Equal Rights for Gay Marriage

Subject: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:18 AM

D.C. Council Approves Gay Marriage

By IAN URBINA
Published: December 15, 2009 NYT

WASHINGTON — The City Council passed a measure Tuesday legalizing same-sex marriage, making the nation's capital the first jurisdiction below the Mason-Dixon Line to allow such unions.

The bill, which passed by an 11-to-2 vote, may still face obstacles in Congress, among city voters and in the courts, but most advocates of same-sex marriage say they expect it to become law by spring. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has said he will sign the bill.

"Today's vote is an important victory not only for the gay and lesbian community but for everyone who supports equal rights," said Councilman David A. Catania, an independent and the author of the bill.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:25 PM

A decade of progress in gay rights.

"More states have anti-discrimination laws, more top corporations protect workers based on sexual orientation, and gay youth are finding more support in school, according to findings from a study by the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank specializing in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.

In the latest step for gay rights, the Washington, D.C., City Council voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage, making it the first jurisdiction south of the Mason-Dixon Line to do so. Because Washington is a federal district, Congress has 30 working days to veto the law.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut and will be legal in New Hampshire on Jan. 1.

"When they're working in the day-to-day trenches, sometimes people don't see the progress that has been made," said Matt Foreman, who directs the gay and immigrant rights program at the Haas foundation. The organization, which has poured $42 million into LGBT causes in the past decade, commissioned the report to chart progress over that time.

"An increasing number of people (44 percent of Americans) are living in a state that provides nondiscrimination protections to people," Foreman said. Ten years ago, the study found that only 24 percent of Americans could make that claim."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/16/MNML1B484M.DTL#ixzz0ZsDt2LYh
"

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Charmion
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM

Cool.

They've almost caught up with stuffy old Ontario.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM

The problem with anything that DC decides to do is that, being a colony of US goevernemnt, everything must be approved by Congress...

Look at medical marijuana... DC voted for it over 10 years ago and Congress said "No"... When one looks at the health care reform package then it's not too far of a stretch to see the minority in Congress prevailing on same sex marriage in DC and saying "No", yet again...

B~

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM

What about equal rights, for heterosexual co-habiting couples too?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM

Oh? Are their rights being denied? (You mean non-married 'couples')?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:58 PM

In the UK non married cohabiting partners have the same rights as married, so long as both are alive.

When one partner dies, however, the other partner gets nothing unless there is a will leaving property to him/her.

Absent the will, the relatives of the deceased can move in and grab the lot.

I worked alongside a woman who lost everything after twenty seven years of unmarried partnership.

All irrelevant to the argument, of course, as they could have married and chose not to. Hardly the same as being prevented by discriminatory law.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:08 PM

I have always thought that any benefits available to married couples should be available to ALL couples who co-habitate and sign a document legalizing their partnership. This includes siblings who choose to live together as well. Maybe a civil union including but not presuming a sexual relationship.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM

I just had an epiphany: if you go by Bill Clinton's definiton of sex, it can only take place between a man and a woman. All other activities are just...what? extraneous, maybe?

That opens up a huge vista of perfectly legal and acceptable possibilities. Not sure where I am headed with this. I need more time to organize my train of thought.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ernest
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:16 PM

That also opens up a huge new business field for divorce lawyers!

;0)
Ernest

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:23 PM

What SINSULL said at 02:08

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM

Me too John.

All couples, without regard to gender, race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, political orientation, who choose to establish a long standing co-habiting relationship, whether sexual, or platonic, should have the same rights.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:43 PM

I think all heterosexuals pretty much have that now ? after x number of years I think they call it common law marriage or something like that, all rights as if they did the deed according to the law. I am no lawyer but they discuss it many times on TV. Now just people living together for economic reasons like a brother and sister. I think that is were all the power of attorney and legal stuff has to be setup ... don't know how that works or is it just they are the closest kin under the law and already have that authority? don't know, good question

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:49 AM

In the UK the canard of the 'common-law marriage' persists in some quarters, tho lawyers never tire of denying its validity and denouncing it as a complete myth — I remember one who cogently and pithily summed it up by saying, "You might as well call a nut cutlet a common-law steak".

But we do have a fully legal and recognised system for gay/lesbian partnerships which brings many of the same rights as marriage for heterosexuals: it involves the same sort of formal ceremony before the registrar, and is called a Civil Partnership. Many [indeed most] of my gay friends in long-term relationships have entered into Civil Partnerships & feel much happier & more secure as a result.

It is my impression that this is the sort of thing that many of the States of the Union are feeling towards, or in some cases have achieved, Am I right about that?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: bubblyrat
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:14 AM

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion,and mine is that it is absolutely disgusting. Whatever next ?? Be allowed to marry your horse ? Have a civil partnership with a minor ?? No wonder the Muslims hate us !!!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:23 AM

Bubblyrat, YOU GOT IT!!!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 09:12 AM

Ah. "It" is disgusting.

Two people stand up before the community they live in, and promise to love and honor one another and be faithful to each other. They are recognized in their status and gain the right to re[resent each other, inherit, and some other legal rights.


Yes it is horrid, isn't it? Especially when one is a different religion. Icky. Or color!! Even worse. These people should learn their place, is what... They should learn too behave properly, like we do...

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:43 PM

""all rights as if they did the deed according to the law.""

In all matters when both parties are alive that's true Olddude, but when one dies, unless there is a will all bets are off.

As I said above, I worked with a lady who was kicked out of her home, and lost everything but her clothes and jewellery in exactly that way.

The relatives (vultures) got in so fast it would have made your head spin.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:06 PM

*I* have thought for 30+ years that all people should be able to enter into any relationship, including same-sex, polygamy, polyandry, etc., that doesn't involve those not able to read and understand a contract....as in minors and animals and those with diagnosed mental problems.

The catch? If is to be a non-standard 'marriage',they MUST design a legal document setting out all responsibilities, rights, inheritance, raising of children, property considerations...etc, etc... and have the document approved by a special 'court' which makes sure nothing contravenes OTHER laws. It would require a HIGH fee for such a license and classes & interviews of all proposed participants.

Do I seriously think it is likely anything like that would ever be approved? Not likely.....maybe in a couple states like Oregon. I just think it is wise to have a route to have controls on something that will happen anyway.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:20 PM

"March 30, 2010 (The Progress Report)


by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald

A Worthy Repeal Campaign


Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- after 1,260 days in office in which more than 2,000 people have been discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) -- belatedly issued more lenient guidelines for enforcing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. The new rules are meant to keep the law from being used "to launch witch hunts or settle grudges" before Congress acts to repeal it and "represent the first significant step by the administration to address what [President] Obama calls an injustice." Though they do not represent a full repeal, Gates described the new guidelines as ''an important improvement in the way the law is put into practice." The changes give "a greater measure of common sense and common decency for handling what are complex and difficult issues for all involved," he said. But Gates also stressed that Congress should not repeal the policy before the Pentagon finishes its year-long review of the law. "There is a great deal we don't know about this, in terms of the views of our servicemembers, in terms of the views of their families and influences," Gates said. "There is a lot we'd have to address in terms of what would be required in the way of changed regulations in terms of benefits. There are a lot of unanswered questions in terms of the implementation of this." The new guidelines are a critical first step in making sure every man and woman with the ability and willingness to serve is allowed to do so, but they are no substitute for full legislative repeal of DADT. That repeal should happen sooner rather than later. The Senate has introduced legislation that would repeal the law in 270 days and require the military to develop a clear implementation strategy. As Center for American Progress studies haven shown, linking congressional repeal with Pentagon implementation makes strong strategic sense because it will ensure that the transition to open service will be smooth, orderly, and fully consistent with the rigors of military service and unit readiness.

NEW DADT GUIDELINES: The new DADT guidelines, which apply to all pending and future discharge cases, effectively limit enforcement of DADT to those cases where a servicemember actively outs himself or herself. The discharge of enlisted personnel must now be approved by higher-ranked officers. Information provided by third parties must be given under oath and the use of hearsay will be discouraged. The new rules also redefine what constitutes a reliable person, with special scrutiny on third parties that may be motivated to harm the accused servicemember, and stipulate that certain confidential information obtained from lawyers, clergy, doctors, and security clearances cannot be used to begin a separation. The changes "constitute a solid first step to help reign in many of the abuses of the policy that have become common practice over the past seventeen years," said Alexander Nicholson, a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under DADT and the current Executive Director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans. "These changes are by no means a substitute for full legislative repeal of the law this year, but they are certainly a good start,""

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:08 PM

Equal ability to bear children, too???????????

It's Fantasy Land revisited!

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM

Bull. Plenty of barren heteros raise children. I know one young woman who solved her temporary financial crisis by becoming a proxy mother twice in a row. It paid well and provided health insurance. Her clients weren't gay but they could as well have been.


A

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM

Uh...sure, GfS. Ever hear of AI?
Done on infertile herero couples all the time. Why not GL ones?

Oh, right, their sexual orientation makes them pedophiles or something.....

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:25 PM

1.....Homosexuals in general are not interested in monogamy or "marriage"...other than for benefit reasons (Scandinavian study)

2.... The homosexual lifestyle in general terms is unhealthy and dangerous(CDC and UNAIDS hiv/aids figures.

3..... Christians and other groups also have rights (redefinition of "marriage")

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:33 PM

1. The issue is not those who are not but those who are, and "general' propositions do not apply.

2. It is actually promiscuity which tens to be dangerous, in either persuasion, not sanctioned monogamy.

3. Marriage is not a Christian artifact in this context, it is a civil and social artifact. Christians did not define it or invent it civilly. People wearing CIVIL hats did that, regardless of whether they were Baptist or worshipers of Anthrax the Imponderable or none of the above. Or, for that matter, Thor, Loki and company.


A

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:42 PM

1.... Read the study!

2....The figures do not lie...regardless of what causes them!

3.....In this case the rights of one minority are infringing the rights of another...re-definition is an infringment (I want to be in your club, but I want to change all the rules)...Joke is, they dont want to be in the club at all.....but Amos does! :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM

Scuse me, but why would the 'right' of a gay/lesbian person to have a civil union 'infringe' on any way of a Christians right to same? Don't Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, etc have marriage?

Does THAT infringe on Christian rights too?

And what Amos said.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM

We are trying to have an adult discussion here....please stop acting dumb.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:35 PM

What do people fear from gay folk being able to get married? What possible harm can it do to anyone?

Should we also re-invoke where women are the property of the man they are married to?

Historically things get changed as we become more civilised and aware of each other's diversity, attitudes and cultures. Why is that such a difficult concept for some?

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:36 PM

I think it's a good question. Do Muslim marriages infringe on Christians' rights? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:01 PM

Sorcha: "Scuse me, but why would the 'right' of a gay/lesbian person to have a civil union 'infringe' on any way of a Christians right to same? Don't Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, etc have marriage?"

Besides mixing up issues, civil unions is one thing, and people can do that if they choose. Those who do that should do just that, and not re-define 'marriage' to suit themselves, or to be validated by a name, rather than a function.

besides, why is is so important for homosexuals to be recognized as to who or what they want to have sex with. I don't know a lot of heterosexuals proclaiming that they should be 'accepted' for who or what, or how they fuck....nor trying to form a political party policy because they prefer to be as 'normal' living beings...with the instincts to SURVIVE and REPRODUCE.....which by the way, is a known and accepted, and true attribute for ALL living things on this planet. If one has something that stands in the way of that, it is known as a dysfunction. Not MY definition....but it it, what it is. Does that mean they are not living?..NO!...it just means that they have an area in which they are dysfunctional..and that is an emotional/mental posture, that keeps them from surviving, and REPRODUCING, as any normal living thing does. If you don't like it, then try re-defining what is considered fully living. I'm only pointing out the definitions....regardless of any political slant or bent or posturing. Others may make it a political issue, I'm only keeping politics and science free from the political stand, that wishes to dictate to science.

This shouldn't be a source of debate....unless one's political stance is NOT rooted in reality, but rather wishful idealism.
Thank you,
GfS

P.S. If you disagree, read it again...stupid arguments are not going to change FACTS. they can only get subscribes to take it politically on 'faith'...but then, I watch a lot of political whiners attack peoples faith...go figure!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:15 PM

This is just BS, Ake. THere is no way in which one couple's marriage lessens the civil rights of another. Christianity has nothing to do with any of it.

Unless you are talking about the Chrostian sanctification, which has nothing to do with the legal and civil status.

There is ZERO reduction of others' rights by having the legal status of marriage offered equally without regard to gender preference. To claim there is is to allow oneself to fall freely into the deep end of kookiness.

And the difference between the CIVIL rights and privileges is all we are talking about. I don't give a shit what one bunch of religionists or another thinks about the issue from a religious perspective--that's their business. But marriage has always had a legal definition which is not being changed by extending it to couples who are gay.


A

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Royston
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

GfS, it's not gay people or rights campaigners that want - as you say - "recognized as to who or what they want to have sex with"

It's you that wants to reduce people to "who or what they want to have sex with" by dividing up rights along lines of sexuality.

It is rights campaigners that are trying to get you to stop defining people by "who or what they want to have sex with"

You need to understand that.

I thought you had some sort of rational epiphany on the "Death Penalty" thread. Ho hum, it looks like the nasty tape is whirring in your head again.

I think that civil partnerships are an entirely adequate and reasonable response to all the issues of partnership rights. I don't understand why people's religious beliefs can't just be respected in the private spheres of the congregations in which they choose to worship.

There are churches, mosques, synagogues, temples that are prepared to marry or bless same sex partnerships. People can just go to one of them if they need anything that the register office can't/won't offer.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:00 PM

I see the usual homophobically obsessed suspects have come swooping in on this thread, all prepared to inundate us with the same old, tired arguments that they used on at least two other threads.

I REALLY, REALLY WONDER why they are so adamant about the matter when it would really have no detrimental effect whatsoever on them, or on society in general—unless they, themselves, let it. Something very pathological going on with these folks.

As said by Mrs. Patrick Campbell, the actress for whom George Bernard Shaw wrote the role of Eliza Doolittle in his play, Pygmalion, the inspiration for the musical "My Fair Lady:"

"It doesn't make any difference what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

Our resident homophobes seem to be under the impression that marriage is about nothing but sex.

I feel sorry for you guys. There's a whole lot more to it than that!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM

thank you Amos. More succint than I was. And at least in the US, a 'Civil union' IS a type of marriage. The Church Per Se has NO legal status to perform a marriage. They do 'weddings'. But...MOST preachers have passed an exam/something that conferrs the privilige of conducting a civil marrige.

The Wedding and relgious 'contract' has NOTHING to do with marrige.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:46 PM

Homosexuality wants it ALL.

I have an issue with homoseual health and life expectancy figures.
I think the lifestyle is dangerous and unhealthy and should not be promoted as "just another lifestyle"

Don.... this subject has been well discussed, but Amos keeps putting it back on the agenda. Dont expect opponents to keep silent while your side continue to bombard us with propaganda.

I thought we were supposed to have agreed to be civil to one another,
"homophobically obsessed suspects"
"Something very pathological going on with these folks"
"Our resident homophobes"

All on your first visit to this thread!
I dont like being called homophobic, I object to the promotion of homosexual practice on reasonable grounds.

All of these threads have been started by the pro homosexual marriage/ pro homosexuality in mainstream society lobby.

Your side are the obsessives.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM

I guess I just don't understand why it bothers some people what consenting adults do. Do as you will, but cause no harm.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

Do the homosexual health figures mean absolutely nothing to you Sorcha?
Does harm to ones self not count?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM

"I think the lifestyle is dangerous and unhealthy .."

So is ski jumping and auto racing...and coal mining... and driving cars in urban areas. LIFE is a risk...but people who are sane and reasonably careful can ski, race autos, and drive cars...etc..as well as have a happy life with someone of the same sex.

Careless behavior is what is unsafe, not sexual practices in and of themselves.....but informed adults should be able to assess what risks there are and make their own decision about proceeding.

Ake--- you keep quoting statistics and 'insinuating' that 'something should be done' about same-sex relationships. What DO you suggest be done? How DO you think society should respond to perfectly sane, decent people who just happen to differ from YOU in their sexual orientation? I'll guarantee you that denying them equal rights is not going to alter their orientation!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Royston
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:44 PM

Please don't let the village idiot drag this back to his coitus obsessions, this thread is about marriage / partnership rights isn't it?

All the expert advice (WHO, UNAIDS, etc) on how promotion of rights and prevention of Ake saves lives are on the "death penalty" thread.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:52 PM

I think partners (heterosexual) after 7 years or so it is called a "Common Law marriage in most states" which does give them the same rights as married ...

I don't like any type of discrimination on anyone regardless of their life style. God made lots of different flowers, all of them unique and quite beautiful ... so stop the gay bashing, it is wrong period ...

I am as far from gay as one can get, but I am sure in my heart that gay people can love just as strong and just as deep as us hetero people do.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:57 PM

When did I say that "something should be done about same sex relationships"?
They are a fact of life, nothing can be "done" about them, certainly not re=criminalising them.

I am against the promotion of a lifestyle which produces horrendous health and life expectancy figures, as safe healthy and normal

I am against the placing of very young children into such a lifestyle
especially with male homosexuals....the dangers should be evident to everyone
CARELESS BEHAVIOUR, goes with the male homosexual territory. It appears to be part of male homosexual culture.
This culture is not the ideal ewnvironment in which to bring up small children....that should also be evident to everyone.

According to the available figures male homosexual monogamous relationships last on average between 1 and 2 years, a much shorter period than hetero monogamous relationships.

There is a considerably lower take-up rate on homosexual marriage and civil union than hetero unions, the difference being attributed to the much higher promiscuity figures amongst homosexuals; and that homosexuals in general terms see marriage or union as mainly a device which is financially beneficial, rather than as a base from which to produce and bring up a family.

Equality simply does not exist, never did exist, and will never be in the true interests of all of society.

I read in the papers the other day of two women who were waiting for life saving surgery, one a woman of 90, the other a woman of 29 with two kids equality dictated that the 90 year old who had been longer on the list should be treated first.....Go figure!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:05 PM

Thank you Bill. and oh never mind.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

Consider below an unhealthy lifestyle that should not be promoted:

"Studies in the United States show that men who play five or more years in the NFL have a life expectancy of 55, 20 years less than the average in the general public. For linemen, perhaps due to their size, the life expectancy is 52".

Source: cbc.ca

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM

Boxing is another!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:31 PM

Oh no sorry.....Boxing is a dangerous sport :0(

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:37 PM

"They are a fact of life, nothing can be "done" about them.."

...except 'preventing' certain situations, if I read you correctly.

"CARELESS BEHAVIOUR, goes with the male homosexual territory. It appears to be part of male homosexual culture."

**SOME** behavior is careless in **SOME** parts of the culture.

No one is 'promoting' a lifestyle....we are just defending the right to have a lifestyle.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:38 PM

Royston you have been well exposed in the Ugandan thread.

You crept out of that with your tail between your legs.

Would you like to start again?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

Good news from Washington DC, I hope it goes all the way through.

Is there any chance that everyone would refrain from responding to Akenaton and Guest from Sanity? After two other threads that ran into thousands of posts, it is very clear that facts, logic, common sense, and human decency aren't important to either of them. Do you really want to spend your time arguing with people who will never engage in normal debate?

John

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:55 PM

"Careless behaviour" appears to be much more common and widespread among the homosexual community, than the hetero.

I am incapable of "preventing" what is happening re homosexuality.

I have opinions backed by well resourced figures from respected health authorities.
You, simply have opinions.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM

Ah Mr Peekstock! the "heterosexual homosexual activist"

Isn't it odd that as strangers to "facts, logic, common sense and decency", our opinions still produce thousands of responces?

and dont you dare respond to that....you little hypocrit   :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:07 PM

Should the overweight, all thoe practising infidelity, or with multiple partners, those who smoke, drive recklessly, those who drink excessively and those who fail to exersise and practice good eating habits, those who previously participated in domestic violence or abuse, or incest...all unhealthy lifestyles... be allowed to marry?

Should we not promote college attendance, since most undergraduates are having sex out of wedlock....obviously a potentially unhealthy practice.

Is it logical to say that a committed monogamous, gay, married couple is in any way less healthy than a monogamous, hetro, married, couple....after all, a high percentage ends up in divorce in all cases.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:09 PM

Would you like me to dredge up some of your posts from the "gay parents" thread as an example of your "facts, logic,common sense and human decency" (irony).

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:13 PM

Well Ed, in the UK smokers, drunk drivers, and those who practice child abuse or incest are widely viewed as social pariahs.
Most are criminalised for their unhealthy practices.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:16 PM

Committed, monogamous, homosexual, "married" couples, are about as common as hens teeth!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM

Their scarcity or abundance is not the point at all; nor is their health or lack thereof. There are plenty of cases of perfectly healthy same-sex couples.

The question is only this one: should the civil status and appurtenant rights of legal marriage be denied the minority because of the difference in their sexual preferences from the majority. Ake believes they should be discriminated to the disadvantage of the minority. He provides no legal or civil grounds for this argument--since legal marriage has absolutely no exacerbating effects on health risks and may have salubrious effects, and in all probability reduces rather than aggravates promiscuity in any population regardless of sexual bent. Therefore his argument does not stand up from the point of view of public health. In the question of private health he has no standing to make decrees one way or the other.

On the matter of civil rights the notion has been expressed that in some way extending the civil status of marriage to people not approvied of by Christians somehow deprives those Christians in some way. This is absurd on the fae of it unless you believe in theocratic government. We, in the US., believe in a clear line of separation between matters of civil law or process or status and matters of religion.

Civil law provides a legal status of marriage regardless of whether the participants are Christian, agostic, or Xarathrustrian. That legal status should by principle be extended to all citizens of legal and consenting age and capability.

To do otherwise is blatant discrimination based solely on opinion.

There may be OTHER areas where the fact of being gay may have some consequence, such as being declined for blood donorship, or military service, or admission into one church or another. None of these things should be conflated with the civil questions of discrimination. They can be addressed by those concerned without resorting to the kind of frothy prejudices expressed in these threads.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:47 PM

" I object to the promotion of homosexual practice"
A few days a good I heard a local pastor proclaim that true Christians find both the National Council of Churchs and the World Council of Churchs repugnant, because both "promote" homosexuality.

I just checked the dictionary. The definition of "promote" that appears germaine here is: "the act of furthering the growth or development of something"

How many more people do you think will decide to become homosexual if same sex marriage is legalized? How many people homosexual people will begin to practice sex for the first time because same sex marriage is legalized? What will grow, or be furthered, because same sex marriage is legalized. ?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:50 PM

"in the UK smokers, drunk drivers, and those who practice child abuse or incest are widely viewed as social pariahs. Most are criminalised for their unhealthy practices"

Maybe so. But are they allowed to equal marriage rights, as the thread title refers to?

"Committed, monogamous, homosexual, "married" couples, are about as common as hens teeth"!

And, the stats are likely quote eye-opening for cheating etc in heterosexual marriages ( if one considers the divorce and cheating statistics) in many societies. I nsuspect that gay persons have had less time to adapt to the high heterosexual standard.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:55 PM

Each time I give blood, I get asked the gay questions...which I feel are legitimate, as other health related questions. But, I do not see any personal nor society threat from the committed married gay couple (about ten years together) living two doors down from my home.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:01 PM

I'm gettin' tired an' the danged flies are comin' out.

G'd night Y'all.....Ake :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:02 PM

....in fact, both the married gay guys (two houses down) work as technicians in the local hospital, and they seem fit and healthy. All the neighbours on the block like and socialize with them. There has not been any children converted to homosexuality on the block to date because of their marriage 9so it does not seem to be spreading beyond thie civic boundary). In fact, the young folks don't seem to have any interest in them, beyond other families on the block.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:04 PM

Good night akenaton . Keep yer fly zipped up and it should be OK :)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:10 PM

I've never understood the propaganda that claims that gay marriage is a threat to families, or a threat to the stability of straight marriages. If the two women or the two guys next door get married, I can't imagine how that could be a threat to my wife and me. That just doesn't make sense to me at all, but yet that thinking was the root of the success of the recent Proposition 8 campaign that outlawed gay marriage in Calfornia.

I've always thought California would be the first state to make gay marriage legal. Instead, it was one of the first to outlaw gay marriage by statewide vote.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:11 PM

Ake:   "Committed, monogamous, homosexual, 'married' couples, are about as common as hens teeth!"

A lie. When the same-sex marriage law went into effect in California, some 18,000 same-sex couples got married right off the bat. Then the out-of-state religious fanatics poured a ton of money into a political campaign and passed Proposition 8, rescinding the law.

And before you get started, the "will of the majority" in a matter of human rights is irrelevent. That Prop 8 was passed by the voters is an example of the majority bullying a minority, which is why any viable democracy has to be regulated by a constitution. A lynch-mob is a "pure" form of democracy. The Athenians figured this one out over 2,000 years ago. Prop 8 IS unconstitutional.

Every place that same-sex marriage has been legalized, there has been a flood of same-sex marriages.

Ake, you are either lying, or you are ill-informed.

And if you don't like being called (identified as) a homophobe and a bigot, don't be one!

Simple as that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:30 PM

"I have opinions backed by well resourced figures from respected health authorities.

Important reading on that matter

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Royston
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:12 AM

Ake, debates are not necesarily there to be "won" - just contributed to.

If "winning" is important, do you think that is achieved by being the last bigot standing? Verbally tossing off into empty air? I don't.

If you want to reopen that thread, go back there.

There is no need to dredge up any of the "Ugandan" thread here save for the fact that you - RIGHTLY - point out here the increased risk of HIV infection faced by men who have sex with men but you - WRONGLY - assert that denying them tolerance, understanding, social and legal equality, would be a solution to those health concerns.

It is relevant here because every couple that is supported to form a stable and successful relationship will be intrinsically safer and healthier as a result.

All the expert agencies (UN and national governments) assert with one voice that you are wrong; that in fact acceptance even celebration of minorities and legal protection for the rights of women, sexual minorities and those living with HIV, are the only ways to encourage access to education, testing, treatment and HIV prevention resources.

That all the expert agencies agree this is probably the only incontrovertible fact - because it is in the mission statements and announcements of every world government, WHO and UNAIDS - to have come out of the "Ugandan" thread.

So again we have you complaining about public health problems about which the views you epouse are regarded, by experts, as being unhelpful or even causative.

Did you notice that I agree with you on the central issue of religious marriage, just not for the same reasons.

Funny old world, innit?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:02 AM

I am not sure at all why standing up for people's human and civil rights should be seen as promoting homosexuality. The two are not inclusive in any way.

The word 'lifestyle' keeps being thrown up too. That suggests that many have a choice over their sexuality. They don't. I know the majority here know this but it is worth mentioning again. I am sure, considering the repugnant hatred that issues out from homophobes opinions, their physical attacks on homosexuals resulting in injury and death often, that if homosexuals could choose their sexuality that many would choose to be straight. Not out of disgust. NOt out of a loathing for who they are. Not out of feeling wrong. But out of safety. One thing is VERY apparent. While it has got better, being gay is not as safe as being straight, and it seems it will be some time before it is. Why would anyone choose such danger? Simple. It's not a choice nor lifestyle. It is who they are.

Denying gay people equal rights on any grounds is not right. Why should they not enjoy the same rights as the majority? Why should it affect any of the majority that gay folk are treated equally? What are those that oppose these equal rights feared of?

I suspect they fear what is going off in their own minds more than anything. What is wrong with live and let live unless you are DIRECTLY affected by something someone does that is an invasion of your rights?

We all breathe the same air. We all live on the smae planet. WE all have more in common with each other than we don't. Why is it so hard to live with that?

Society is harmed far more by messages of hatred, by bigotry, by violence, murder, etc. than any marraige being allowed for a gay couple. You can make being gay illegal. That does not make the law right. As we know the law often gets it wrong. It seems they are now trying to put some things right by giving equal and full rights to all sorts of minorities. So it should be.

I have a gay couple live two doors away from me. They bother no-one. I have many friends who are gay. It makes no odds at all. I have friends who are hetrosexual and most my neighbours are too, as far as I know. But it has nothing to do with me. My only concern is how we treat each other. Is that too simple a model for people to follow?

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:18 AM

Is there a word for the type of sexual perversion that causes a person like Akenaton to obsess about other peoples' sex lives? It's not really voyeurism, although it's related; voyeurism is watching other people in bed. What do we call the perverts who obsessively think about what other people are doing in bed?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM

Thought you were encouraging people to ignore me?
Can't help yourself, can you?

I think you are becoming obsessive...   :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM

Right to the point, mp, and very well said.

And John P., that mystifies me, too. If they find the thought of gay sex so disturbing, why do they think about it so much? The standard psychological answer is "latency." They find it fascinating, but that fascination frightens them, because they find it a little too fascinating.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:26 PM

Committed, monogamous, homosexual, "married" couples, are about as common as hens teeth!

You are just wrong here ake because I am personally aquainted with some.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:17 PM

Here also, KB.

At least three male couples and one female couple in the church my wife and I attend, one female couple who live in our apartment building, and another male couple who live a few blocks away. One member of the latter couple comes to our monthly writers' group meetings at out apartment (good writer!), and he and his partner are often guests at our holiday celebrations (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.).

Good people, all. Of the couples in church (some of them were married—sanctified in the church, whether Washington State law recognizes it as marriage or not), one served a term as council president, and another (openly gay) was recently elected to the Washington State Legislature.

Barbara and I also know a couple who live in Long Beach, CA. One member of the couple is a retired theater arts professor who still does free-lance work and gives lectures and workshops on set and costume design, and the other (with whom Barbara went to high school) is a specialist in British history and the history of the American Civil War, and tutors the kids of rich parents (movie stars and such) in history. They've owned their home in Long Beach for—thirty? Forty years? Solid citizens. Herb (the retired prof.) regularly runs errands for the blind and infirm lady next door, drives her to and from her medical appointments, and such.

Most of the gays and lesbians that I know are in long-term, committed relationships. But they do not have the same legal protections and advantages that married couples have—the same civil rights—because of the laws in this state.

So—why is what these folks do, or do not do, in the privacy of their own homes such a big deal to some people?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:20 PM

Beats the hell out of me Don, et al.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: emjay
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:35 PM

Egad. Asw my mother said, many years ago, people who worry about homosexuality spend too much time thinking about what other people do in private.
For those who deny the existence of committed, monogamous, same-sex couples; how many same-sex couples do you know?
Within the past year I have attended one commitment ceremony of two women, rejoiced as another planned their ceremony, and rejoiced with a friend who has met someone with whom he can share his life. In thise community there is also a couple who moved to Europe after many years together, and several more who decided they had to leave the small town where too many people do spend a lot of time thinking about other's private lives.
There is a friend who delights to spend time with his daughter and her two mothers. All of these people are healthy, contributing members of society whose lives are very like mine in almost every way except the one.
And too tell you the truth, I really don't want to know too much about what my hetero friends do in private, either.
Now, since this is a folk music thread, does anyone know of any songs -- traditional -- about this?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 04:08 PM

Well, back in the early 1960s, there was a fellow singing in a local coffeehouse who wrote a lot of parodies of well-known folk songs. He since went on to be a fairly successful stand-up comedian who still sings and plays the guitar as part of his act.

He came out with a version of "Frankie and Johnnie" that was pretty hilarious. Especially when, about five verses into it, you suddenly realized that Frankie and Johnnie were both men!

This fellow also makes the suggestion that those folks with multiple personality disorder should share some of their personalities with people who don't have any at all. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:14 AM

"A state appeals court in Florida toppled a monument to bigotry last week, declaring unconstitutional a 33-year-old state law that prohibited gay people from adopting children. The animus behind the ban is unmistakable. Its sponsor in the Florida State Senate, Curtis Peterson, declared in 1977 that its purpose was to send a message to the gay community that "we're really tired of you" and "we wish you'd go back into the closet."

The unanimous decision by three judges on Florida's Third District Court of Appeal — Republican appointees — found "no rational basis" to the state's approach of banning adoption by gay men and lesbians while allowing them to be foster parents. The court said it violated the State Constitution's equal protection clause.

The case was brought by Martin Gill, a gay man seeking to adopt two brothers he took in as foster children more than five years ago. When they arrived, at ages 4 years and 4 months, they were in bad shape. Both had ringworm; the younger brother also had a raging ear infection while the older one did not speak for a month. Today both boys are thriving.

Mr. Gill's side provided extensive evidence at trial to show there is no difference in the well-being of children raised by loving gay parents versus loving heterosexual parents. Reviewing that evidence, as well as Mr. Gill's efforts, the appeals court agreed, and praised Mr. Gill for being "an exceptional parent."

The state had nothing credible to offer to justify the adoption ban. It presented only two expert witnesses, noted Judge Gerald Cope Jr., who wrote the main opinion. One witness undercut the state's case by saying adoption decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Opposing experts quickly discredited the state's second witness, Dr. George Rekers, a Baptist minister and clinical psychologist (subsequently caught up in a sex scandal) whose pseudo-scientific research was laughable. " NYT

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:35 AM

There should be equal rights in all marriages in theory whether or not that is what you get in practise is another thing I am not just talking about Gay Marriage. Official marriages just gives a little more security thats all when it comes to splitting household goods, estate and who gets what.

There are no rights for pensioners in the UK whatever the orientation. It really annoys me that everyone thinks they are going to stay young and trendy for ever, get real.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 12:49 PM

What!!??? I'm NOT????

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Old Vermin
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM

Just a gentle question from the mildly puzzled. If this thread isn't primarily about making music, song and dance, is it a a BS thread?

If it is not a BS thread, might it be nice to include some appropriate song references,etc?

What's the thing about staying trendy as well as young, Patsy? I may have been young once, but trendy, no.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:41 PM

"There are no rights for pensioners in the UK whatever the orientation."

I'm trying to think of any rights I don't have as "a pensioner in the UK" that other people have. I can't think of any.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Old Vermin
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 06:19 PM

Problems with insurance for various activities - driving a club RIB, travel, etc.

Struggling to remember where employment legislation got to on compulsory retirement by reason of chronological age.

Getting deemed unsuitable for jury service at about the time one might have acquired sufficient wisdom - I haven't got that far yet.

At one stage being ineligible to be a company director beyond a certain age - may have been changed now. Is there a fixed retirement age for judges and magisterates?

Needing doctor's confirmation to continue to hold a driving licence.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 06:57 PM

Wow! I really feel deprived by that list...

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 05:44 AM

It just seems to me that every one seems to be obsessed with what goes on underneath the sheets rather than other life issues. Marriage/parterships are not only about about the physical stuff in the tabloids or trendy Heat type magazines. It is also about what is put into a relationship, like building a nice home, working hard Monday to Friday or more to keep that home and being total support for each other in sickness and in health through to old age hopefully. Sex is not the b all and end all just a bit of it with all the happiness and heartache in between. I sometimes wonder if gay couples want to officially tie the knot either just to make a point or if it is to sensibly cover themselves legally which makes sense the same as in any business, after all if anything went wrong as can happen with any marriage it is better to be covered than losing everything. At the end of the day lots of us when we get older are going to opt rather for reading the paper having a peaceful cuppa and a biscuit leaving all the sexual olympics to someone else.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:19 PM

Sacramento Ð Yesterday, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law two Equality California sponsored bills. The first bill, AB 2199, repeals a discriminatory section of the California Welfare Institutions code targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The second bill, AB 2700, eliminates legal barriers for same-sex couples wishing to dissolve their domestic partnership and civil marriage simultaneously by creating a consolidated form and procedure.

ÒWe are grateful that our governor has decided to stand with us on the issue of repealing deeply offensive and blatantly false language from state law suggesting that gays and lesbians can and should be cured, as well as eliminating hurdles for same-sex couples seeking legal separation,Ó said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. ÒAs the most populous state in the nation, California sends a palpable message with these new pieces of legislation with respect to LGBT equality. These two bills bring us closer to accomplishing our mission to achieve full equality for all LGBT Californians.Ó

AB 2199 calls for the repeal of a section of the California Welfare and Institutions code that instructs the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the Òcauses and cures of homosexuality,Ó with the implication that lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians are sexual deviants, potential sex offenders and a threat to children. The code, which was originally authored in the 1950s, implies that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals can and should be cured, in direct contradiction with an enormous body of research that demonstrates otherwise. The bill was sponsored by Equality California and was introduced by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach).

ÒThe witch hunt is now officially over,Ó said Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal.

The governor also signed the Separation Equity Act, or AB 2700, which will amend the state's family code, allowing for couples who first registered as domestic partners and who legally married thereafter to dissolve both contracts through a single, uniform procedure. The current system forces couples to go through a separate process for each, which can take an extra one to two years for each case to be resolved and unnecessarily burdens the judicial system. The bill also clarifies that same-sex couples who married outside of California and who have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, may dissolve those out-of-state marriages in California. The bill was co-sponsored by Equality California and the Conference of California Bar Associations and introduced Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco).

ÒThe elimination of legal separation barriers for same-sex couples brings us one step closer to marriage equality,Ó said Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. ÒWith AB 2700 signed into law we are recognizing that all marriage should be treated alike, even when it comes to dissolving them.Ó

To find out more information about Equality California legislation, visit www.eqca.org/legislation

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 12:20 AM

Here we go, again. Righteous 'expert opinions', based on fiction!

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM

Oh, GFS, you are so boring. You sound like a broken record, not only by repeating yourself but in the extremely unpleasant sounds you make. I'm tired of you hijacking every discussion about gay rights with your unfactual, immoral, perverted, illogical, and unethical drivel. Please go be a bigoted pervert somewhere else.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:35 PM

How bad will you allow these figures    to get, before you call for a medical inquiry into the link between HIV/AIDS and male homosexuality??

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:51 PM

Oh, akenaton, you are so boring. You sound like a broken record, not only by repeating yourself but in the extremely unpleasant sounds you make. I'm tired of you hijacking every discussion about gay rights with your unfactual, immoral, perverted, illogical, and unethical drivel. Please go be a bigoted pervert somewhere else.

Oh, just in case you didn't get the message the first 100 times it was delivered to you, AIDS is currently one of the most widely studied medical problems in world. What would you do differently? Oh, wait, don't answer that. Just PLEASE go away.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:15 PM

As I thought..."unable or unwilling to answer"

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:27 PM

Our resident and self confessed "heterosexual homosexual activist"
John P displays the symptoms of a real bigot.

When confronted by someone who's opinion differs from his own, he urges others not to respond to that person.
When this does not work,he hurtles a volley of abuse, covers his eyes and ears, and pleads for his adversory to "please go away"

A coward, a bigot and a fool.....Ake

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:30 PM

As I thought..."unable or unwilling to answer"

Uh, read my post. Then go away, you filthy pervert.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM

Wow, Akenaton, you sound just like a Republican. Be a bigot and then call others bigoted for calling you on it.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM

How does defending the civil rights of a minority make someone a bigot? I thought 1984 had already gone by....

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM

Oh, SHITE!!

Beavis and Butthead just can't leave it alone!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

John P: "Oh, akenaton, you are so boring. You sound like a broken record, not only by repeating yourself but in the extremely unpleasant sounds you make. I'm tired of you hijacking every discussion about gay rights with your unfactual, immoral, perverted, illogical, and unethical drivel. Please go be a bigoted pervert somewhere else."

John P: "Oh, GFS, you are so boring. You sound like a broken record, not only by repeating yourself but in the extremely unpleasant sounds you make. I'm tired of you hijacking every discussion about gay rights with your unfactual, immoral, perverted, illogical, and unethical drivel. Please go be a bigoted pervert somewhere else."

Speaking of broken records! Isn't it boringly predictable that now he's calling us 'bigots' as well? Learn a new tune, cowboy...any new tune.

Shit, I'm thinking all these so-called liberal shills are just one trick ponies!!

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:09 AM

Would someone have the guts to answer my question......or is the only answer verbal abuse?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:40 AM

Jezz, Akenaton, what answer do you want more than the one I gave? Here it is again, over and over and over:

AIDS is one of the most widely studied diseases in the world. I daresay it's one of the most widely studied TOPICS in the world. What would you do differently? Do you think all those smart and dedicated researchers are all involved in a conspiracy to hide the link between AIDS and male gay sex? Or is it more likely that the link exists only in your brain, and there only as an excuse for you to exhibit your bigotry while trying to not sound like a bigot?

Oh, wait, this is a waste of time. We spent thousands of posts giving you this message and you still insist on supporting the denial of civil rights to homosexuals. All based on your obviously bogus "health concerns". Guess what? No one's buying it. You're a filthy bigot when it comes to gay folks, and the anti-establishment credentials you're so proud of make it difficult for you to seem to agree with the right-wingers so you have to come up with some rationale that makes your bigotry sound like something it's not. Fortunately, if a bigot opens his mouth it's pretty hard to hide his bigotry. Your attempts to misdirect us have failed.

Go peddle your snake oil elsewhere and leave us alone. Better yet, leave gay folks alone.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:47 AM

Akenaton, yes, I would prefer it if you would go away, and I do encourage others not to respond to you. Guess I sometimes can't follow my own advice. The reason for this isn't that you're anti-gay. I would cheerfully debate all day long with an anti-gay person who know the first thing about having a debate.

With you and GfS, however, you just keep repeating the same tired things over and over, completely ignoring all the facts and logic that are posted to refute your statements. Coupled with the fact that both you repeatedly say that anyone who disagrees with you has been brain-washed by some liberal conspiracy to parrot some party line, you are a waste of time in any conversation on this topic. THAT'S why I think you should go away. Go read a book on logic and one on how to carry on a debate and then come back and act like an adult.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

Ake posted a very interesting link.
I wonder if he actually read it...especially this part:

"HIV: Protect Yourself
Be smart about HIV. Here's what you can do to reduce your risk of infection:
Get the facts — Arm yourself with basic information: Are you at risk? How is HIV spread? How can you protect yourself?
Take control — You have the facts; now protect yourself and your loved ones. There are three essential ways to reduce your risk:
1. Don't have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral)
*****************
2. Only have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral) if you're in a mutually monogamous relationship with a partner you know is not infected
*****************
3. Use a condom every time you have anal, vaginal or oral sex. (Correct and consistent use of the male latex condom is highly effective in reducing HIV transmission.)"

Emphasis by me since Ake didn't seem to pick up on that bit number 2 in how to protect yourself..

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:04 PM

100....and just cracking up, at these 'expert OPINIONS'!! accepted, as FACT!

NOT!

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM

""What do we call the perverts who obsessively think about what other people are doing in bed? ""

"PRURIENT" is a good word for such.


prurient [ˈprʊərɪənt]
adj
1. (Psychology) unusually or morbidly interested in sexual thoughts or practices

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:45 PM

Ake says... "How bad will you allow these figures    to get, before you call for a medical inquiry into the link between HIV/AIDS and male homosexuality?? " and "Would someone have the guts to answer my question......or is the only answer verbal abuse?"

It's not about having guts, as you call it, akenaton. It's about word wastage and knowing that no matter how many times that question of yours gets answered, refuted, put down, disproved, you will keep bringing that set of stats up. That is your perogative as a member of the forum.

Why is a medical enquiry needed? We all know the stats and the results of surveys about HIV/AIDS. Some can be used in various ways and disproven, others are ambiguous, but the general point shows that *some* gay men more at risk than others. Just like some heterosexuals are more at risk at some things than others. For instance, straight and bisexual women are at greater risk of contacting cervical cancer. Should we have a medical enquiry about that? It's basically passed on from men's willies in the form of a neat little hpv package. Should we ban straight sex because of all the women who are at risk from men? Or shall we leave it for the women to decide what risks they take and allow them to take necessary precautions to cut down their chances?

Esophageal cancer is on the rise and hpv is again implicated (in some types) in that. Oral sex is the most likely route to infection. Shall we ban that or have an enquiry? Should we design an oral condom for men and women? Should people have to wear one? Shall we off tax incentives for condom use?

FACT: unprotected sex is risky for everyone. I say everyone because many is the faithful partner who ends up with some STI from a partner who has not been faithful. The only truly safe way not to get an STI is not to have sex. No-one is safe. STI's do not say to themselves "this is a gay man who deserves to get caught out... this is a gay woman who should be straight... this is a straight man cheating on his partner". STI's are indiscriminate and the education about them is getting less and less for so many who think they are in a 'safe group'. There are no safe groups in sexually active people.

Allow me to ask you a question in return as I have tried to answer yours. No guts were needed. Just a straightforward reply based on the truth surrounding all STI's

What is YOUR answer to all this?

thank you

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

100....and just cracking up, at these 'expert OPINIONS'!! accepted, as FACT!

Fact: Gay people are denied the same civil rights that everyone else enjoys.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:08 PM

Firstly Mauvepink, I would thank you for your courtesy and avoidance of verbal abuse.
I would also start by answering your question...I simply do not know what needs to be done, but it should be obvious to even the most callous supporters of the status quo on this forum, that the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

I accept your list of risky behaviours, but in percentage terms, none come close to the male homosexual/Aids demographic

CDC states that MSM are 44 times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heterosexuals
MSM account for more than half of new infections in the US, despite comprising only 2-3% of the population.

MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Latest life expectancy figures for MSM, state that their life expectacy is 8-20 yrs less than heterosexuals and less than smokers

This makes homosexual practice very dangerous indeed, more dangerous than smoking, which is quite rightly discriminated against in most countries

MSM are also often refused life insurance cover and are banned from giving blood
Senior market reporter Phil Young of Insure.com has, over the course of 10 years, examined hundreds of different life insurance applications and company acceptance guidelines. Young states, "While it's true that the life insurers do not ever ask about sexual preference, it's also true that every one of them will decline any applicant that proves to be HIV-positive. So, with their actions but not their words, life insurance companies are making a bold statement that anybody who is HIV-positive need not apply."
Given the percentage of homosexuals who carry the virus, is this not "discrimination"?

You say that the stats can be disproven.....I have not seen any body even attempt to disprove the CDC figures.
You also say that the general point shown by these stats is that "some* gay men are more at risk than others.... that is not the case, the stats show that a very large percentage of homosexuals are contracting the HIV virus and that percentage is getting larger every year, while the rates in every other demographic including injecting drug abusers is falling

My stance, no matter what idiots like John P say, has always been against the "promotion of homosexuality" on health grounds. In my opinion, inviting people who practice such dangerous behaviour into mainstream society is foolhardy.....telling them it is quite normal to live with a debilitating disease and die twenty years before they could reasonably expect to, is the worst form of cruelty.

In its conclusions, CDC state that "There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population

I leave you to work out what is meant by "develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population"

If the rates continue to rise for another couple of years, you won't have to work anything out for yourself.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:12 PM

Sorry not logged in!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM

Not logged in either! lol

Thank you for your reply akenaton.

What I meant about stats being disproven and doubted is that some are manipulted - on all sides of the argument - to make points which, basically, are already known.

The point I was attempting to make on this thread and on others I have voiced opinion is that one simply cannot single out gay males in STI figures. IF they were the only ones playing at risky sex then maybe an argument could be made to try and get them to comply more but the fact does remain that that STI's affect all parts of the sexuality spectrum. To single gay males out is pointless. Even if we accept that they may be the highest risk group at present it is quite futile to just simgle them out. Get rid of them in the stats and who do we start on next? What needs doing is a full drive against all risky unprotected sex across all groups or else we will simply replace whoever heads the figures with another group.

There is/was no need for any verbal abuse from me. Not a single post I have ever made has abuse in it. I always attempt to be courteous no matter the subject. What would be the sense in me name calling and making this personal? Unless a personal attack is made on me I have no need to change my approach. That gives me no moral high ground either. It is simply my way as others have theirs.

One thing I would stress though and that is we need to move away from this subtle terminology that leads people to draw perhaps wrong conclusions. The idea of "Homosexual practices" is a misnomer. Many gay people do the same thing that hetrosexual people do and vice versa. We seldom ever see it mention about "straight sex practices" because that is, wrongly in my opinion, seen as the default in human sexuality. There are crossovers between all sexualities of various things they do and don't do. It's not homosexual practice, it is a behaviour as expressed by that group of people. Many gay men would not do half the things that straight people do. WE need to stop the labelling and move toward overall fair and honest education.

We have been here before so I will not divert the thread further.

Back on topic... let everyone marry who they wish. It's not a biggy really to allow all discriminated people the same free choices as all other people in the populous.

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:50 PM

Akenaton;
You purposefully, or ignorantly keep avoiding the main issue -- as addressed in the very CDC report you keep citing!!!!!!
One of the ways to prevent the spread of HIV is to have a monogamous relationship.
Yet it is precisely this that you are arguing against.
This reveals to all with any rationality your true bias.
Thus you are not worth discussing this issue with.
You may continue this discussion with CecilGuestfromlansingsanity.
Not me.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 03:00 AM

Not another farewell from Tia! :0)

She's hid mair thin Frank Sinatra....goan yersell hen!

Oh I'm frightfully sorry that should be in Little Hawk's "Mither" thread.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:33 AM

Sorry..punched in and forgot to sign in....:

John P:Fact: Gay people are denied the same civil rights that everyone else enjoys.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion."

John you said it all, and more than you thought!

Let's start with this one, and go to the following one, in a moment:

" Gay people are denied the same civil rights that everyone."

OKAY, First of all, Homosexuals are NOT denied the same civil rights, and the reason is this. The Constitution, from where we get our rights from, and that you cite, guarantees the same rights to everyone, regardless of race, creed, or color. They all can marry, or jobs, and cannot be discriminated against because of those guarantees.

A. Race???...well, no.
B. Is it a color?...no.
C. Is it a Creed, or religious belief?...no.
Now, in all fairness, (and before your head explodes), the courts are having the same problem, in the interpretation, for that same reason.
The so called, wannabee, self appointed 'civil rights activists', who will emotionalize, that that is not correct, has NO FACTS to base that OPINION....So let me help you understand why that is.(which goes into your second sentence:
"I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion."
Okay, OPINIONS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS FACTS!...Watch:(from Wikipedia)

The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[3] The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4]

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact,[5] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

OKAY??..Now, 'Opinion'..

"An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments.[1]

An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

OKAY?? So, the problem you have stated, is: "I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion."

Because you came to a CONCLUSION, based on an OPINION, instead of a FACT, and now that CONCLUSION....:

–noun
1.
the end or close; final part.
2.
the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3.
a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4.
final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5.
a reasoned deduction or inference.
6.
Logic . a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.
7.
Law .
a.
the effect of an act by which the person performing the act is bound not to do anything inconsistent therewith; an estoppel.
b.
the end of a pleading or conveyance.

So, your final CONCLUSION is based on an OPINION, NOT supported by FACTS, as stated of what the Constitutes a 'Civil Right', under the CONSTITUTION..
If You BELIEVE a CONCLUSION, not supported by FACTS, you are living in a DELUSION.....which explains: "I'm HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT.. how that's an opinion."

Capiche??

Glad to Have Been of Service, to Assist You,

GfS

P.S. It is ONLY an OPINION, that it MIGHT be genetic, as well. There is some 'evidence' that they may be looking in thee right direction, but have not found it, yet. That is a FACT...not an OPINION.

Where you need to look, is in the 'receptors' and that will show, that it is behavioral, not genetic.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:28 AM

Tia....if you ever return, I would point out that studies like the Scandinavian one have proved that the "male homosexual community" are uninterested in monogamy or same sex marriage.
Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour.....personally I see this as a problem associated with exclusively male sexual relations, males being natusally more sexually predatory than females.

It has also been found, that among the few same sex marriages(percentage wise) that have taken place, couples are "marrying" for financial and immigration reasons, rather than the traditional definition, i.e. to produce children and bring them up in a secure family structure.

"Gay marriage" is already becoming a scam.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM

>>>studies like the Scandinavian one have proved that the "male homosexual community" are uninterested in monogamy or same sex marriage.
Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour<<<


Ake ~~ you will no doubt claim this as purely anecdotal and based solely on my own experience. But I have to state that five longstanding homosexual relationships known to me as close friends [4 male, one female] have all embraced the opportunity now available of 'civil partnership', and continue their longstanding relationships in that form. I frankly doubt the truth or accuracy of your last assertion.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:07 AM

Here is a question, How exactly is two gay people who have a civil service like everyone else is entitled to affect your life to the point where you get so heated. Even the fundamental Christian folks I ask them. Then they say read your bible, then I say if you believe God doesn't allow it by your interpretation, then why would a civil act bother you .. since judgment is up to God not you. No one has been able to give me an answer. If you are not gay (I am not) then why do we care about other good people who are and simply have a different set of genes? i don't get it, but that is me. Is someone trying to force you into a gay lifestyle? I think not, so why so bothered?

Anyway that is my take for what it is worth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:26 AM

besides, gay people are American Citizens, they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people LOL

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:24 AM

Hi olddude,   if you read through the threads you will find that it is not I who is becoming "heated", but people like John P the activist, DonT and Don firth.....they are the ones using intemporate language.

Believe it or not, I consider myself a libertarian in sexual matters, the exception is sexual behaviour which caused such a high percentage of death and disease amongst those who practice it.

Micheal...I have never implied that all homosexuals are promiscuous.

I am sure there are same sex couples of our age group,(when passion begins to wane) :0), who are completely momogamous. Unfortunately the figures take in all age groups and it appears that young homosexuals are by far the worst affected catagory.

Mp will probably say that this proves monogamy will solve the problem, but the aging process as we very well know, takes a very long time.

I was sorry to read of the disgusting PM you received, please dont be put off by lunatics, do as I do and try to ignore it.
I for one enjoy your input here(though we dont seem to agree on much :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

Akenaton: "Hi olddude,   if you read through the threads you will find that it is not I who is becoming "heated", but people like John P the activist, DonT and Don firth.....they are the ones using intemporate language."

Could it be that they remember 'the good ol' days' of being in heat??

Personally, I'm getting tired of some, intolerant jerks, who scream 'bigots' at people who they disagree with. The silly dummies, should realize, based on my previous post, defining FACTS with plain definitions, that charging someone with 'bigotry', with no FACTS to base that charge on, is tantamount to slander, defamation of character, and libel(being as it is 'in print').....of which legal action should remedy that!...based, of course, on FACT!..which usually holds up in court!

Advice: Shut your face, with the false accusations, and stick to the topics, and discuss FACTS!

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Well, Akenaton does make one point that seems very reasonable: Generally speaking, same sex couple are not marrying for the purpose of producing children.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:42 PM

"Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour"... and bisexuality and hetrosexuality.

I would not say monogamy would solve the problem per se. Many partners are monogamous when the other is not. Faithfulness of both parties would certainly reduce a great deal the risks and more or less eradicate the chance of fresh STI's.

Not all people play around. That's great. But we should not judge those that do based on sexuality. If any judgement is to be made then it is about unsafe sex... and that is the domain of many people in all sexualities.

Just my opinion with no judgement being made

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM

Ake ~ It wasn't your statistics I was querying, but the "hedonism & promiscuity" bit; which, as I said. doesn't fit in with my acquaintances' experiences ~~ and they are mainly younger than me. Hedonism/promiscuity as a tendency seems a bit of a blunt-edged generalisation to me.

Thank you for your support & sympathy in the matter of that PM ~ I was not thrown, but regarded it, as I said, as 'pathetic'. One does not have to agree, indeed, to respect one another's right to express opinions.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

"Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour"... and bisexuality and hetrosexuality."
The production of children and the extended family structure has a great bearing on the sexual behaviour of most(not all)heterosexual men, IMO.

"Not all people play around. That's great. But we should not judge those that do based on sexuality. If any judgement is to be made then it is about unsafe sex... and that is the domain of many people in all sexualities."

I agree that people of all sexual "orientations" play around MP, but can you explain why the health figures are so massively different in percentage terms for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Surely common sense tells us that all is not well in the homosexual community?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

All is not well in the whole community when you take into account hpv acquired cervical cancers, infertility, death from pelvic imflammatory disease, etc, etc. Singling out a single group and disease is quite futile. Risky sex is risky sex to all and sundry.

Getting stuck on one group and one disease actually avoids the bigger issues and concerns. If you are going to campaign for sexual safety then you have to do it for all, with discrimination or specific target.

STI's are a risk to everyone out there. They are indiscriminate and they are passed around the pool of human beings without targeting just one.

This is all I can offer and so will decide maybe not to carry on with this libe as it is not what the thread is about.

Once again we must agree to differ in the way we look at this.

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 02:31 PM

STI's have been with us for thousands of years.
Percentages like we see in the homosexual community have not.

Actually we are discussing what the thread is about.
Several behavioural minorities are "discriminated" against on health grounds, both mental and physical.

The epidemic now affecting the homosexual community has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of a tiny minority in our society....if we invite that minority into *mainstream* society, tell them their behaviour is safe and normal enough to be granted "rights" refused to others, we do them a great diservice.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 03:23 PM

I think it rather pretentious that anyone should think they have a right to invite anyone into mainstraem society (and I am NOT singling your comment out as I know many agree with you). Who is to say who can be inside the mainstream?

For it to be a mainstream it should be fair to all. The very idea that some think it is their place to say who can be 'in the club or out of it' seems discriminatory in itself.

Who gave the mainstream permission to be in the mainstream. Who or what is the mainstream? Who gave them rights to decide?

I would wager many the gay man has died to give the mainstream their safety and their rights. Not of HIV/AIDS, but for fighting other's causes. I never ever heard a gay person in the forces say they were not going to fight for the straight people. They fight for everyone and they die on batlefields too.

Just some ideas and thoughts

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:45 PM

I remember quite clearly the time when practicing homosexuality was a criminal offense...then, homosexuality was not even in the backwaters, but underground.
Sexual intercourse between men has since been quite rightly de-criminalised and there is more tolerance of this behaviour,but I would certainly not describe practicing homosexuals as being in mainstream society.

For the last 25 years there has been a concerted attempt to by powerful pressure groups in the media, the entertainment industry and politics to have homosexuality accepted as just another lifestyle/behaviour, normal and safe, just part of life's rich tapestry......they might even have succeeded had it not been for the advent of hiv/aids and until this link is explained, homosexuals will always be outside of the mainstream.

There are other factors which make homosexuality a taboo in the minds of most heterosexual men.....perhaps women feel differently about these things.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

Generally I just accept homosexuality the same as I do hetrosexuality and bisexuality. It matters not to me what others do with each other as long as it is consensual. I've never stressed it. People, in main. are who they are. Some need help. Some don't.

The only thing I ever saw as needing help, regarding homosexuality, is to help stamp out the discrimination against gay people. But then I also stand up for other discriminations too.

The moment we stop standing up for people in our midst we bring ever closer the time when it will be out own turn to be discriminated against. In an equal society such things become less possible

It's just how I am

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

It is one of those things I just do not care about, other than to want everyone to have equal rights. I want everyone to be safe and moral, and I want everyone to be so discrete that I do not know if they have an orientation either way or any way at all. I don't want any public displays of affection other than perhaps holding hands, and that includes Hollywood, teenagers, etc. I want everyone to behave themselves in public and not do anything that hurts anyone else in private, and to have no contact with minors or people who can not make informed decisions, but to all have equal rights and benefits, including marriage. Why would we want to deny anyone this? A lifelong commitment, true love etc. mg

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:33 PM

In what way can keeping homosexual people marginalized possibly help in combating HIV? Do you imagine that, being aware of marginalization, they will feel that as an effective pressure to refrain from homosexual activity? Can you possibly imagine that society as a whole will be inclined to direct more concern and research to the problems of a marginalized, stigmatized, group as opposed to a more accepted group?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

mg: (It is one of those things I just do not care about, other than to want everyone to have equal rights.(and MP)"

As I covered before(Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:33 AM)

They DO have rights, just as any one else, perhaps not all the accepted recognitions, but rights" yes.
What next?..The 'right' to conceive and bear children from their homosexual partner???

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

Uh, how about the right to get married to the person you love?

Somewhere there is a list of about 1000 federal benefits that married people get, most of them financial.

How about the right to keep your house and belongings when your partner dies?

How about the right to be at the bedside and make medical decisions for your sick partner?

If you are stuck on Constitutionally guaranteed rights, how about the right to equal treatment under the law, which would cover everything above?

How about the right to privacy? GfS, since you think it's all right to discuss other peoples' sex lives on an internet forum, perhaps you'd like to share the details of your sex life with us? Or are you unwilling to swallow the medicine you're handing out?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

Ake
you are good person, don't you think it was wrong to lock people away in the past because they have a different gene. I don't know about anyone here but my gay neighbors down the street are the nicest people in the world. And when you meet them you don't know they are gay. They don't walk around with a sign anymore that I do that I am straight with 3 kids and a wife. People are people. How many people in this life do you know or care about the details of their bedroom activity. I don't care I don't want to know .. MP said it best huh. Someone could please correct me but the bulk of HIV today is our young people in HS and College having unprotected sex. I don't think it is our gay citizens that are rampantly spreading the disease willingly. Gee people are people we have good and bad in all walks of life. The attempt to single out any segment of people as a target of any aggression or less rights then other citizens is wrong. Please re-think ok

Thank you
Dan

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:24 PM

I do think akenaton intimated he thought it was wrong that gay men were criminalised in his last posting? He said "Sexual intercourse between men has since been quite rightly de-criminalised"

In fairness, though I am sure he will answer for himself

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM

Conclusions from CDC figures
"There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population

"As well as develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population"

Do you think this means telling homosexuals that their behaviour is safe? just keep doing what they are doing,everything will be fine when they get their "rights"?
Well I've got news for you goons, it means targeting "at risk" catagories....and which is the most "at risk" catagory by a long yankee mile?......Yea! you finally got it!
If HIV rates among homosexuals keep rising there will be compulsory testing, perhaps even quarantining and it will not be called discrimination.....some of the more swiched on homosexuals are already calling for these measures as a means of cutting infection rates.

Targeting of at risk catagories means the right to life
Civil rights in the case of homosexuals can be a death sentence.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:43 PM

I never heard anyone telling anyone else that unsafe sex is safe.... except fools and desperate people

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

Thanks for that MP.
I wasn't going to respond to olddude as he seems a little confused over the facts and the issues.
For example, I dont think anyone contends that homosexuals infect others willingly....more than half of the young people who tested positive in the CDC figures were quite unaware of their condition.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:52 PM

The signals from social acceptance of the behaviour (homosexuality) indicate that it is safe and normal.
The granting of marriage, fostering rights etc, is regarded as social acceptance.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM

By the way since we are agreed that in percentage terms homosexuals are many times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals and given that homosexuals are bombarded with information on safe sex and free condoms, one would think the statistics would be the other way round.

Why do you think the MSM figure are so much worse?
Do you think that homos are really so much more promiscuous than heteros?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM

Ake seems to be right in the statics by the CDC. I just went out to their website. What it tell me is more aggressive education needs to be make for our minorities and poor. The message doesn't seem to be getting out as it should. I don't know the factors but it seems we dropped the ball on education society wise with these groups.

CDC

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

No olddude, millions have already been spent on education yet homosexual /hiv rates continue to worsen.
What the figures actually say, although CDC cannot, is that homosexuals are unwilling or unable to ammend their own behaviour.

At some point, minorities must start taking responsibility for the effects of their behaviour, or they will be compelled to do so

The fact is that almost 50% of US hiv budget is already being targeted on homosexuals, who only make up 2% of the population.

Is this equality?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM

It seem like the CDC is saying that education is the key along with behavior changes. Whatever it takes I hope the message gets out.


Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM from racial or ethnic minority communities. A recent CDC study found a strong link between socioeconomic status and HIV among MSM: prevalence increased as education and income decreased, and awareness of HIV status was higher among MSM with greater education and income.

Complacency about HIV may play a key role in HIV risk, particularly among young MSM. Since young MSM did not experience the severity of the early HIV epidemic, some may falsely believe that HIV is no longer a serious health threat because of treatment advances and decreased mortality. Additional challenges for many MSM include maintaining safe behaviors over time and underestimating personal risk.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

Well, I'm glad that Akenaton has been vindicated, by 'olddudes' response, of actually checking the CDC's website, and posting the quotes of the text!

When this was an issue before, in the 'Prop' thread, I was the one that brought up the promiscuity aspect, which Ake ran with, yet HE received a lot of flak,...for telling the truth!

John, Everything on your list homosexuals CAN do, with contracts and trusts. except 'marriage' Everywhere, which Ake pretty much answered, stating the bit on 'social acceptance'.

John P: "If you are stuck on Constitutionally guaranteed rights, how about the right to equal treatment under the law,...."

Well, what 'rights' were you contrasting to? If, in deed, you are referring to BEHAVIORAL patterns or preferences, then there are a lot of those, that are not covered, by 'inalienable rights' clause.

If you are referring to another Constitution from somewhere else, then I'd suggest taking it up with from where you are talking about!

John P: "How about the right to privacy? GfS, since you think it's all right to discuss other peoples' sex lives on an internet forum.."

I joined this thread late on. I think it was a lot of others discussing it before I came on, I'd suggest you ask them. I only brought up FACTS versus OPINIONS, in answer to YOUR post....and...

John P: "...perhaps you'd like to share the details of your sex life with us?"

I haven't even indicated whether I'm male or female...though, OTHERS have made assumptions as to which. Some right, some wrong. What's it to you?

John P: "...Or are you unwilling to swallow the medicine you're handing out?"

I'm always up for rational, truthful FACTS, and discussion thereof. Sometimes a little wit, as well. As soon as you have either to offer, I'm game!!!!

See you on the other thread, which I was planning to answer your post there as well....Oh, and I promise it will be honest, and hopefully thought provoking.
(Us writers and composers, and hopefully serious musicians, usually welcome 'thought provocation'!...See, I'm doing you a FREE favor!)

Smiling,

GfS