BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:30 PM

annulled on grounds of non consummation?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM

Yeah Goofus. A good one.

I am liberal enough to accept that some people have ignorant views based on bigotry.   After all, I regulate prison healthcare so am used to trying to seek empathy with views different to mine.

So long that bigots also are liberal enough to know that I have the right to hate them on behalf of all those whose lives are unduly affected by promotion of their hate.

I fail to understand why people voice their irrational hatred. Being simple soul and no angel myself I have no problem with treating such people with contempt.

No fancy logic chopping and no intellectual argument to counter yours. You have no argument. So all we have left is hating people for being different. Is that all the thanks you can give your parents for your education?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM

Civil marriage, annulled, yes.
Civil 'partnerships'?, not sure...but in many states, and they differ, in the length of time, if you live with someone, as husband and wife, but no formal 'wedding', they consider you married, as 'common law'...for instance, California seven years...Colorado 6 months.

GfS

.......and P.S." I'll answer Don and Steve shortly...and point out CLEARLY, just how confused they made themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM

In the US, is it possible for a civil marriage to be anulled?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:23 AM

Good one!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM

pretend they didn't know what equality meant when they voted through a bill ensuring it!

Do not be silly Musket.
Parliamentary legislation is precisely defined and unambiguous.
There must be no room for misunderstanding.
There was never any question of it ever being intended to even consider changing the rules on marriage.

If there is a will to have the rules changed, that is fine but why the unprecedented, undemocratic rush?
The institution of marriage has existed for millennia.
We could wait a few more weeks until everyone was clear on what was intended and what would be the consequences.

Be liberal and tolerant enough to accept that some people think the rules of marriage should remain as they are, and not for reasons of homophobia as you claim.
That would make a large proportion of the population, if not a magority homophobic.
What about the rights of those who wish for equality for polygamous marriage.
Do you support polygamy equality, or are you a polygamaphobe?
Incestophobe?
Child marriagophobe?
Bestialophobe?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM

Shock horror!

MPs pretend they didn't know what equality meant when they voted through a bill ensuring it!

Read all about it!!

Akenaton. I find you offensive. Luckily, I don't extend that to all Scots.




Sorry for the gap, I was genuinely trying to think of a Gay person who I find offensive. I am sure there are some. But when you go through life having to endure the prejudice of others, I suppose you are not so quick to judge others. Hence a bit difficult to find any.

Of course, there are plenty. Most of all the hypocritical people who decried a Gay lifestyle whilst having one themselves in private. The likes of Peter Tatchell do a good job pointing out their unsustainable position.

His work is becoming less though as society is coming to terms with itself. At one time, "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish" was seen on pub doors. Now, society would be outraged by it. The same with ignorant low life who see Gay people as different, something to fear, something to hate.

About those who don't want Gay marriage. I am glad they have registered their view. Even if they were 51% of the voting population, (which they aren't) it would make no difference. Equality is equality is equality, and since when did a modern Western democracy say that a majority can hold a minority in contempt and make laws restricting them? Our politicians may have their problems and may not be of the calibre we expect in some ways, but they are not so thick as to exclude non popular necessities. if you did a poll, there would be no overseas aid, no independence of newspapers, no multi nationals, no banks, and eventually no country to live in. Politicians are there for us to trust their judgement not tell them how to vote. Government by referendum cannot work whilst ignorant twats are allowed to put a tick in a box. As ignorant twats are also part of society, we need a safety lever. We call it Parliamentary democracy.

Fuck off to Zimbabwe, the pair of you. You will be less confused and possibly happier there. Less chance of me pointing to you in the street and telling my Grandchildren that's what a bigot looks like. Take a good look as soon, they will be hopefully no more than a footnote in history books.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:51 AM

"I realize that homosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is - but then, of course, heterosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is, too. And being a man is a serious problem and being a woman is, too. Lots of things are problems."

Edward Gorey

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM

Telegraph, 10th December.
MPs will be told that the biggest official "listening exercise" ever undertaken on a government proposal found that a narrow majority support the highly contentious move.
This result is based on the responses of around 228,000 people who took part in the consultation earlier this year, the vast majority of whom submitted anonymous online forms to the Government.
Yet petitions organised by campaigners, in which more than 500,000 people opposed plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples and around 64,000 supported them, have been ignored by ministers.
In addition, participation was not limited to UK residents despite claims that lobbying groups in the US had been attempting to recruit people to submit responses.
Opponents of the plan have cried foul, arguing that the consultation's finding of majority support amounted to dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:29 AM

800!
Gaystarnews.
Around 60 UK politicians have slammed the government's plans to legalize gay marriage, claiming Prime Minister David Cameron has 'no mandate to redefine marriage'.

Members of Parliament from all major political parties and peers from the Lords signed the open letter which was published in The Telegraph newspaper today (17 December).

'At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage,' wrote the group of 58 MPs, which included 35 Conservatives.

'It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition's Programme for Government.

'These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.

'Instead the government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans.'

They added: 'The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world.

'We believe that the government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.'

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:43 AM

I suppose the correct term for Mr Cameron's sleight of hand would be Neoliberal......which of course, is just another way of saying "liberal".HERE

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM

Musket....I remember quite clearly when homosexuality was illegal(i did not agree with that law any more than I do the proposed legislation)

Politicians make the laws, not the electorate, I suppose we can all think of legislation which does not have the support of the public?

As far as sex between close family members is concerned, "human/civil rights" would still be denied, even if there was absolutely no chance of cenception.

To most heterosexuals, incest and homosexuality contain the same "ughh" factor.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:19 AM

The Coalition honoured Labour's Equality Bill to the full.
It became law.
Same Sex marriage was never any part of it, and it is very misleading of you to claim it as some kind of mandate.
There was no mandate
How could there be?
No-one knew it was about to be pushed through Parliament on Cameron's whim.

No mention in any manifesto, Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem.
No consultation.
No Green Paper.
No mention in Queens Speech on Government intentions.
It came from nowhere.
It was never an issue of any significance before, but now it is suddenly a priority.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM

If you really believe in equality, you dont waste your time as a government or as a member of this forum, screaming about "marriage" rights for homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM

Lbour's bill made no mention of same sex marriage any more than it said you can no longer after this date refer to African children as piccaninies.

All political parties support equality other than rabid right wing fascists and dreamers. Any party with a chance of running the country has, every time, manifesto pledges to maintain and bolster equality. After all, we expect people to vote as equals, so if your vote counts, the effect of it does too.

It isn't any flagship policy. Equality was a flagship policy, and this does no more than clarify a point. The point of equality. We have been striving towards it since the post war government signed us up to human rights. Our only issue is how long it took to get there, and for that we should be collectively ashamed. Those who look down on other stakeholders in society should be shamed on that count too.

If you don't believe in equality, and you don't believe in the parliamentary process of refining existing primary legislation through secondary legislation, then I suggest you join a party that doesn't understand politics.

Oh. You appear to have already done so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:26 AM

Musket.
The previous government put forward a bill on equality. A bill they had a manifesto mandate for. On that basis, the coalition government felt it right to honour the bill as the calling of the election was the only thing preventing its passing into law. So we have equality legislation. Full stop and in line with prevailing human rights legislation.

As Labour's Bill made no mention of same-sex marriage, what is YOUR point Musket?
This idea came from nowhere to become a flagship policy which Cameron is "determined" to put into force within this Parliament.
No manifesto mentions.
To mention in the Queen's Speech about Government intentions.
It is indeed Cameron's whim, and has come out of the blue.
Tory Blue.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:19 AM

Meaning what?

Politicians debate, it's what we pay them for? Labour and Lib Dem have a whip, which is in line with their manifesto commitment to equality. Conservatives have been offered a free vote as Cameron has the right to release them from obligation if he sees fit.

They poll their members in order to inform their own views somewhat.

Any point to this Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM

Pink News, October 2012.
Prime Minister David Cameron remains determined to press ahead with marriage reform.

According to the Independent, Mr Cameron has told ministers to prioritise equal marriage legislation and the paper claims it could be on the statute book before the end of next year.

A senior Downing Street source is quoted as saying that the prime minister: "regards this as a straightforward matter of equality and believes that we should just get on with it."

In a concession to his backbench critics, Mr Cameron has given Tory MPs a free vote on equal marriage – unlike Labour or the Lib Dems.

The No 10 source added that Conservative MPs "can vote how they want – it's a free vote – but it won't deflect us."

Mr Cameron is said to have acknowledged that the issue of marriage equality has provoked anger among many Conservative Party activists as well as natural Tory voters, but believes their views should be confronted.

Over the weekend, a ComRes poll of 100 Conservative Party constituency chairmen showed 71% think the policy should be abandoned whilst 47% believe David Cameron's support for the move has cost them members.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM

Incest is illegal. Not just for moral repugnance reasons but for the sake of the health of any offspring.

Putting Gay relationships in the same frame blows out any of your silly earlier "it's about HIV" arguments and shows you for what you are.

Back into your soil worm, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:32 AM

Puzzle no more Steve,the long, weary and unfulfilled search for a genetic link, is simply an attempt to validate homosexual behaviour,

"Validate behaviour"?? In whose eyes?

to prove that homosexuals are indeed, a different third sex of humanity.

Well that's a novel way of putting it. A "third sex" eh? Where d'you get this from, or is it an ake original?

homosexuality would be just another minority sexual behaviour, like incest.

Smear, smear, smear. Shame on you!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

""Without the genetic link, which given the progress made in genetics over the last couple of decades, should be as obvious as the nose on your face, homosexuality would be just another minority sexual behaviour, like incest.""

Same question then.

At what point in your life did YOU choose heterosexuality as your preferred sexual behaviour?

If you can't give a rational answer to that, your statement falls flat on its face.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM

""except me whose only concern is the speed and lack of consultation on pushing through a Tory whim.""

And another example of Keith's prejudice overcoming his cognitive ability.

Once again it is necessary to remind Mr Bias of Hertford that we have a COALITION governing this country.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:09 AM

Errr... Keith?

If not caring how people manage their private lives is homophobic, then that is what I must be?

trying to limit peoples' freedom of choice on the basis of the gender of their partner is homophobic though. Your quotes from the political pamphlets of a joke extremist organisation UKIP are just as pointless and boring as any reiterated truism from Steve. Name calling you is something I too have no issue with, as reasoning should be restricted to those capable of listening to reason.

This Tory whim, let's just put it to bed shall we?

The previous government put forward a bill on equality. A bill they had a manifesto mandate for. On that basis, the coalition government felt it right to honour the bill as the calling of the election was the only thing preventing its passing into law. So we have equality legislation. Full stop and in line with prevailing human rights legislation.

One anomaly within the act is that of religions, who have fought for privilege and claim equality interferes with their teachings. Not just CofE but most mainstream religions. However, as CofE is linked to the state, the state has to ratify their constitutional position.

This isa what is happening. Secondary legislation, of the type that makes up the day to day work of Parliament is being used to clarify existing legislation.

Now.. I don't happen to agree with the "illegal for CofE to marry Gay people" bit, and as I respect democracy, my opposition goes that far.

However, I am bolstered by the somewhat transparent but not widely reported aims of The Prime Minister. He knows that to make it illegal to conduct marriage of Gay people for one organisation, a quasi public sector body at that, will fall foul of the first challenge to go to The European Court of Human Rights, which we signed up to, following a general election, in 1946 and none of the political parties aiming for government have sought to repeal our position. Of course, BNP, NF, UKIP etc waffle on about it, but that is from a position of ignorance rather than any laudable view.

In the meantime, we have the head Catholic bishop using his peace and goodwill Xmas speech to say that a free vote on clarification of existing legislation by elected members of Parliament is undemocratic.. His boss is legally infallible! What right has he got to lecture on the will of the people?

The only question with regard to Gay marriage is, and always should be; "Do you, Mike take this man Tony to be your lawfully wedded husband?"

And by not upsetting them with a "view" I shall be, as Keith puts it, a happy homophobe

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:02 AM

Puzzle no more Steve,the long, weary and unfulfilled search for a genetic link, is simply an attempt to validate homosexual behaviour, to prove that homosexuals are indeed, a different third sex of humanity.

Without the genetic link, which given the progress made in genetics over the last couple of decades, should be as obvious as the nose on your face, homosexuality would be just another minority sexual behaviour, like incest.

To validate the practice a genetic link is required and in all probability will be manufactured "to measure"

Unfortunately this will open a new can of worms as other less well supported groups queue up to be validated by science.
The future for society looks bleak.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:37 AM

intolerant and bigoted people like ake and Keith and Goofo who would like to limit anyone's freedom of choice as to how they should manage their private lives.

Do you think it makes your posts fresh and incisive when you call people names Steve.
In fact it is just repetitive and boring.
A homophobe would care not a jot how gay folk manage their private lives.

All here have given reasoned arguments against changing the concept of marriage, except me whose only concern is the speed and lack of consultation on pushing through a Tory whim.

If you do not challenge those reasoned arguments your posts are just pointless.
Just asserting a motive for the posts, which all concerned deny, is also pointless and boring.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 11:06 PM

There are certain qualitative differences, as yet unresolved, between male homosexuality and lesbianism.

The sources of most of my most recent information are "Scientific American" and "Psychology Today."

And Goofy, yours is. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 09:45 PM

I scratch my head in sheer puzzlement as to why anyone should worry about whether gayosity is "genetic" or not. I care not a jot. I care a big jot, though, about intolerant and bigoted people like ake and Keith and Goofo who would like to limit anyone's freedom of choice as to how they should manage their private lives. And hey, akie baby. You think I'm waffling, do tell me which bits of my posts you're thinking of. If anyone's waffling round here it's you and your little cohort of fellow homophobes who are desperately looking for anything - anything to support your lost cause! And it was sixty-two to thirty-one....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 07:55 PM

Let ME re-state:-

""One is ...and one MIGHT be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!""

And you are a parody of a caring human being!! And a pretty bloody poor one at that!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 07:51 PM

""One is ...and one MIGHT be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!<.i>""

And you are a parody of a caring human being!! And a pretty bloody poor one at that!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:14 PM

Let me re-state:

Get serious!

One is ...and one MIGHT be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:11 PM

Get serious!

One is ...and one might be????
You are now being a parody of yourself!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM

Ake, if you don't see that the move among male homosexuals themselves toward stable relationships—marriage—is, along with the emotional components, an effort to reduce the incidence of promiscuity (which does spread the AIDs virus, in the same way that promiscuous sex spreads ANY venereal disease), then you are either dense beyond imagination or so locked into your prejudices that no amount of information will get through to you.

And as for YOU, GfS—you're a fine one to be calling others "stupid." The same thing I said to Ake holds as to your level of density blinding you to the obvious!

Lesbianism? Quite possibly it, too, is genetic. But so far, more research has been done into male homosexuality and although there is speculation that the same thing is true for lesbians, all the info is not in yet.

I'm sorry if it cuts into your income as a snake-oil salesman, but those are the FACTS!

Unlike you, I've done the research on the matter.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM

...and P.S.......The energy you put into a system, tends to change that system!....You can only fake it so far..imitation falls down sooner or later. if there is sane people out there who don't feel like faking it, and being an imitation, to amuse themselves, OK..but don't think that EVERYONE HAS to take that seriously!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:11 PM

HIV/AIDS does not discriminate between the genders...as much as someone who chooses what preference they want to imitate....and all the imitation on the planet, will NOT cause a man to bear a child or a woman to provide a seed...and that stuff comes with the mental and emotional circuitry to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

If the MSM figures are 2 years out of date(which they are not), that would mean that the figures are even worse than the ones which i have posted, as male homosexual hiv rates are rising approx 8% per annum.

Steve stop waffling, we are discussing proposed legislation to allow two people of the same sex to "marry".....We cannot legislate to make marriage compulsory, or monogamy.....for that matter, but by far the highest number of sexual parters is amongst MSM.

The health issues only apply to male homosexuals, perhaps you could explain why this is the case?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 12:26 PM

Don Firth: "No, GfS, I have not altered my position that homosexuality has a genetic component."

A genetic component???? What?..You mean they all have heads and arms and legs and hair and arms and skin?....What a fucking cop-out!

Don Firth: "There have long been indications that male homosexuality, at least, runs in families. Lesbianism is not quite so clear, but for male homosexuality, it seems to hold."

Sounds a bit 'over convenient' to me, Bucko..I guess if your friends were lesbians, it would be the other way around!....Genetic for males, and not so sure for lesbians.....hmmm......What a fucking stretch!
Lesbians are immune to 'genetics'...????. Shouldn't genetics be applicable to everyone..or are you going to call them bigots and discriminatory??

Give it up...it's just stupid!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM

The Independent.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has described the Government's plans for gay marriage as undemocratic and a "shambles".

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols made the comments in an interview with the BBC.

He said there was no mandate to enforce same-sex marriage laws.

He said: "There was no announcement in any party manifesto, no Green Paper, no statement in the Queen's Speech.

"And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation.

"From a democratic point of view, it's a shambles.

"George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre. I think the process is shambolic."

The religious leader claimed that during a "period of listening", those who responded were "7-1 against same-sex marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 10:26 AM

The Catholic Bishop of Westminster pointed out that the legislation was being instigated without being part of any election manifestos, without any Green Paper or consultation, and only a "listening process" which showed a large majority against.

Not so. An ICM poll commissioned by The Guardian showed 62% in favour and only 31% against, 7% undecided. Comment is free but facts is sacred.

If you want to inject a little (very little) credibility into your claims, you should be prepared, not only to say that Gay Marriage weakens the "Institution", but precisely how, and why it does so.

Precisely, Don. And, while he's at it, he should also be prepared to explain why he rails so much against gay marriage "weakening the institution" whilst the far more more common and ever-more pervasive institution-weakening habit of not bothering to get married at all, shagging muchly and having kids out of wedlock doesn't raise so much as a whisper of complaint from him.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM

""The ability to access Civil Union, or Homosexual "marriage" where it has become available, has produceded no improvement in the serious hiv figures amongst MSM.


Please try to absorb some facts.....wishful thinking rarely solves any problem.""

Oh really!

You know damn well that such changes don't happen overnight. There hasn't been time since the first access to civil partnership for any significant improvement to hit the statistics which, in any case, are always a couple of years behind.

Your disingenuous attempts to distort, deny, or make up ""facts"" do you no credit at all, being merely a demonstration of the weakness of your argument arising from the prejudice of your viewpoint.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 04:34 AM

Don....What do "legal rights and privileges" have to do with the health figures we were discussing?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 04:22 AM

I am not aware of any "hate" from any church at Christmas or any other time.
The Catholic Bishop of Westminster pointed out that the legislation was being instigated without being part of any election manifestos, without any Green Paper or consultation, and only a "listening process" which showed a large majority against.

I think you would all be outraged if any other Tory legislation was steamrollered through like that.
This is pure Tory political expediency, and you are all complicit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM

Ake... "The ability to access Civil Union, or Homosexual "marriage" where it has become available, has produceded no improvement in the serious hiv figures amongst MSM."

So, does that mean it has slowed the rate from the previous increase you talk about? Seems logical to me. Bravo gay boys!

Ake... why not show some appreciation for their efforts and go suck a dick. That's not a question.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 07:34 PM

Civil Union in the United States does NOT contain all the legal rights and privileges that marriage does.

It's not the same thing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 07:03 PM

The ability to access Civil Union, or Homosexual "marriage" where it has become available, has produceded no improvement in the serious hiv figures amongst MSM.


Please try to absorb some facts.....wishful thinking rarely solves any problem.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 05:13 PM

No, GfS, I have not altered my position that homosexuality has a genetic component.

There have long been indications that male homosexuality, at least, runs in families. Lesbianism is not quite so clear, but for male homosexuality, it seems to hold.

There is a family I have been acquainted with for many years. I first met Bob, who was the cousin of a female friend of mine, maybe some forty years ago. He was gay. I learned that he had an uncle who was also gay. Then I met a nephew who came up from California to stay with Bob for a week and HE was gay, almost stereotypically so. Effeminate mannerisms and such.

Now, I know you are thinking that the various uncles molested their nephews when young and thereby made them gay. But that would be a bit hard to do considering that these uncles and nephews lived in different parts of the country and, although they were certainly aware of each other's existence, they did not have contact with each other until WELL AFTER puberty.

The hypothesis among many geneticists who have noted this pattern is that the GENE which determines the boy's sexual orientation is carried by the MOTHER, and triggers a mis-timing of the release of certain hormones in utero. The formation of the male genitalia, determined by the presence of the Y chromosome, has already begun when the determining gene mis-times the release of the hormones that determine the male structure of the brain centers. There are noticeable differences in the hypothalamuses of homosexual males from those of heterosexual males.

So if the male homosexual himself does not carry the gene, it is STILL genetic. The gene is carried by the mother. And THAT runs in families.

This is science, not wishful supposition.

Nor can you write it off as a "political agenda."

And as to the availability of "therapy" purported to change one's sexual orientation, no, it should NOT be denied to anyone who wishes it. But they should be made aware of the true results, determined by scientific surveys of this kind of therapy (which I have noted in a post above) before submitting to this and spending their dime. But IN NO CASE should anyone be coerced into this kind of therapy.

And as far as my position being emotionally biased due to the fact that a few of my friends and acquaintances are homosexual, that is a spurious assumption (an attempt to save face on your part) and has nothing to do with it. I have observed their behavior in social situations and have noted over a long period of time that these couples are staying together in the same way that heterosexual married couples stay together, and I see no reason whatsoever that they should be denied the same legal and social rights and privileges that Barbara and I enjoy.

And as far as HIV/AIDs is concerned, these people, in their striving for marriage rights (which in a few states including Washington State, they now have—by the vote of the populace at large), they are hardly jumping out into traffic. They are attempting to create a situation that minimizes risks.

So what's your problem—and Ake's problem—with that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM

""Should people within that template chose not to reproduce, or sadly, be unable to reproduce for medical reasons, that is fine, but the template remains, and any attempt to alter it weakens the "institution"......I tend to agree with that assessment and would vote accordingly""

This whole paragraph is nothing more than the perfect exposure of the prejudice and discrimination of the dyed-in-the-wool homophobe. Broken down into plain language it translates as "Homosexuals are not normal human beings, I hate the way in which they live their lives. They are dirty perverts and since I am normal, I should not be subjected to their being allowed the same rights I enjoy".

If you want to inject a little (very little) credibility into your claims, you should be prepared, not only to say that Gay Marriage weakens the "Institution", but precisely how, and why it does so.

Otherwise you are simply expressing your opinion, which is no more valid than mine, or that of "Gay Pride".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 04:10 PM

What gets me is that Akenaton is showing by his selective statistics that gay marriage between men would lower incidence of HIV but then goes on to say he is against it despite it having fuck all to do with him unless he happens to be struggling with himself.

He then embraces Gargoyle's reasoning that miracle of rebirth and salvation etc are relevant to your predisposition. Not bad from someone claiming to be atheist.

Mind you I notice that church leaders have chosen Xmas to ask us all to hate gay people. So I suppose bigotry is in itself a broad church. ..

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 10:13 AM

Pretty desperate stuff there, ake. Template, eh? What about those societies that practise polygamy? Polyandry, polygyny, group marriage? Do look up the entertaining wiki article on the topic. Why, even those old testament types were at it all the time! It's amazing, the number of societies that don't stick to your template, ake. There is not just one template. There are loads of different templates and you rail against gay marriage just because it doesn't happen to fit the one you're used to. Very imperialistic, old boy!


OK, enough for now...I'm interested to see how many people agree with Steve on this one:......From: Steve Shaw
                        Date: 24 Dec 12 - 07:02 AM

I do for one. I suppose I would, wouldn't I? What's to not agree with? You against education, Guffissimo? The slapdash and ungrammatical nature of your posts does suggest that it's a long way down your list of priorities...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM

My main objection to the proposed legislation to redefine marriage, is the hiv epidemic which continues to worsen within the male homosexual demographic.
"As far as the general public are concerned, it is the "institution" of marriage and the family structure which many see as being harmed by re-definition, to include people who were never intended to reproduce....in the the eyes of my friends and neighbours here...and indeed the whole country...the marriage template is mother /father/ children/ and extended family.
Should people within that template chose not to reproduce, or sadly, be unable to reproduce for medical reasons, that is fine, but the template remains, and any attempt to alter it weakens the "institution"......I tend to agree with that assessment and would vote accordingly
Same sex couples do not fit within that social template, neither male nor female,as they are incapable, as monogamous couple, of reproduction.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 07:24 AM

999, This was the only relevant(to the thread) piece, in your post"

"Same-sex couples were also on a steep incline, up 42.4 per cent from 2006. About half of these couples were married, while the rest were common-law. Still, same-sex couples only made up 0.8 per cent of all couples in 2011."

"...same-sex couples only made up 0.8 per cent of all couples in 2011."

.08% is not really enough to warrant a 'redefinition' of marriage...is it?

GfS