 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM Little Hawk - No, he wasn't. Get a clue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:35 PM The biggest laugh LH, is that in my life I have been a supporter of Cuban Communism and hippy cuture, tho' I must admit to leaving Fascism to the censorial "liberals" Guilty as charged on that one Bill...:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM Whether folks like it or not, Ake, you are entitled to your opinion. And thank you for your very kind remark. B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:50 PM Bill...."liberals" are people who believe or pretend that they follow liberal ideology, yet in practice act as Fascists. There are many on this forum.... male, female, and indeterminate gender Would you like a list? I'm sorry but YOU do not yet qualify.. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: gnu Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM LH... I think this is great! Svend Robinson is gonna get Don's cherry? Yeaaaaah... sue me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM Yeah, Ake, they just can't seem to imagine that you could disagree with them on one single trigger point political issue...and yet agree with them on much more foundational political matters that they are quite comfortable with. It doesn't fit their emotional needs. It doesn't fit their need to see you as "wrong". If you're "wrong", then you have to be seen as "all wrong" to fit their emotional expectations. You have to be some kind of monstrous aberration, some kind of dire threat to the peaceable kingdom of all that is right and proper. Accordingly, they resort to reducing you to some silly favorite stereotype that meets all their personal requirements for recreational outrage. Fun for the combative ego...but it doesn't lead to a reasoned discussion or a productive meeting of minds, just a lot of self-righteous posturing, all to the effect of saying: "I'm a much better and nicer person than you are. You're evil. I'm good. Nyahh! Nyahh! Nyahh!" ;-D Funny. Damn funny. That's the only reason I bother to come here and comment on it, just because it's funny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:04 PM Once again, Little Hawk pontificates from the Mountaintop. Don Firth (Liberal, but in no way fascist -- I know the difference.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:07 PM Hell, gnu...I'm betting Don lost his cherry years ago. ;-) But who can say for sure? Perhaps his wearing of outlandish clothing and his over-the-top behaviour on "Coach's Corner" is all due to acting out the frustrations of still remaining a virgin despite his lengthy career in the NHL and the entertainment media. Think of the pressure he would have been under around the other guys in the ultra-macho atmosphere of the locker room. Think of the fear that he might be found out! Ridiculed! Laughed at! Pitied. I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of compassion whenever I see a sight like this... Look at the pain in his eyes... ...though I do, of course, admire his unparalleled ability with colour coordination... All I can say is, it's a good thing he's had Blue beside him all these years to provide that much-needed emotional support: Don and Blue I hope the dog doesn't get too jealous or Svend could be in real danger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:15 PM "....."liberals" are people who believe or pretend that they follow liberal ideology, yet in practice act as Fascists." They ARE? Did you just invent this interesting definition? Do you actually understand fascism? I would sure love to know how you tell the difference. Do you have a nice, easy label for yourself? Or should I consult the local fascists for a simple one? I don't qualify yet, hmmmm? Makes me also wonder what label I do qualify for. (You may or may not glean from my postings that I find 'most' labels such as you freely dispense to be nothing more than mud slinging to toss at opinions you don't like, in order to cover up a lack of insight.) (I really can't debate easily with those kind of remarks, so I resort to poking fun at them...not very useful, but.....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:07 PM I can't think of anything much more fascistic than trying to dictate that people live only lifestyles that I approve of. The liberal position, in both philosophy and practice, is more "live and let live." If the way someone else lives doesn't affect me in any particular way, I don't see that I have any right to interfere. Even if I disapprove. The two self-appointed life-style "policemen" who took 19-year-old Matthew Sheppard out on a country road, beat him and pistol whipped him brutally, and left him to die—which he did some 18 hours later—may have thought they were the "good guy" ("But he was gay!") are hardly what anyone (with, apparently, the possible exception of Ake) could consider "liberals." Ake, get a good book on political science and maybe another on philosophy, particularly ethics, and read them. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:19 PM Guest999, Yes, of course Akenaton is entitled to his opinion. And the rest of us are entitled to tell him his facts don't add up, his logic sucks, he is (apparently) a heartless bastard, his statistics don't prove anything, his comments fly in the face of common sense as well as the actual experience of everyone else, he doesn't seem to know anything about most gay people, and he tries to score points in arguments by defining his opponents as mindless automatons who are therefore not worth listening to. Little Hawk also fits the last one, as well as being supportive of bigoted comments. I could also add that Akenaton's desire to deny civil rights to a group of people makes him a bigot, and his deep and abiding interest in what other people are doing in bed -- to the point of wanting to make laws about it -- makes him a sexual pervert. This isn't about Akenaton's rights. It's about what he actually says and how those of us who don't want him and his ilk to be able to control our lives respond to him. Where do you stand on all this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM You're not even trying to comprehend what he means, Bill. You're just mouthing off at him. Don't you think it's possible for someone to call himself a "liberal" (and really believe he is one) while simultaneously behaving in ways that violate the true principles of classical liberalism and unwittingly behaving in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion? I do. I know it's possible. I see it happening a great deal in today's culture. I see it encouraged by today's media. I also see people who call themselves "conservative" (and truly believe they are), yet they simultaneously behave in ways that violate the true principles of classical conservatism and unwittingly behave in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion. And it is encouraged by today's media. The same error, deep hypocrisy, occurs in both cases...but due to the exact opposite set of supposed beliefs. In both cases it results in something that in many respects resembles the psychological mindset of fascism...or of any other form of extremism"...that is: - certainty of their own moral superiority - certainty of their rightness and righteousness - arrogance - absolutism - depiction of others as steretypes rather than as real people - reacting to triggers rather than really observing what's happening - a desire to force or pressure others into adopting their beliefs - a desire to pass laws to force others into living the way YOU want them to - a desire to blame the other side of the political divide for EVERYTHING that goes wrong...and I mean EVERYTHING. and so on. Hypocrisy, in other words...but usually quite unconscious hypocrisy. Deep knee-jerk prejudice, founded upon fear and a desire to dominate. Do you deny that there are a good many self-labelled liberals AND conservatives who fall into that same psychological trap? There are many who do. Their fanaticism and obnoxious attitude is invisible to them, but absolutely obvious to those whom they turn their poison tongues upon. This was also true of fascists. They believed they were the best thing around, the veritable saviours of civilization. Their victims knew better. The same arrogant beast that lurked in the hearts of the fascists (and I speak metaphorically) still lurks in the hearts of many so-called "liberals" and many so-called "conservatives" in present day society. It thirsts to destroy. It thinks of itself as good and noble. It is capable of any monstrous act in service of a supposedly grand social or political ideal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:38 PM Ah yes, Little Hawk is seeing things again . . . . Sorry, Little Hawk, it doesn't matter what you think of the state of our society. You still have to address individuals as individuals, and it's still rude to tell people their thoughts are being supplied to them by outside forces. It's a really assaholic debating technique, and it seems to be one of the few you know. The problem with your "fair and balanced" attitude is that there is a big difference between what most liberals believe and what most (so-called) conservatives believe. It mostly has to do with who gets to tell other people how to live their lives. When you give equal weight to both sides of that equation, especially in this discussion, you just end up sounding like someone who enables bigotry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:59 PM "...trying to comprehend what he means..." It seems to me that he SAID what he means, and he said "liberals ARE xxx.." "Don't you think it's possible for someone to call himself a "liberal" (and really believe he is one) while simultaneously behaving in ways that violate the true principles of classical liberalism and unwittingly behaving in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion?" Well...yes, I certainly do... but that is not what he said. He did NOT say something like: "I have seen many liberals who are careless & inconsistent...blah, blah, blah..." What I read was a blanket condemnation of anyone claiming to be a liberal....and you know quite well how I react to expansive generalizations. "It mostly has to do with who gets to tell other people how to live their lives. You mean, as in suggesting that homosexuals should somehow be investigated, controlled, and condemned because of some vaguely mentioned 'study' in Sweden and because of certain dubious 'statistics'? It is not me who is telling anyone how to live their lives...unless suggesting that they refrain from doing exactly that to others makes me guilty!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:07 PM Remember what Dante said, Little Hawk? Don't just blow it off. THINK about it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:04 AM Normally I would have written this in a PM, but from the responses to LH's post I think I will post it here. I find it uncanny how insightfully Little Hawk interprets my outlook. It has always been thus ever since I arrived here....as if we had been brothers in a previous existence. You are fortunate to have someone of LH's intellect to explain political and personal motivations......I could never be arsed, let you all wallow in the mire of your own subjective prison. I cannot believe that some of you still refuse to acknowledge the veracity of the homosexual health figures(especially hiv/aids) Or the results of very large Scandanavian study into homosexual marriage. Perhaps you would do well to get beyond the limitations of your political agendas and start to cive some concern to the PEOPLE you pretend to support ....the homosexuals, who are afflicted to an ever increasing extent, by terminal disease .....by supporting the status quo and willfully ignoring the warning of the CDC figures, you are actually doing these people a serious disservice. If the figures continue to worsen, what would you people advise? Given that "education, money, and self regulation" have all seemingly failed abysmally. And please dont start blathering on about "gay marriage" solving the health problems by promoting monogamy......for a start the uptake numbers are insignificant in a "health" context, and "gay marriage" does not represent monogamy.....Please read my first link before answering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 18 Feb 11 - 09:32 AM It has been mooted here that Akenaton has the right to an opinion. At the risk of having an opinion on an opinion, I can't argue with the logic, but the reality saddens me. I have just thought of a compromise though. If I find myself in a room with Akenaton, I will deploy my canny tactic. I stuff an old sock in his mouth and wrap gaffer tape around his head to hold it in. You see, having the right to odious opinions is not the same as having the physical ability to spew them out. And no gay dudes get upset by his diatribe. Free speech? it is a privilege every bit as much as a right. Use it wisely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 18 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM Akenaton, bigotry that pretends to be "helping" the oppressed is almost worse than plain old naked bigotry. A lot of people used to support slavery because it was "more kind" to all those black folks who clearly couldn't take care of themselves. I have an assignment for you: stop reading studies and health figures and go have lengthy conversations on the subject with as many gay people as you can find. If nothing else, you'll find out that gay people are . . . . people. Specifically, ask them what their "agenda" is. I have done this, by the way. The agendas varied all over the place, from figuring out how to afford to fix the roof to getting a difficult tune under the fingers, to wishing for some love in one's life. ALL of them wished for the right to get married, whether they actually wanted to get married right now or not. Oddly, none of them wanted to take over the world or even force their moral and political beliefs on other people. Claiming that we, by wanting to give normal civil rights to a large segment of our population, are physically harming homosexuals and consigning them to slow death by AIDS is scurrilous and unsupported by any logic or facts. It is the ranting of a person who is frantically casting about for some rational basis for his bigotry. Of course you like what Little Hawk says; he supports your viewpoint that everyone who disagrees with you is a brain-washed idiot and he is apparently not offended by by the denial of civil rights to other people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:37 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:48 AM There are lots of people suffering what may or may not be self inflicted illness but that gives no-one the right to refuse them the same basic rights of all other people. Imagine stating that we will take away the rights of hetrosexual people who eat junk food, are obese, smoke, drink alcohol to excess, or have unprotected sex or even the rights of straight folk singers for not knowing what real folk is.... whatever it is This thread is about the rights of gay people being able to marry. Nothing more or less. It has now been made into something that has been gone over so many times I know it better than the bible. Could we perhaps let this thread keeps its topic and stay on track with that without it becoming yet another faux war cry to save gaydom from its own 'iniquities'? They are big enough and old enough to look after themselves. If they had the same rights as everyone else the topic being discussed, or trying to be discussed rationally and with fairness here, would not be needed at all. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM You're all heart MP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM Here we go again... from a different angle but with the same implied lack of understand about equality Tory MP claims most gay people don't want the right to marry I suppose he entitled to his opinion too BUT it's worrying than an MP should not grasp the4 first tenets of true equality. Whether it is two, twenty, two hundred or two thousand... what is the right number to apply equal rights? I bet if someone treated him unequally because he was a Tory... "We will not marry Tories because of their beliefs and policies" can you imagine the outcry? Actually that would likely get quite a lot of people in favour of such a ban! lol You choose to be a Tory: you do not choose to be gay You see, the moment we start to segregate society and people's rights based on what they are or who they are then we really are going back to darker times in our past. We have to move forward to give every citizen the same starting point in life and the same basic priveliges as all unless they have done something that deserves them not being allowed some of those rights. Gay people have done nothing wrong to deserve not having the same rights as their hetrosexual neighbours. The suggestion now that it's down to numbers does not detract from the basic premisee of rights for all. What is the acceptable number for rights not to be applied? I suggest there is no acceptable number. We are are all very different from each other, though we share far more in common with each other than we don't, so who will be next in the numbers game to not be allowed rights? That this Tory should think there is a threshold to be applied before doing the right thing is quite worrying the only threshold that has to be reached in this area is one of fairness and that ALL should actually mean all. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: John P Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:08 PM Back to the topic of the thread, I'm amazed that the UK government getting out the church's business has even caused a stir. Why did they have such a law in the first place? Does anyone know where it came from and who supported it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Jon Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:17 PM It hasn't caused a stir in the UK that I've heard of. I haven't seen mention of it in the Christian places I look at once in a while. This is Mudcat though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:05 PM As far as I can see, ake, you did not provide a link in this thread. You did provide a long quote. I took a random phrase from it "Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage" and did a search, which gave me This list The first item in that list is this one which gives credit to The Family Research Council, which is about as far right-wing with a pre-ordained agenda as you can find in the USA. When I read the various links obtained from that search..(Yes, I DO read your side of the issue in various formats)...I see site after site and page after page, quoting each other and assuring each other that a few out of context quotes like those in the above link 'prove' their pre-determined prejudices. What IS clear is that **the study** was loaded, slanted and biased in its very design and interpretation. It 'surveyed' the individuals & groups most likely to provide the answers they wanted, and "The Family Research Council" was only too happy to sing its praises. Let's be clear... it is possible to find extreme views (or at least quotes that can be interpreted to sound extreme on ANY issue. This 'study' makes no attempt to explore what the effect of more freedom in marriage laws might be or how narrow & restrictive laws have affected the behavior patterns of most gays & lesbians. This effect was shown clearly in the American South in the 50s & 60s, as the very basis of self-esteem of African-Americans was warped by decades of being called names and TOLD they they were essentially inferior and did not deserve the rights & privileges of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS). Many, many gays & lesbians have lived awkward, frustrating lives, believing that they 'needed to either change or pretend to change' because they were TOLD that their deeply implanted attitudes were 'evil, unnatural, illegal...etc. VERY few managed to even pretend adequately. Now, there is new medical & scientific evidence almost everyday showing that a certain percent of ALL mammals are BORN with genetic tendencies of varying degrees toward same-sex attractions. You can quote 'statistics' until you are blue in the face, but you cannot show, even with statistics from biased sources & studies, why that small % of humans who are different from the majority should be discriminated against and denied the **OPPORTUNITY** to marry & share in the benefits of marriage. And if you MUST hype statistics, don't forget to pay close attention to the behaviors of your favored HETEROSEXUAL groups who engage regularly in the same practices & behaviors you so roundly condemn! Promiscuity? Anal sex? etc.... All there and documented. So, ake... I read YOUR preferred citations. It's your turn to go read & research the sites which see the issue differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM The CDC figures are incontraverable. The quote/link was informed opinion, based on studies by experts. You have absolutely no figures to explain the homosexual/hiv link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:33 PM "incontrovertible" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:46 PM Steaming Willie.... you had better hope that you NEVER find yourself in a room with me. I'm a peace loving fellow till some idiot tries to physically abuse me. I dont think you would be so "brave" in real time... :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM Show me the link that insists that anyone who is 'different' should not be treated the same as all the other people who are 'different', namely everyone. So okay... lets accept the mortality figures for homosexual males living shorter lives than hetrosexual males (though I don't ever accept them because smack in the middle are bisexual males). Lets say that gay men die earlier on the planet. Let's say none of us are as concerned as you Akenaton about saving their lives... Now please tell me why they should be treated less favourably than anyone else and not be given the same rights as everyone wlse who is not gay? Can you imagine for one mnoment what it could have been like for you had you been born gay or bisexual and fell in love with a man you wanted to settle down with for life and declare that love to the world in a church. tell me why you should not be allowed to? It's not about me being "all heart" as you said in whichever way you meant it. It's about me affording others the same things I am allowed and me being allowed the same thing they are allowed, if we wish to exercise the right to use that. The health statistics have NOTHING to do with this topic as there can be no good reason to deny someone something if they want it because others have it. This is not even a gay issue. It's a fairness issue Do unto others as you would have done to you: the ethic of reciprocity mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:17 PM The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour.....these figures prove the exact opposite, and will never improve while people like you studiously ignore them. Homosexuality is not genetic, has never proved to be genetic. Variances in brain function occur mainly through learned behaviour. If there was even the slightest proof of a genetic link, it would have been trumpeted round the world long since. Also any genetic component would be very obvious to modern geneticists.....the genetic difference would be huge. The argument expounded by you all Bill includedis....."Its just not fair"....thats it in a nutshell, you have nothing else. Well I have news for you Miss Pink Bunny, nobody promised that life would be fair....life is very unfair, all we can do is attempt to stop the death and disease.....would you rather be dead than considered "At Risk"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:31 PM "Imagine stating that we will take away the rights of hetrosexual people who eat junk food, are obese, smoke, drink alcohol to excess, or have unprotected sex or even the rights of straight folk singers for not knowing what real folk is.... whatever it is" In the UK the "rights" of smokers have already been severely and rightly curtailed. Discussion is going on about removing "rights" from the obese. The world is so unfair. "rights" of travellers are curtailed to suit anti terrorist legislation, are all air travellers terrorists? Its so unfair. The list of curtailed rights is endless. Equality is a myth....welcome to the unfair real world! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM I'm going to shout Discrimination!!..For all those people biased against folks who want to marry aardvarks!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: gnu Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM Ake... "The CDC figures are incontraverable. The quote/link was informed opinion, based on studies by experts. You have absolutely no figures to explain the homosexual/hiv link." No need. Experts? Fer fuck sake. These "experts" are dealing with skewed data and if they were actually experts they would know the difference. Unfortunately, they don't. So people like you, who know less than the experts you quote, use their "findings" as fodder to promote your "arguements". Bullshit the lot. Fact of the matter is, healthy people, gay and ungay, are not included in the data. So, the data is skewed from a purely statistical sampling viewpoint. Fact is, the amount of skew is not determinable and is debatable... but only by those who wish to skewer other people for no other reason than their own lack of understanding, compassion and self worth. As the old saying goes, figures don't lie but liars will fuck you over fer money or fun. Have fun and I might be back in another thousand posts to see if youse all are. Give me a fuckin break eh? It ain't rocket science. Live and let live. If you can't do that, yer not human. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:56 PM "The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour" WHY? All the other things humans do that are dangerous and unhealthy is part of mainstream Why not answer the questions I asked you? Denying that homsosexuality is or could be genetic does not mean you could not have been gay yourself Who is Miss Pink Bunny? mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:58 PM "The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour" WHY? All the other things humans do that are dangerous and unhealthy is part of mainstream Why not answer the questions I asked you? Denying that homsosexuality is or could be genetic does not mean you could not have been gay yourself Who is Miss Pink Bunny? mp Sorry I was not logged in on this system |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Penny S. Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:36 PM ake interestingly denies any inherited component to being gay. In heritance is now shown to involve mare than the chromosomes. There is research which shows that younger sons in families of males are more likely to be gay than their older siblings, or younger sons in families with older females. Unless the older brothers are up to something affecting their brother's brain, the difference is likely to be due to epigentetic factors in the womb. I waas going to point out that being a Tory may not be a choice, since research shows that Tories tend to have enlarged amygdalas, while left wingers tend to have enlarged anterior cingulste cortices, but since ake feels that brain changes are due to life style, that wouldn't let them off the hook. Besides, however people get to be gay - and many in Christian circles have tried very hard not to be, aand failed - why shouldn't they have the right to get married if they want to? It is not an act that harms any but themselves. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:39 PM I `ad one of those blokes from the RSPCA in my cab the other day. I could tell by the whiff of "BONIO" on `is clothes. `e looked like `e`d just swallowed a wasp, which I suppose for a geezer like `im, that would be well out of order. `e said, "Jim, quick as you like, could you get me to St. Adolfs Church in Soho please? I`m going to a wedding". I said, "Sure thing Noah but, going to a wedding, eh? Why the long face? It`s a time of joy and celebration ennit?" `e said, "We`re not going up there to celebrate anything Jim. We`re going there to protest. That Sandy from the poncy barbers in Kensington `as gone the `ole `og and is marrying `is dog!!" Whaddam I Like?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM I've checked some of the "incontrovertible" statistics that Ake keeps quoting, parrot-like. What is interesting is how he cobbles the data. Let me give you an example. One bit of data from the CDC states that of those who have contracted HIV/AIDs, 43% of them are gay men. Ake interprets that as "43% of gay men have contracted HIV/AIDs." That's a bit like saying "100% of men have prostate cancer" when the statistic actually says that "of those who have prostate cancer, 100% are men." Well—yeah! Ake also pushes the idea that the AIDs virus is actually CREATED by male homosexual activity, and tends to downplay the fact that it is transmitted from an infected person to one who is uninfected. Not created spontaneously by the activity. Bloody nonsense! This is the medieval myth of "spontaneous creation." The idea that vermin are created by unclean circumstances, for example, mice are created by garbage, not just drawn to it. This cockamamie idea persisted for centuries, until Louis Pasteur conducted a series of rigorous experiments in the 1850s that more than amply demonstrated that this idea was nonsense. Join the 21st century, Ake! #### The arguments that Ake puts forth about what gays want or don't want sound very much like the kind of arguments forth during the 1960s civil rights movement by those who were still fighting the Civil War about how African-Americans didn't really want civil rights, and the whole civil rights movement was being pushed by the "liberal fascist agenda." Don't waste your time and energy arguing with a bigot. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,999 Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:46 PM `Where do you stand on all this?` from JohnB. I have stated my position on various and many other threads with essentially the same topic. You want to know--go look. You are an argument looking for a place to happen. I just don`t feel like helping you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,999 Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM Sorry. That should read JohnP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 11 - 04:11 PM CDC.."incontrovertible" . But those are **statistics**, which by themselves prove nothing. "Homosexuality is not genetic, has never proved to be genetic. Variances in brain function occur mainly through learned behaviour." You are sadly mistaken on both counts. The scientific studies are there, and as I mentioned before, it is time for YOU to go read them, as I have read...and commented on the ones YOU tout! Do you require brass bands and bound copies hand-delivered to your door? For months now, you have waved your arms and shouted **STATISTICS**, and several times I and others have tried to get you to commit to a plan or offer a suggestion about what to do about ANY statistics.... good or bad...and how **YOU** would deal with the situation.... apart from hinting broadly that 'they' should be denied freedoms which others enjoy. Care to answer any of those? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,Jon Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:55 PM Fwiw, the Wikipedia article "Biology And Sexual Orientation" opens: No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. It mentions studies on identical twins and notes: Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins (who are genetically identical), sexual orientation cannot be purely caused by genetics |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 18 Feb 11 - 06:35 PM in fairness ,whatever the genetics or other factors ,those who did,nt choose to be gay[eg-failed straight relationships turning to homosexual alternative]honestly believe they cannot be otherwise. i believe penny is correct in observing that christians also have and struggle with homosexual feelings.however not all such practise homosexual behaviour. i reckon i,m wired to be an adulterer but by Gods grace i,m faithful to my wife.not that i want to make a straight correlation as i have not had to walk in the shoes of those with homosexual feelings. bill-i may have missed it but did you ref studies that opposed the study akenaton quoted extensively from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 18 Feb 11 - 06:53 PM Don Firth.....Your last post is a pack of lies. I have never suggested that 43% of homosexuals have aids. Male homosexuals make up 43% of those tested positive for hiv in study. The latest estimates are that one in five carry the virus, but the figure rises steadily Male homosexuals are the only demographic in which infection rates are rising (including injecting drug users). I have never said aids is "spontaniously created" by homosexuals. Nobody knows why homosexuals are so suseptible to hiv/aids...but it is time we made an effort to find out. Anal sex and promiscuity being the most likely means of transmission. Both common traits in homosexual practice (CDCfigures) Regarding homosexual marriage take up, the opinions advanced were based on a huge study in Scandanavia, an area which has had homosexual marriage and homosexual civil union for many years. There is a large amount of data in the study and I linked to it in another thread.....I will try to find it and repost the link. Bill..on this thread a few posts ago I asked YOU and your ilk what you intended to do about the homosexual hiv figures and got no response....I have set out many times what I would recommend and my views have been hinted at in the last CDCfact sheet. If infection rates among male homosexuals continue to rise in such an alarming manner we will have no alternative but to instigate compulsory testing and contact tracing amonst "at risk groups" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 11 - 07:48 PM What would *I* do? Easy... I would educate about safe sex....for everyone. I would encourage research into medical cures and treatments. I would counsel anyone who has the slightest notion that they might carry any disease to not only be treated, but to be interviewed for a database of vectors to allow tracking of those at risk.....and.... I would also strive thru education to remove the stigma of BEING gay, in order to orient more gays into more wholesome, positive behaviors and relationships. I probably could expand on this given more time and energy. All that implies that I would NOT deprive them of their rights and privileges in such things as marriage & civil unions while the world drags its feet towards sane attitudes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:01 PM "Don Firth.....Your last post is a pack of lies." No, YOU lie, sir. Again. The evidence is out there. All anyone has to do is read your many posts on many threads. And they don't have to look too far, because you repeat the same stuff over and over again like a mantra. How long did you have to wade through statistics before you found one that you could interpret as favoring your position? Scandinavia is not the entire world, nor do gays there represent gays all over the world. Yet, that's the major prop of your claim that gays don't want gay marriage, and that it's all the work of "liberal fascists." By the way, any competent person with a grasp of political science can instantly recognize "liberal fascist" as an oxymoron. And you haven't specifically said that the AIDs virus is "spontaneously generated" by homosexual activity, but you have implied it time and time again, and completely blew off any information about the actual transfer of the AIDs virus from primates to humans in Africa, probably through the illegal "bushmeat" trade. You implied that the virus started among homosexual American males. The virus HAD to come from somewhere, and you implied that that is where it started, not by infection from outside sources, but among gays themselves. How else but by spontaneous generation, then? Again, all one has to do is read your posts. By the way, you're very fond of the word "compulsory," aren't you? Compulsory testing and contact tracing. And considering the rest of your attitudes, it sounds like "Next stop, Buchenwald!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Bill D Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:02 PM It seems we might differ about exactly who would be compelled to be tested and traced.... and just how that might be accomplished. You might have a difficult time getting any cooperation for what *I* suggest if you begin deciding who is at risk and creating some way to corral them for compulsory stuff..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: akenaton Date: 19 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM Male homosexuals and intravenus drug abusers are the two groups most "at risk" Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died. A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Don Firth Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:50 PM Ake, the CDC's statistics are not that incontrovertible. "As a result of an increase in false positive rates with rapid oral HIV testing in 2005, New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene added the option of testing finger-stick whole blood after any reactive result, before using a Western Blot test to confirm the positive result. Following a further increase of false positives in NYC DOHMH STD Clinics during the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008, their clinics opted to forgo further oral screenings, and instead reinstituted testing using finger-stick whole blood.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go From: Jack Campin Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:58 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell I picked up his book The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe a few weeks ago, haven't done much more than flip through it since. He has what looks like conclusive evidence that the mediaeval Catholic Church (both Roman and Eastern) routinely celebrated same-sex unions and had liturgies specifically for that purpose. If anybody wants to use them, he has orders of service translated from the original Latin and Greek in the appendices. There are a LOT of them to choose from. The sheer volume of evidence he assembles is astonishing. |
