Equal Rights for Gay Marriage

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: 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 - 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 - 06:11 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 12:49 PM

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

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:09 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: 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 - 08:02 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: 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: 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 - 07:38 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: 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 - 07:31 PM

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

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: 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: Sorcha
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:05 PM

Thank you Bill. and oh never mind.

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: 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: 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.