joes faith is admirable, but as he says: "You people know GfS better than I do"


DUH!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

You are quite wrong Ebbie, What Joe actually said was that he did NOT believe Sanity had written the piece in question.

Would you like to qualify your opinion of my position, or is describing it as "nonesensical" the sum total of your contribution to this thread?

The reason I brought this up at all is that the opposition seem to have descended into simple abuse with no attempt to answer questions or defend their stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 05:48 PM

Good grief. Shades of Sarah Palin- evidently all one has to do to WIN is to say you won. Ake says he has been proven correct, GfS says he has been vindicated by Joe...

Well, guess what. Neither one of you is reading correctly. Ake's position(s) are as nonsensical as ever, GfS, far from having been told that he is correct, has merely been told that the moderator is not aware of his using such tactics, while at the same time saying bluntly that it appears that the post in question virtually without a doubt came from G's computer.

GuestfS, do you sleep walk?

Don Firth has been here a good long time, long enough for us to know him and his views and his 'tactics'. I have not ever known him to knowingly lie, even when his patience with utter balderdash runs thin. I have no doubt but that polling Mudcat members would elicit the same information.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 05:37 PM

Have you people stopped addressing the issue?.....I haven't seen the white flag!

Everything you have been saying has been blown out of the water by Keith, and the WHO's comments on the proposed "aggressive" testing and contact tracing of "at risk groups, has proved my ideas on treatment will be proved to be correct.