BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:07 AM

There ya go, achy, an object lesson in "reason" from Keith. An object lesson in intolerance, too, while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:12 AM

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

"Points have no dimensions"
"Wait a minute...aren't you making assumptions about all points? You Sir are a bigoted anti-pointist!"

Or something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM

an object lesson in "reason" from Keith.
Thank you Steve.
An object lesson in intolerance, too

No. It is liberal and tolerant to respect the deeply held convictions of others.
It may be necessary to overrule them, but not to assert that they must be bad people and their views dismissed.
That is illiberal, intolerant and bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM

Keith, your post was accurate...right on the button, but as i have found it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people.

They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.
You and I are on different sides of the political divide, but we do not see important social issues as party political.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:41 AM

You and I are on different sides of the political divide

*splutter...*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:43 AM

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

OK. But let's call it a gambit instead. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

Okay, let's have the grownup discussion...

You (akenaton) asked "How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual.

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are worried about...even just a little bit?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM

Tis my belief that Cameron is in such a untenable situation with this coalition that he is pulling every stroke he can to divest himself of the post of PM by espousing contentious policies such as homosexual/lesbian marriage, nuclear energy shilly-shallying, HS2, taking on Brussels, forced green policies et al. Come the next election he will be happy as Larry to see someone else wrestle with the above. Blair seems to have personally flourished since being out of office.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM

And can it be said at all that married heteros do not "stray?"

Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance, which is really the heart of this. Perhaps because it demands an honest self-assessment, which some here adamantly refuse to do?? I think that refusal speaks volumes.


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM

""They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.""

Then, O wise Scot, tell us do how a homosexual marriage diminishes heterosexuals' marriages?

Then tell us how allowing homosexuals to establish monogamous relationships is likely to increase their health risks, when every facet of reasonable examination strongly suggests the opposite?

You have consistently ducked this question with the comment that gays don't want to marry, obviously untrue given the number who queue up to marry wherever it becomes legal.

Come on 'fess up canny lad. The idea that all gays are by nature promiscuous is largely the invention of nay sayers like yourself, in a weak attempt to label what you call "These people" (you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that we are all known to you, at least as fellow Mudcatters) as politically motivated destroyers of the status quo.

You are too intolerant to allow that we believe in what we say because we believe it is right, not politically, but in honest humanity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:30 PM

""Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance""

I rather think I did Saul, while cutting off at the pass all the objections I foresaw as inevitable.

Acceptance is the only possible answer to men of conscience (which, I believe, is all but a vociferous few here).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM

". . . it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people."

Apparently, Ake's idea of "a grown up discussion" is one in which he pontificates, and everyone else nods and chants, "Yessir, yessir, three bags full!"

Marriage, which used to be mainly a matter of increasing the tribe (which was the primary reason for the prohibitions against same-sex relationships in Biblical times), was later redefined to make it mainly a matter of property (a man's wife was considered "chattel," as were her possessions, including, often, a dowry) and inheritance. Within the past century, the place of women in society has, by itself, redefined marriage. And none of these redifinitions has brought about the destruction of society.

So that argument is spurious.

And as to the argument that same-sex relationships, male relationships in particular, are responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDs, is a reason to oppose same-sex marriage is self-contradictory. ONE (but not ALL) of the means of spreading HIV/AIDs is through promiscuous sex, regardless of the gender of the participants. Marriage encourages stable, monogamous relationships, so it cuts down on the spread of venereal diseases.

I have known a same-sex couple who have been in a stable, monogamous relationship for twenty-eight years! And other couples who have been together for long periods of time and to all intents and purposes, ARE married. Except legally, which would give them the same rights as other couples.

This past Sunday here in Washington State, they were able to have an official, legal, marriage ceremony, which made their relationship official and announced its existence to the rest of the world.

A very happy and much longed-for event for both them and their friends!

There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny same-sex marriage.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM

Well said, Don. It seems that those opposed to gay marriage, in or out of a church, are opposed to homosexuality itself. But it exists, there are gay people out there, they fall in love, they want to formalise their relationships just like anyone else, and gay marriage (as any marriage) does indeed stabilise society. Why all this hate and unkindness? It's as mad as trying to prevent black people or disabled people from marrying in church. Imagine the hoo-ha if someone suggested banning them! Everyone has the right (and should be encouraged) to marry the person they truly love. So let them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM

So many well said posts. I laud them all.

"There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny same-sex marriage."

Well, yeah. But there are gonna be more posts from those peeps who simply troll and have nothing to say in response that has any true value and they will simply be repeting themselves with inane arguements so why not just stop posting? Let the ignorant trolls post themselves up the ying yang. Who cares about trolls and ignorants and bigots?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:31 PM

I think you're right, gnu. It's hopeless trying to help them understand. They never will turn into kind and accepting folk. They take pleasure in winding the rest of us up. But at the end of the day, they'll end up bitter, unhappy and lonely. No-one wants a vicious troll for a friend!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM

Not only are there gay people "out there", there are gay people in here - hello!!!!!

And it is all too apparent that a (reassuringly) small number of Mudcat regulars have implacable and deeply condemnatory views about homosexuality. In various threads, at various times, I have attempted to put an alternative view, based on the actual lived experience of a gay man.

But it never works. So while I am genuinely pleased to see you well-intentioned hets trying to sway These Particular People, you really are wasting your time. You might as well try and get a rhino to walk a tightrope.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM

Tia....you obviously have not been paying attention, I have explained my position regarding the homosexual "marriage" legislation many times on these threads and why I am unable to support such legislation. It has nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, or the colour of anyone's skin. Male homosexuals are now, in the eyes of most experts, suffering the effects of an epidemic. In some major US cities 1 in 5 homosexuals carry the hiv virus. In such an epidemic, it is impossible to "solve the health crisis...just a little bit"; real and urgent action is required immediately.....pretending that the crisis does not exist is not an option...and that is what the legislation does, it promotes the homosexual lifestyle with its very high rates of promiscuity, as safe and healthy....healthy enough to be brought into mainstream society and given very young children to bring up...a disgraceful social experiment.

The health agencies are only too aware of the crisis but are hindered by Rights legislation from tackling the problem at source. They are now hinting that compulsory hiv testing and contact tracing should be conducted in "problem areas"...this would mean all the inhabitants of inner city areas, whether or not they are "at risk" Expensive and time consuming. 2/3% of the population(homosexuals) account for almost 70% of new hiv infections, making them by a huge percentage the largest "at risk" group....it is this group that should be targetted if we are serious about understanding and eradicating the link between male homosexuality and hiv/aids.

To stick heads in the sand and pretend there is no heath crisis in the homosexual community, is rank stupidity and unbelievable cruelty, for although early death rates are falling, aids remains a life sentence for many young men....and to teach our children that while these rates of disease continue,homosexuality is a safe and healty lifestyle is to live in a land of PC madness.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM

". . . promotes the homosexual lifestyle. . . ."

This makes the assumption that someone who's heterosexual is going to think, "Gee, homosexuality sounds like jolly good fun!! I think I'll go down to some gay bar and get laid!!"

Yeah, sure!!

When asked if being gay was a matter of choice or if people were just born that way, a gay acquaintance of mine said, "Considering the fact that being gay can subject you to all manner of slurs and insults, and can get you repeatedly hauled into a back alley and beaten up—or even killed!—who in his right mind would CHOOSE to be gay?"

You say you can't support such legislation despite the fact that same-sex marriage promotes stable, monogamous relationships, which, in turn, would reduce promiscuity. In addition to many other things, some aforementioned, this strikes me as both counterproductive and mean-spirited!

For those who are pathologically opposed to gay marriage—as some folks here make it quite plain that they are—the worst thing they could imagine is if medical science were to come up with a vaccination against HIV—or a cure for AIDs—or both!

That COULD happen any day now.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM

Well, achy, your veneer of "respectable" and faux-measured comment is ultra-thin and cannot disguise your homophobia. In Africa, where HIV/aids is far more prevalent than anywhere else, it is not a condition primarily of homosexual men. Far from it. To read your post, one might come to the conclusion that, if only we could wipe out homosexuality, we would rid the world of HIV/aids. You claim to be a siren voice who is bravely ditching PC. Well you're bravely ditching common sense and reason as well, not to speak of a large body of obstinate facts, unfortunately. Try the following for size. Why do you think we have massive rates of teenage unwanted pregnancy here? Why do we have a shamefully-high abortion rate in this country? Why is there so much death among teenage boy drivers? Why do we have HIV/aids in this country (at relatively low levels, actually)?

Well let me give you the wrong answers:

*Because teenagers are irresponsible shaggers-around.

*Because girls don't know when to say no, and, anyway, abortion is easy to get, so no problem. A lifestyle choice.

*Because teenage boys are all testosterone-fuelled, hubris-filled, immature little bastards.

*Because gay men are obsessed with unprotected bumming around with whoever they can get their hands on.

Now let me give you the wrong solutions:

*Stop teenagers going out at night and force them to do the respectable thing and get married if they do get pregnant.

*Don't let boys drive cars until they're 25 and even then restrict them to Cinquecentos.

*Ban abortion and make the guilty little whores have their babies and get them adopted.

*Make homosexuality illegal, as it's filthy and disgusting anyway, and castrate repeat offenders.

Now the right solution: education, old chap, that's what. We are so bloody bad at it in this country when it comes to sex and personal relationships it isn't true. It's a willy in a fanny (in diagrammatic form, of course) but only for making babies (I know: I was involved in it in secondary schools for 25 fruitless years in which spinster senior teachers, school nurses and vicars with moral agendas couldn't keep their noses out). The same applies to boy racers. There was a thing on telly last night about showing volunteer teenage drivers how inexperienced they were, and the guinea-pigs showed impressive and humble responses to their eye-opening lessons. But we don't bother. Birds and bees are for mums and dads to deal with, and they were educated even less well. Then, just like you, we moan and groan about the moral laxities of any of those groups we choose to focus on. Well, achy, the thing is, it's all your fault and mine why kids grow up all wrong sometimes. And I'm certainly not including growing up gay in that, unlike you. In terms of education, gayness is the great unmentionable (with a very few honourable exceptions). Thing is, old chap, it's the self-same people who do all the bloody moralising and moaning and condemning who also try to put every possible obstacle in the way of good, open, moralising-free and well-integrated education programmes. Next time you pass a Catholic school, nip in, pretend you're a prospective parent and ask how much they teach their kids about contraception and safe sex. Don't even bother asking what they teach about homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:51 PM

However you see it...I'm a bit skeptical on policies formed on the shoulders of bad science....and if you belief bad science, and policies built upon them, then it could be said that your rationale is in decay from the beginning premise.....and really, do you want to be dogmatic on a false premise, and then be surprised if you meet opposition??????
those who knowingly promote policies built upon bad science and false premises, have breached their own credibility..and can be easily dismissed.....no matter how 'popular' it is to tolerate their act!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:02 AM

When you notice that Akenaton writes gay marriage as gay "marriage" you don't really have the heart to read any further.

If you did you would find distortion and convenient solutions to match his preconceived views.

Goofus on the other hand tries to tease out hypocrisy in other people's posts whilst giving Akenaton respect.

So, now they can both be dismissed out of hand, back to gay marriage.

Old men in pointy hats tell us marriage belongs to their imaginary friend. Very easy to dismiss my comment there as a rant against religion but if you find such institutions irrelevant, their claim is somewhat insulting. Yet be insulting back and as Corporal Jones reminded us, the fuzzy wuzzies don't like it up 'em.

I got married three years ago in a hotel. No church nonsense or hypocritical incantations but a bloody good time. By their reckoning I am not married then either? Fuck 'em.

Jesus had two dads and he turned out ok. In fact according to Christians he turned out better than any person ever could. Which says it all really...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM

Not a rant against religion Musket.
The pointy hat reference makes it specific to Christian churches, who of all churches have no problem with sexuality.
All congregations have openly gay couples, and we have gay priests and bishops.
The Methodist church I often attend has its second gay minister in a row.
You will not find such acceptance in,say, Islam.
The problem arises I think for some people with the concept of marriage.
It is an ancient cultural tradition that predates religions.
That is not to say it must never change, but making such a huge change to such a fundamental, deeply rooted cultural tradition will not be accepted by all people overnight.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:09 AM

Musket...I usually write homosexual "marriage".
Even though I have had only a pretty basic formal education, I like to be as accurate as possible.

I have never been fond of using words like "gay" as a euphamism for homosexuality, just because it is more user friendly.
As far as marriage is concerned i'll just stick to the traditional definition thank you.
The Scottish govt has just held a "cosultation" over this issue, where the Scottish people were ask to give their views.
By a large majority, they rejected the proposed legislation to legalise same sex marriage.
For your information, I too was married in an hotel...over 45years ago; this has absolutely no bearing on my stance on this issue.

People of faith still have the right to their beliefs, despite people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:32 AM

Steve... i cant make much sense of your garbled post,but I take it you are trying to say that all the crisis requires is a bit more information?

Have you been living in a cave for the last twenty years? Homosexuals have been bombarded by information....there is a huge industry involved in giving information and help to aids sufferers.
Most of the aids budget goes to MSMs.

Yet new infection rates keep climbing steadily.

The health agencies know that they are losing the battle and that compulsory testing and contact tracing is required, but because of current "rights" legislation, we all must pretend that there is nothing wrong.

BTW I mostly agree with your views on the state of other aspects of social life, but what has it to do with this particular issue.

My post was an attempt to explain my position to Tia, not an invitation to be verbally abused.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:48 AM

Keith. I know that. I remain bemused by decent people within the fold not making a stance and asking themselves which view represents the church? If Christianity is about turning the other cheek then respectable people are well practiced at it whilst outrageous disgusting bigots speak in their name. Appeasement in order to not rock the boat ignores the fact that the hull is well and truly breached anyway.

Sorry but whilst the Church wishes to be part of the state then it will continue to be rightfully questioned and compared to other society values. Other religions do not try tointerfere with our government so it is disingenuous to bring them into the debate. In any case, a gay colleague at work lives with his husband and they both attend Friday prayers at their mosque. Their Imam blessed their partnership at a ceremony for that matter.   If CofE people don't want to be calked Jehovas Witnesses it would be a good start to not stereotype people of other faiths. Most Muslims are as appalled by those speaking in their name as any decent member of our village congregation are when hearing an American Christian preacher say Thank God for AIDS.

Akenaton. Of course you can be old fashioned and stick to traditional views. Just keep them away from polite society that's all. My old fashioned views would include concluding that for anybody to be as twisted and bitter in their comments as you are, ,taking them seriously isn't going to help with your problem. And you do seem to have one..

Will it help if being Scottish you accept that you are portrayed as an alcoholic wife beating good for nothing ne're do well? Or is the Rab C Nesbitt comparison different to your portrayal of Gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 06:33 AM

If you think that's verbal abuse then I feel sorry for you. Homosexuals have not been "bombarded with information". They have to go and get the information for themselves. If schools treated gay people the same as everyone else in good programmes of education for personal relationships, gay people, like everyone else, would come into the bigger world well-equipped to find the information they want. All too often they don't (which was the point of my longer post, actually, that you referred to as "garbled"). The evidence is all too obvious, in the shape of high rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and of the frighteningly-high incidence of unprotected sex. Your attitude is to put the information out there too late, when the problems have become all too apparent, and say take it or leave it. Conscience cleansed!

As for the use of the word gay, the fact that you're uncomfortable with it, in spite of its having just the one meaning these days unless you want to set everyone off giggling, speaks volumes about your resentment and intolerance of homosexuality. And you call it a euphemism for homosexuality. You know what a euphemism is? A less bad way of characterising something bad, that's what. A way of playing down the badness. So you think homosexuality is bad and you don't think it deserves a kinder word for itself. That's what you're saying, apparently. It's what we call homophobia and your remarks demonstrate plenty of symptoms of it.

As for the statistics, it is not true that infection "rates" in the UK are climbing "steadily". In fact, in the mid-noughties there was a decline in new diagnoses of HIV in spite of much improved diagnostic techniques and public knowledge. And we have now had HIV/Aids with us for well over 30 years that we know of, yet the number of HIV-positive people in the UK is under 100,000, fewer than one in 600 of the population (and by no means all will develop Aids). Yet the pundits tell us that anything between one in 20 and more than one in ten of us may be not solely sexually interested in the opposite sex. Hmm. Not much of a gay plague then, is it? Of course, scaremongering is simply another aspect of homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM

The denial:

The pointy hat reference makes it specific to Christian churches, who of all churches have no problem with sexuality.

The barb:

You will not find such acceptance in,say, Islam.

How predictable was that!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 06:48 AM

Gay marriage doesn't really effect anyone else. Its not something that will impinge of you personally, so what other reason than homophobia could there be for banning it? A hysterical and unreasonable reaction to something outside your ken.

Having said that. in some sleeve notes I referred to J Edgar Hoover as a cross dressing homosexual. This gay friend said to me, you've used the word homosexual - I don't like that. Not a nice word....

I said, well actually he wasn't all that nice a person....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:54 AM

Actually, Rab is a bit of an anti-hero, Pattison created a multi faceted character in RC Nesbitt....one of my favourite shows, I am not thin skinned regarding stereotypes and Rab is portrayed as a mixture of good and bad like most of us.....I know quite a few guys in Glasgow,not a lot different from Rab.... rough as a badgers arse, but brim full of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM

Steven........"You know what a euphemism is? A less bad way of characterising something bad"
I did not change the word homosexual.
Homosexuals did, because it did what words are supposed to do, they thought that "homosexual" made people think of male to male sex and knowing that over 90% of the population frown on this practice, they decided to change it for something light and airy with a feelgood factor.   I for one do not like being manipulated in this manner so i shall stick to the original definition.

I have yet to meet a gay homosexual....most seem neurotic.

Where do you get your statistics from? I would be interested to see the source/
So you think there is no need for panic in the latest MSM figures?
70% of new infections in 2/3% of the population......well that says quite a lot about how you view homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 12:34 PM

I did not change the word homosexual.
Homosexuals did, because it did what words are supposed to do, they thought that "homosexual" made people think of male to male sex and knowing that over 90% of the population frown on this practice, they decided to change it for something light and airy with a feelgood factor.   I for one do not like being manipulated in this manner so i shall stick to the original definition.

Down to you, but perhaps you need a King Canute to show you how futile is your stance. And homosexual people did not change the word to gay. The word is still there, for the likes of you, me and gay people to use if they wish (and they often do, as do we). "Gay" has been almost universally adopted by gay and straight people alike, whether you like it or not. No one has manipulated anyone or anything. Language does what language does, and I'll celebrate that.

I have yet to meet a gay homosexual....most seem neurotic.

Well I know a few gay people and they are no different, cheeriness-wise, to anyone else as far as I can see. Of course, a gay person confronted with a person whose body language or real language indicates hostility may give the appearance of being neurotic, and who could blame them.   

Where do you get your statistics from? I would be interested to see the source No secret. Wiki as ever.

70% of new infections in 2/3% of the population......well that says quite a lot about how you view homosexuals.

But you are ignoring the prevailing very low level of infection in any case (which I didn't: less than one in 600 of us, remember?) Lies, damned lies and... Education must get better! It may not be the answer to everything but it's a damn sight better than demonising gay people.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 01:02 PM

Aye, I enjoy watching Rab myself. In fact having recently read "A Stranger Here Myself"I can vouch that the character is portrayed as a damn site more accepting of others than you appear to be.

All Gays are neurotic eh? Just think, if normal people shared your views they just might be. Your stereotyping and bullshit observations are hilarious.

Then in a post above you say you did not wish to be verbally abused.   If you know what it means perhaps you might wish to desist yourself?

People are gay or straight. Enjoy outdoor pursuits or want to relax. Watch football or go bell ringing.

The common bit? they are all traits of members of society and have the right to be themselves without your poison and hurtful observations.   

As you are so good at twisting figures, you would make a good politician. Or at least confirm the term to be an oxymoron.   Emphasis on the latter syllables.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 02:41 PM

"I have yet to meet a gay homosexual....most seem neurotic."

Don't get out much, eh, Ake?

As I have mentioned above, I am acquainted with a number of homosexual men, the majority of which are attorneys and fairly well-to-do, one of which is a State Legislator. I could go into a fair amount of detail as to the lives of a couple of them (now married as of last Sunday) who have been together for several years and are better adjusted than many heterosexual couples I know.

In fact, any leaning toward neurosis often ends when the person "comes out of the closet" to themselves, says "Okay, that's the way I am. So be it!" makes peace with what IS, and then lives their life accordingly.

Being concerned with someone else's sex life--now, THAT'S NEUROTIC!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:10 PM

Eliza... 535 posts... why does anyone need to say any more? Seems to me silence would say more. Yes, it's laudable that some will not "give up the fight" against ignorance and intolerance but I just to day read on antother thread something said by a mod... she don't like trolls or trollfuckers.

Crass? Maybe. But VERY wise. I have been well guilty of being a trollfucker in the past and just can't help myself at times these days but I will try. She's right... and wise.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:18 PM

Akenaton's entire logic depends on his belief that gay people should be discriminated against because they engage in risky behavior. He's not worth arguing with until he can explain why we shouldn't also discriminate against smokers, bungee jumpers, and firemen. Once he comes up with a reasonable answer for that, he'll then have to prove that ALL gay people engage in risky behavior. Debating with him on any other questions only validates his lack of logic on these first questions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM

It's less a matter of "trollfucking" than it is of counteracting rampant misinformation,

There are a couple of people on this (and, invariably, other threads touching on this subject) who are not so much trolls as they are table-pounding homophobes. They are not going to change their minds, nor do I expect they ever will. But they insist on spreading misinformation, and my aim is to shoot down the misinformation and tell what I know about the subject.

And since I am not homosexual myself, I don't have a horse in this race--other that a wish to be fair, and keep people I know out of the ghetto that some people here would put them in.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:57 PM

"The Scottish govt has just held a "cosultation" over this issue, where the Scottish people were ask to give their views.
By a large majority, they rejected the proposed legislation to legalise same sex marriage."

It is seemingly not quite as straightforward as that. Of the responses that went in directly to Holyrood from individuals (ie not from the names collected by churches) the figure's are claimed to have been 50% against gay marriage and 49% in favour. However 19% of these responses actually came from people outside of Scotland and according to reports in the Guardian the vast bulk of these were anti with the suggestion being that they came from people linked to campaigns run by the Christian Institute and Christian Concern. So not quite the same as "the Scottish people" giving their opinion. Seemingly if individual responses from people within Scotland are counted it came down to about 65% in favour of gay marriage which ties in with the Mori polls on the subject.

What knocked the anti vote up further was the submission of petitions run by religious groups and in particular the postcards sent in by the Catholic Church. Seemingly 36% of total responses to the government consultation were these postcards. The Catholic Church gave out 200,000 preprinted cards declaring opposition to gay marriage with a space for the signature at the bottom. Only 28,000 were completed and handed back to the church. The vast bulk of Catholic parishioners ignored the cards. It was not a consultative exercise run by the church and there was no request for people to voice support for gay marriage. They simply ran a campaign to collect names.

Just saying in case people from outwith Scotland think that the country is full of anti-gays! There are statisitcs and statistics and damned lies. Yes we can say that of the names collected the majority were anti - but it is not the same as the people of Scotland actually giving their opinion in any kind of fair way. Presumably the govt pressed on with their plans despite the consultation exercise because they knew that many of the antis were either from religious campaigns outside of Scotland - or were from a rigged exercise carried out by a minority religious group within Scotland!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM

To add to my last post I am not trying to suggest Scotland is devoid of prejudice. Unfortunately it is not. It would be unwise for a govt to base its policies on the base prejudices of sections of the population though! To give an example in the Scottish Govt's own Social Attitude's Survey some 18% of people said that gay men or lesbians were unsuitable to be primary school teachers. They in fact came out rather well compared with others though. 46% of people believed a Gypsy would be unsuitable for a teacher; whilst 41% believed people who suffered from depression at times were unsuitable; and 39% beleived that people aged 70 or over were unsuitable to teach primary school children!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

""Well, yeah. But there are gonna be more posts from those peeps who simply troll and have nothing to say in response that has any true value and they will simply be repeting themselves with inane arguements so why not just stop posting?""

What would be the result Gnu?

We stop rebuttal of the homophobes' hate posts and people looking at Mudcat see only those posts and come to the conclusion that Mudcat is a homophobic website.

NO WAY JOSE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:43 PM

Being concerned with someone else's sex life--now, THAT'S NEUROTIC!

Damn. Wish I'd thought of that. Nice one, Don!

We stop rebuttal of the homophobes' hate posts and people looking at Mudcat see only those posts and come to the conclusion that Mudcat is a homophobic website.

Damn. Wish I'd thought of that. Nice one, other Don!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:18 PM

Don... after 500+ posts, I think your arguement is toast. If anyone can't get the fact that 99% of Mudcatters are intelligent, tollerant and upset by the ignorant and the trolls after that many posts... well, don't you think the ignorant and the trolls are just playing head games with this? I think that is a far worse view of the Mudcat community to display to "people looking at Mudcat".

BTW... I have shat upon *** and MANY trolls and ignorants MANY times on MANY threads about MANY topics but... they ain't goin away. They will still be here tomorrow. After 500+ posts... shittin on any of them any more is akin to... I can't say it... maybe I am growing up? Mum said I'd become a man some day. Maybe I draw nigh.

If you feed a crow that is starvin out of the goodness of your heart, it will peck on your window at dawn to be fed. If you don't feed it, it will fly away. If you lay your heart out, that crow will will eat it. Your call.

Of course, if it doesn't fly away, you could shoot the fucker. But, if you ain't a good shot it's just gonna keep flappin in yer face. Any way you cut it, yer kinda shootin yerself in the foot after 500+ posts. I'm just sayin.

Have fun with it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:52 AM

Allan...The Scottish govt said before the "consultation", that they "were of a mind to introduce the legislation".....could that not be seen as an attempt to affect the result?

This legislation is simply to keep the power brokers of the media placated....It is bad, law introduced for people who do not want it and ignoring the problems it will cause for society at large.

I was a strong supporter of the SNP govt but their backtracking on coming out of NATO, The removal of Nukes from Scottish soil, and their attempt to play politics with important social and health issues, makes me think that they are just more of the same old politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:14 AM

As for the rest of you, have you nothing better to do with your time?
You are like children in the playground, if you cannot post anything which is relevant and objective, why bother to post at all.

The nonesense above, the personal stuff, attemps to paint any who disagree with you as "bad", hateful etc.....is extremely foolish,
You dont know me, all you know is that I am against this legislation, for what I and millions of other people see as prefectly valid reasons. Actually I am quite a "good" person, I find it difficult to "hate" anyone and do my best to help all who need help regardless of race, sexual orientation,or political conviction.
I am anti-capitalist, but I dont see many of you rushing to protect the bankers from my "hateful discrimination"?

Now if you want to discuss things in an adult manner.....as some here do, then fine, but I am not about to respond to "kiddie talk"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:21 AM

The whole point of a discussion thread like this one is to pinpoint differences of opinion. I've spent some time thinking about your apparent stance, which is not an uncommon one in my experience, and challenging you on it. You talk about what you see as your perfectly valid opposition to gay marriage but, unfortunately, you are also opposed to the legislation that would allow it. This is a homophobic stance for the following reason. You have an underlying opinion about gay people and gay marriage, which is fine. Different to mine, but fine. But you would go further and attempt to restrict the right of gay people to enjoy the same status as straight people, even though it would have no effect on you or any other married heterosexuals whatsoever. Wouldn't affect your life one bit. You even resent the fact that, in your opinion (which, actually, is not fine in this case because it is misguided), gay people call themselves gay (which most of us emulate these days) instead of homosexual. Equally, this does not affect you except that you're irritated by having to find another word, of which there are plenty, where you might have used "gay". Wow, how devastating is that! So you wish to impose restrictions on gay people that would not apply to straight people and which would scarcely impinge on your life at all, or the lives of most people in general, except to make you feel a bit cross. In opposing the legislation you are not allowing for any shades of opinion other than your own. You think you are so right that you deserve to be supported by contrary legislation, presumably the status quo. Well, as far as I'm concerned, in matters like this the principle of live and let live should prevail. It's called tolerance and it is something that, so far, appears to be lacking in your attitude to gay people. That's what's up. I don't think anyone is judging you as a person. As you post under a pseudonym and I don't know where you live, for all know you might be that great bloke down the pub I've been joking and getting pissed with for donkeys' years. If you're not sure it's me, I'm the one with the pink socks and a copy of Gay News under my arm.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:32 AM

Actually, thinking about the word "gay", which some people regard as having been unjustly usurped by gay people, I think it's great that such a direct, simple word which has an upbeat feel challenges all those horrid words we used in the 60s when I was at school (and I was as bad as everyone else) such as queer, puffter, bum-bandit, shirtlifter, freddie, homo and all the rest. Not replaced 'em, maybe, but we've now got a word we can agree on and which has been embraced by gay people. That'll do me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:35 AM

If Akenaton wishes to put a view forward, he has to appreciate that as part of the debate, his stance will be scrutinised, just the same as mine or anyone elses, and judged by peers. That then informs the debate.

To date, I have seen homophobic rants based on the flimsy "danger to society" angle that is the last resort of the ridiculous and a deep heartfelt view that a Gay lifestyle is a detriment to society.

I don't think I do drink in the pub with Akenaton. I have worked in Scotland in various locations over the years, and just like anywhere else, bigotry betrays itself. To be honest, I am judging him as a person, in the same way he judges others.

And I don't like what I read.

If you find it difficult to hate, may I suggest reading some of your own posts on this subject? Through the usual brainwashing cycle, the hate will eventually come to you...

Back to topic. I read a tweet by Stephen Fry the other day that sums up the whole idea of having a view on the extent of gay rights. He says it is wrong to consider giving Alan Turing a pardon. Because he hadn't done anything wrong in the first place.

Quite.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM

I am still at a loss to discover why people have this fierce and vicious hatred of gays. What is it that gets them so angry and nasty? As Musket says, they have their hobbies, interests, friends, everyday lives and in that respect are no different to straight people. Their private sexual preferences are nobody's business (neither are those of straight people) They have relationships and love eachother. So what? So do I. It's as bizarre as if one has conceived an enormous detestation of,say, stamp collectors, to the extent that they must stay at home, never divulge it and be banned from associating with non-stamp afficionados. I cannot see what the objections are. They don't go about attacking people, they don't do any harm, they could be living next door and you don't know it. What oh what is the problem??

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:27 AM

""Don... after 500+ posts, I think your arguement is toast. If anyone can't get the fact that 99% of Mudcatters are intelligent, tollerant and upset by the ignorant and the trolls after that many posts...""

Gnu, consider this. Most people don't open a full thread, but simply scan the latest page.

If we bow out that page is a conversation between the trolls. Just 50 posts and their message is the one the casual visitor gets.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:32 AM

Akenton,
I posed a question for you to clearly espouse exactly how you think homosexuals should be treated. I gave all the options I could think of. You can choose your response and own it. Or you can make up your own clear and precise way to manage homosexuality. You have not done either. Therefore, I conclude...

You are not clear about your view.
You are clear, but to declare it would be embarrassing for you.
You just want attention.

If one, then feel free to ask for help clarifying. If you are sincerely confused and searching, most of us here will help you with an Earnest inquiry.
If two, then reach deep inside and figure out that conflict so that you can own it and defend it.
If three, well then, wouldn't getting *positive* attention be better than putting yourself out (out!) there to be constantly marginalization.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM

""Now if you want to discuss things in an adult manner.....as some here do, then fine, but I am not about to respond to "kiddie talk"""

Nor, it seems, to respond to simply, sensible questions such as:-

How, exactly are you or your marriage negatively affected by the situation vis-a-vis a group to which you do not belong and which has, per se, no impact upon your life, your family, or your social circle?

Why, if your main opposition is based upon health risk, do you oppose a procedure which, by its very nature, will reduce that risk?

That is the ""kiddie talk"" to which you assiduously avoid responding.

Don T.