BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

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 - 06:59 PM

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

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: 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: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 02:14 AM

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 08:50 AM

Smedley wrote: "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".

It matters not to me either, personally, but I do argue the genetic side in order to show that gay people do not have a choice. But even if they did have a choice. I am not bothered. It's their choice to make, not mine. But I still find no earthly reason why someone should go through all the hurt and pain inflicted on them if they could so easily choose to get out of it. THAT proves to me more than anything it is not choice. And that is why I state what I do. Personally though it makes not a ha'peth of difference to me. Where there is *****phobia, hatred and bigotry and would always try and speak up against it.

I have lots of friends who are full on gay and I have heard enough from them to make me feel I know what goes on for them. The emphasis above though is that I have lots of FRIENDS who are gay. Not I have lots of gay friends. They are FRIENDS... makes no difference what comes with it because all my friends are very individual and different. I have friends that are solidly Christian but not in your face with their religion. I have folk friends who are tranditionalsts! OMG! ;-) Etc., etc,. A friend is a friend.
---------


As regards homophobia and bigotry... I think much could be gained by researching it and finding out why some are completely entrenched. What causes homophobia type questioning and research may gives us more ideas as to why, in the face of all that is known, it still prevails. The truth with homophobia, of course, is that it IS a choice. People do choose to be homophobic. Some cannot help it, nor want to change it, nor want to get help for it, and some would never acknowledge they were homophobic, but that they are, or do a good job of showing 'true colours' is plain for others to see. Bigotry is a little more entrenched into human psychology I fear and may not have the same primers as homophobia. TOLERANCE is all that is needed. With that would come ACCEPTANCE, hopefully. So teaching tolerance, not promoting anything but plain simple humanity to others, has to be one of the ways forward. Of course many are simply accepting of others and their differences from the start. That is the best thing to see. Being tolerated is okay but being accepted is much better. We all seek validity on things in our life. We are human.

In short. I'll say it as I have kept saying it. I am not bothered what causes homosexuality. It does bother me what causes homophobia and hatred because that in itself has been and still is a great cause to the loss of the life of many individuals.

It's frightening when you see it in place and the great harm it causes. I know Smedley will be no stranger to its insidious horrors and anyone who has never witnessed it's viciousness and inhumanity has to be lucky. It is not uncommon, along with the other hate crime type offences, but then some would also deny the need for that legislation too.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 09:48 AM

Yadda, yadda yadda, blazoo goof goof.....anything but answering my questions!
Look, at where the snide remarks come from...Happy people??..Emotionally mature people??
You talk about being accepted, yet have an axe to grind, regarding straight people. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 10:33 AM

Blazoo goof goof - I have tried this on several translation websites but without success.

I have no wish to be 'accepted' - if anyone has a problem about me being gay, it's something they need to sort out with their analyst, their conscience, their brain cells, their deity or their alcohol stash.

And do I have an axe to grind ? Only with one-track-minded homophobes.

As for emotional maturity, it wasn't me that said blazoo goof goof......

I cannot answer your question, Sanitary dear, as I do not acknowledge the premises on which they are based.

(If none of GfS' jibes were aimed at me, then I have no need to post the above. But just in case.....)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 11:14 AM

""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)""

You bring this point up every hour, on the hour, and try to insinuate that no research into the causes of homosexuality or HIV/AIDS has been carried out.

In point of fact, both are among the most assiduously and minutely researched subjects in the whole field of biology.

The perils of promiscuous sexuality are not, as you well know, limited to any sexual orientation, yet, when it is suggested to you that the introduction of a stable monogamous option would assist in reducing risk, you dismiss it out of hand as being not worthy of discussion.

You claim that take-up is low, but fail to realise that the number of anti gay bigots screaming their heads off in an attempt to control what is none of their business, may bear some considerable responsibility for that.

You don't want solutions, you want homosexuals repressed, and eliminated as in the past.

As to your comment that there is not one shred of evidence for homosexuality being anything other than a lifestyle choice, that is so ridiculous that I can't imagine even you truly believe it.

But just in case you do, please tell me at what age you looked at the two possible "lifestyles" available to you, and made a conscious decision to stick it only to girls.

I use that crude language so that you will understand the question, you having used that kind of pejorative slang repeatedly.

Now I will wait to be told once more that I am not worth a response. There are an awful lot of people in this world that you consider inferior to you, and generally the qualification is the ability to ask questions to which you have NO ANSWER!.

Try how you will to conceal it, your ulterior purpose is abundantly clear to all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 11:33 AM

""I have never come across anyone who has genuine hatred of homosexuals...maybe I've led a sheltered life.""

If that statement is true Ake, it would explain a lot.

I know the internet has opened up the world, but I never thought I would be able to communicate with an alien on some very distant planet (which planet, by the way Ake?).

A short enquiry at your local police station, or at the A&E at the local hospital, should give you a clue as to the number of battered, broken, bodies appear regularly, having had an encounter with one of those gay bashers of whose existence you appear to be unaware.

I should have thought you would want to know them as they are doing their best to get rid of the "problem" for you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 03:09 PM

I'm sorry to inform you of this, GfS, but when you posted this:

Yadda, yadda yadda, blazoo goof goof.....anything but answering my questions!
Look, at where the snide remarks come from...Happy people??..Emotionally mature people??
You talk about being accepted, yet have an axe to grind, regarding straight people. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

You managed to completely negate all of your previous pleas to have a calm and reasonable discussion. That is not the kind of post, expressing contempt for those with whom s/he doesn't agree, I would ever read from a person who actually wants a reasonable discussion.

I have tried to state my points in a reasonable, straightforward manner, as have others on this thread, and rather than you responding to questions put to you, you respond with a post like that!

Other that merely giving lip-service to it (especially when your back is against the wall), YOU are the one who is not demonstrated good faith.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 03:16 PM

Jeez!....Here we are back again to the 'Bigot', 'Homophobes', 'Anti Gay Bigots', and 'Haters'...and the like. When all else fails, and you have nothing to say, or can't answer a simple question, or even have a hard time thinking, or pursuing an original thought, or considering a new thought, some very boring people resort to name calling.

At least Don Firth, and myself had 'spirited', and 'creative' disagreements..in which actual knowledge and provocative thoughts were expressed. This other junk is banal!

Anyone out there capable of the concept of 'considering'?..outside of yourself?

Jeez, I betcha' their 'folk' music is just as uninspired and boring!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 03:21 PM

Hey Don, we cross posted. If you read my earlier posts, you might have flashed that I had mistaken Don.T's 'off our train of thought' post, for yours. Sorry. Don't get thy knickers in a twist. We were doing fine. What questions were you referring to?.. and while posting, respond to mine as well....this CAN turn around...again to something a bit more informative!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 03:26 PM

Like I just said, GfS. Others beside me have attempted to have a reasonable discussion with you, but you can't seem to refrain from getting snotty when it's not going your way.

I've been around awhile, GfS, and I've had lots of discussions with lots of people on lots of subjects. From debate in high school to philosophy and logic classes in college, to many discussions over a coffee or a beer with lots of intelligent, well-informed people (including a few you may have heard of). I've heard it all before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 03:49 PM

My posts to this thread have been the most rude I've ever made anywhere..

I do apologise for being offensive to any individuals I've been personally rude too. I don't like being offensive to people. Though sometimes it happens, and I do regret that (yes, honestly).

I'm afraid these threads tend to make me very angry, so sometimes I blurt out what I'm feeling. Especially as I find so much of these threads are a complete joke! Quite frankly, if it were up to me I'd have "discussions" like this banned as I find them so offensive. So what can one do but laugh & take the piss?

In any event - so refreshing to hear speak of same sex LOVE rather than the incessant stuff about 'gay sex viruses'. LOVE is magical and real and it happens between boys and girls in all kinds of combinations.

And good for anyone that finds it wherever they find it.
Happy Xmas all :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM

They're Rioting in Africa (The Merry Minuet)
(Sheldon Harnick)

Intro:
    There are days in my life when everything is dreary
    I grow pessimistic, sad and world weary.
    But when I'm tearful and fearfully upset
    I always sing this merry little minuet:

They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering
With unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like anybody very much

But we can be grateful
And thankful and proud
That man's been endowed
With a mushroom shaped cloud

And we know for certain
That some happy day
Someone will set the spark off
And we will all be blown away

They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow man.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 05:02 PM

GfS

"Anyone out there capable of the concept of 'considering'?..outside of yourself?"

You've had this said to you many times in your life haven't you.

And you haven't really ever understood it, but you know it has a powerful meaning, so you use it from time to time as a diversion tactic when all else are failing.

If you were able to be considerate you would not talk about smedley as if he were a lab rat. You would be aware that he is human and you would have some empathy for his context.

If you were not totally self absorbed and if you didn't exist in a 'room full of mirrors' you would see how preposterous your posturing as some kind of Phd Student with a specialization in sexuality was.

As it is, any kind of attention is good for you and making 'controversial' statements and being a 'maverick' are the best ways you know of getting more.

In fact, your apperent 'radical' and 'edgy' style is like ether. It evaporates and disappears in the blink of an eye, which is why you think you have to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Real substance scares you. You are afraid that you might not be able to understand it on one hand, and on the other hand you are afraid of what you will find out about yourself if you do understand it.

I see you as a pinball pinging around the mudcat having no lasting impact on anyone and but being happy as long as your existence is acknowledged.

You get most satisfaction when one of the grumpy old men shakes his fists at you and you are most likely to attack the ones who have compassion for you and have the patience to engage with you.

I have neither particularly, but I don't mind giving you the odd little theatrical fist shake from time to time if thats what you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 05:21 PM

GfS, at 26 Dec 09 - 06:41 p.m., I posted a reasonable summation of the whole discussion, including objective answers (all verifiable to anyone who cares to look) to the issues that you and Ake keep raising, and you blew right by it without comment and went right back to the same assertions you've been making since the Prop. 8 thread. I'm afraid it's you who doesn't answer questions or issues raised.

When you called for a calm, well-reasoned and civil discussion, you just reasserted the same arguments you've been using all along, and when you got the same refutations, you simply returned to responding abusively—as you did before.

'Round and a'round she goes. . . .

I think it's probably time for Ake to come in and spell you. But then, he does the same thing.

I'm getting bloody bored with this!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,999--in the spirit of the season . . . .
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 06:41 PM

Deck the halls with boughs of holly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Tis the season to be jolly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la.
Troll the ancient Yule tide carol,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

See the blazing Yule before us,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Strike the harp and join the chorus.
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Follow me in merry measure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
While I tell of Yule tide treasure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Fast away the old year passes,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Hail the new, ye lads and lasses,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Sing we joyous, all together,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Heedless of the wind and weather,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 06:50 PM

Just curious, GUEST,999. Do you have anything to say, or are you just pissing in the punchbowl?

Don Firth (has left the buiding)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 07:10 PM

Do you have any idea how nasty you have become, Don. It was a joy to read your writing and see you express your thoughts just a while back. Lately, you've become a miserable old fart. Dictatorial, pissy, and fuckin' rude. This I tell you because someone has to let you know, not because you 'demanded' an accounting. I owe you NOTHING! So, either lighten up or get stuffed, and it's not up to you to ask why I post what I did. You used to be smart enough to have a sense of humour and verve. You lost that quality somewhere. Too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 08:03 PM

I don't think so, 999. I'm still my sweet, serene self.

I do believe sincerely in civil rights for everyone, and when someone wants to limit the civil rights of a minority group, I see nothing wrong with opposing that attempted limitation strenuously. There are quite a number of well-known historical figures who felt the same way. Most of them were villified at the time, but history has recorded them as "the good guys."

Incidentally, those who single out specific groups and attempt to either oppress them or limit their civil rights (same thing, really) are call "bigots." Dictionary definition. I don't define anyone as a bigot. They define themselves by what the do and say.

Now, if you go back through the threads, both this one and the Prop. 8 thread, I think you'll discover that I most certainly didn't start the name-calling, and I have never impugned the intelligence of someone with whom I did not agree. GfS and Ake do that on a regular basis, calling me and others "stupid" and "knee-jerkers" and accusing us of being "liberal fascists."

So I'd suggest that you do a little research before you start popping off at someone.

Now—do you actually have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or is joining in the personal abuse your reason for being here?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 09:14 PM

Despite all the shit you post Don.....your only arugment amounts the belief that all sexual minorities should be treated equally.

A dozen times I have made the argument that this is not the case and provided facts to prove it. Rights are conditional on health psychiatric considerations and homosexuality at the moment contravenes both these considerations.

You really make no attempt to argue a case, but rely on the usual abuse about homophobes(a tactic that Smedley has called into question).....and the sympathy vote from the intellectually challenged.
You have a nerve to attack 999 about his posting style, 999 has proved his open mindedness on this thread, as well as his wit and humour.
Something sadly lacking in yourself or your sidekick

Oh and by the way, the next time you dramatically announce "you're out of here!!" or "Don Firth has left the building"....for fuck sake don't disappoint everybody!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 09 - 09:45 PM

Ake, my post at 26 Dec 09 - 06:41 p.m. is pretty much a summation of everything I have been arguing all along.

And I did not say all sexual minorities. I do not condone pedophilia, either from homosexuals or heterosexuals. But there are already laws on the books covering that ("Age of consent").

And as to Ake's remark about "all the shit" I post—did you take note of that remark, GUEST,999?

Ake, both you and GfS use the tactic of misrepresenting what those with whom you disagree say and then attacking them on the basis of your misrepresentation—just as you did there, in your most recent post. That's one of the more transparent fallacies and it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, but you keep using it.

I do not believe your protestations of caring for health and welfare of male homosexuals. If you really cared, you wouldn't be trying to lock them into a life of promiscuity by denying them a perfectly viable alternative.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

Death penalty for homosexuals?

You might just ask them to read all 745 posts to this thread a few times. That should do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 10:27 AM

Wesley, you may well have a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 07:07 PM

""A dozen times I have made the argument that this is not the case and provided facts to prove it. Rights are conditional on health psychiatric considerations and homosexuality at the moment contravenes both these considerations.""

So now, as well as having a built in propensity for paedophilia, they are all disease ridden nutcases who should not be allowed access to the same rights as the rest of the population.

You just get more and more and weird Ake, and more and more strident with your fatally flawed concepts of both homosexuality and medicine.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 08:37 PM

"You just get more and more and weird Ake, and more and more strident with your fatally flawed concepts of both homosexuality and medicine."

Not to mention his concept of civil rights.

He trys to suggest that denying homosexuals their rights constitutes caring for them ...

... and he thinks that losing an argument constitutes a threat to his freedom of speech.

But at least he has admitted that he believes homosexuals should not have the same rights as us.

It serves as useful further evidence of the truth of his position.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 04:34 PM

With so many quotes from others in each others posts I lost track of who is psychotic or sadistic or both.

I do know that the Nazi's and Soviets had wonderful mental institutions and that 'health psychiatric considerations' were crafted to prove that Jews were sub human. The discovery/invention of new kinds of perversion came in very handy for the State to imprison, enslave or destroy the lives of "undesirables".

The uptight positions taken might reflect personal reflections or inner demons that became menacing. Relax, no one gives a shit.

I support civil rights.

Take them away from even one group only and you have destroyed civil rights. Its like having the freedom of speech ... except of course for Paul Burke,


or Bill D and John from Kansas and others like 999 to be named later ... like the entire state of Alaska and...

you see now? It is no longer a freedom of speech.
Same with Civil Rights. Yep it will even include people you won't like... which for some people is a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Elspeth
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 07:19 PM

"Rights are conditional on health psychiatric considerations and homosexuality at the moment contravenes both these considerations."

Donuel and the others are right. sorry Ake, rights are not conditional. And even if they were it is not homosexuality that contravenes botht hese conditions. A person just _is_ homosexual, that doesn;t automatically give them health issues. Some of their _personal_ choices may lead them to have health issues but that is on an induvidual basis the same as it is for any other part of society. Homosexuality is just something people are. It's not a group like...a particular church group or...vegans. lets take vegans! I know several Vegans who have serious eating issues because they don;t know how to feed themselves a properly balenced diet. Are we supposed with hold their rights because their private life might cause some health issues for them? No, of course not. If we provide rights for people who create their own issues why on earth should we not for people who just happen to be gay and hence associated with STIs? It's not a club! It's not a label that gives you the right to deny their rights! It's just that they happent to prefer people of their own gender. It's irrelevant. You can;t start taking away rights because you think someone has chosen an unhealthy lifestyle. That goes for gay and straight, people who stuff themselves with junk, fat people, skinny models, every teenage boy that sleeps around etc etc. or...say you had a hereditary disease would you think it fair for them to ban you from marriage and sex because of the risk of it being passed on? No. Of course you wouldn't. because, it's totally irrelevant!

Also, do you think STIs and other health issues are that much more prevelant in homosexuals? Why do you think that?