 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Gay marriage' question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM I'd say Saul pretty well wrapped it up! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: saulgoldie Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:12 PM We are making a few mistakes in discussing continuing the ban on same-sex marriages. In the first place, homosexuality is not a choice in the same way that "cream and sugar" in your coffee is. In the second place, it does not matter. It is the way someone lives, period. In the third place, the health of a homosexual marriage partner is his/her business unless we are making health care policy for all individuals, which is not what we are discussing. Fourth, Whether or not a homosexual marriage is any kind of threat to any straight marriage, is also not the responsibility of the gay partners. It is the responsibility of the heteros to protect their own marriage. Ake can dig up whatever stats he wants to twist, and he *does* twist them. His stats are no justification for social policy. The bottom line is that he just wants to persecute homosexuals. And that is no more tolerable than persecuting celibate people, people in sexless hetero marriages, people who do not have children whether by choice or biology, people who have darker or lighter skin, people who pray in their own way (differently from us??), people who wear plaid, people who have skin art, or people who play the Bodhran. E-N-N-Y persecution is intolerable. And this is *definitely* persecution. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM Let's just concede the meaningless statistical arguments. If the CDC and the like are Ake's trusted source, then let's quote them: "Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination put MSM at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether MSM seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services. Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts, and bullying and violence. These dynamics make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm So, if our *real* concern is health, perhaps we should drop the homophobia, stigmatization and discrimination, yes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 10 Oct 12 - 10:41 AM First part of question unanswered. What do you call my last sentence?↓ "other sexual minorities" would have all the common rights as long as they are consenting, sane and of legal age. You are inserting that "all you need is lurve" remark as YOUR version of what I and others have said. When you consider that many 'natural' man-woman marriages have little or NO "lurve", it becomes silly to establish that as a condition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: artbrooks Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:56 AM From the article linked by JtS: " It is likely this trend is due to an increase in HIV testing". I am reminded of the old saying, "figures don't lie, but liars use figures". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:05 AM I have been trying to, Musket ~ see my post of yesterday 8.23 am. But for some reason most seem to want to discuss HIV figures, which, in the context of 8 years of legal Civil Partnership which = marriage in all but name; which IMO has nothing to do with the case. I repeat, surely this thread is about appropriate nomenclature for the associations entered into by persons of a certain orientation; not the baleful consequences supposed by some to result from such relationships? I agree with Musket that that is what we should be talking about. So Ake, do shut up with your boring statistics, will you please? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:55 AM HPA acknowledge in their preface to the most recent published report a marked increase in screening success and that higher new case numbers reflect an overall decrease in incident. A bit like when a party in opposition decry the UK mortality rates for x, y or z. Failing to point out their selective cases are based on returns from The NHS that are not available in multi healthcare provider scenarios in many other countries. Bored now. I shall see if anybody still wishes to debate gay marriage as anything other than a phrase as obvious as wet water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 10 Oct 12 - 02:59 AM Sorry Jack...didn't scroll down. Your graph shows real numbers, NOT transmission rates. Although the annual numbers for both (hetero and homo) are about the same, this means that rates of transmission are massively higher for MSM than for heterosexuals. Rates of infection amongst MSM have increased dramatically in the last decade. Approx 25% of all new infections, to approx 70% at the end of 2011 HPA also say that when all the figures for 2011 are available, the real numbers will be in the order of 3000 new cases.....appox the same rise in MSM infection rates as previous years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 10 Oct 12 - 02:25 AM Wondered what that smell was? Trouble is, it hit my nostrils before Bill replied. So wonder where it was coming from? Can we guess, children? Yes! That's right. Uncle Ake has woke up in his chair and farted. If you develop reasonable policies based on cluster, it is ineffective. If you base discrimitory policy on cluster, you would never be forgiven. That, away from the hoo haa and froth of this thread is why people who use selective figures to justify prejudice can never ultimately succeed in their petty crusade. Society, guided and advised accordingly needs to address all aspects of modern infections. The encouraging figures of lowering (and we are talking much lower) healthcare associated infections is down to tackling the cause, not shunning the victims. As this approach seems to work. I am encouraged to see that lifestyle based infections are lowering overall through the same approach. Still a long way to go but the direction is clear. HIV and AIDS grew in incidence before equality became reality and decreased once the stigma of your orientation started waning. Funny that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:59 AM First part of question unanswered. Second part seems very complicated, taking into account that you and others consider...."All you need is lurve", for homosexuals? Conclusion.....You are bullshitting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:23 PM "No word on the "rights" of other sexual minorities? No answer to my question Bill? " To be VERY clear... I would tend to allow ANY personal arrangement of not compelled or pressured, dedicated, honest, human beings. I would allow any pair of humans to apply for a marriage license thru normal channels. Then, any other combination (3 or more) would have to submit a detailed contract stating financial obligations, plans for raising children...etc., etc. These would have to be approved by lawyers, counselors and possibly other officials. **This is only a theory** Many of such plans would likely NOT be approved due to doubts about sincerity, schooling, finances...etc.... but they would not be prevented from applying. For an example of what 'might' be approved, read "Proposition 31", by Robert Rimmer. (The sequel to "The Harrad Experiment") Of course, I do NOT expect such laws to be forthcoming.... though you can bet that some such situations already exist 'under the official radar'. So... "other sexual minorities" would have all the common rights as long as they are consenting, sane and of legal age. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM The graph I was referring to was for MSM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM Crucial question: What percentage of the MSM under thirty who were tested did NOT test positive? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:13 PM Hello Ebbie, thank you for your courtesy. Firstly a national medical inquiry into the reasons for the huge hiv rates amongst MSM Compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups....almost half of MSM under 30 who tested possitive, were unaware of their status. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:11 PM Perhaps it's that way in the UK, Ake, but not here in the US. And only older men? No. Most of the gay men I'm acquainted with who want to see a same-sex marriage law passed are in their twenties and thirties. An encouraging trend, I would say. And you would kill it a-borning? Why? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM Of course those in a union or "marriage" are less likely to contract HIV,(usually older men I believe), but only a tiny percentage of MSM want to remain monogamous....according to "marriage"/Union take up rates. So you have presented a moot point Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Ebbie Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:56 PM "How high must these rates get before you conceed that something is wrong and some course of action requires to be taken?" ake In the past I recall your having responding to the question of what you perceive can be done about it- but I don't remember what it was. Would you give it again? What "new course of action" requires being taken? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM I believe that if the figures for same sex couples who are married or in civil unions were broken out of the other figures, you would find a drastic decrease in the spread of HIV/AIDs. I've been acquainted with a number of gay men, some of whom, over the years, have contracted the disease. But NONE of the gay men I know who are in the kind of monogamous, stable relationships that would be encouraged by the legalization and acceptance of same-sex marriage have contracted the disease. Ake is mixing apples and oranges. Further. In a frank conversation I had some years ago with a young gay man when the church my wife and I attend was considering adopting the "Affirmation of Welcome," we discussed the matter of choice versus inbred, probably genetic. He told me that he had made no choice. He always knew he was "different." Then he added: "Considering that being 'gay' opens you up to all kinds of contempt and insults from certain people, can get you dragged into a back alley and beaten up—repeatedly—and can even get you killed—who in his right mind would ever CHOOSE to be gay!??" Point taken! The Affirmation of Welcome which, within recent years, has been adopted by a number of churches, including Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, to which my wife and I are members. As a community of the people of God, we are called to minister to all people in our world, knowing that the world is often an unloving place. Our world is a place of alienation and brokenness. Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by the Gospel to be agents of healing within our society.Central Lutheran's congregation voted almost unanimously to adopt the affirmation. Now, civilization waits for the laws to catch up. Don Firth P. S. In the coming election, Washington State's residences should vote FOR Initiative 74. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:20 PM What is appalling Ian, are not my views, but the horrific rates of death and disease which inflict MSM. It is beneath contempt to ignore these rates, pretend they don't exist, or even worse to distort the figures to make them look acceptable. However you are in good company, as some websites are now presenting hiv figures without demographics...hence giving the impression that the epidemic amongst MSM(CDC's words) is under control As I explained to Jack, HIV rates in total may be falling,but amonst MSM rates continue to rise, standing presently at around 70% of new infections. How high must these rates get before you conceed that something is wrong and some course of action requires to be taken? No word on the "rights" of other sexual minorities? No answer to my question Bill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 09 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM You know, all this attention on one deluded individual runs the risk of him thinking he is important. He even appears to have found a website about The HPA that like the real HPA gives out epidemiology statistics. His though seems more selective than the one I use from time to time to inform my work. But, whether you use raw, weighted, standardised or drilled down data, even if the actual figures support the selective pickings he quotes; the mental leap he makes from it is utterly appalling. I doubt he can deduce his view from the facts. I am led to believe he deduces facts from his views. And that sadly puts him beneath contempt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM Jack....what you have quoted are the figures for ALL new hiv infections. Indeed infections are falling in all demographics except MSM. MSM hiv figures are rising steadily, and are massively higher than they were ten years ago. HPA "The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence" Beware of all data from Avert.com......Stick to govt sites CDC in USA.... HPA in UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 09 Oct 12 - 11:34 AM "Bill I have answered your question many times. I am against legislation to bring forward homosexual marriage mainly on health grounds." You have NEVER answered the specific question I asked. You couldn't even check the "no" box. "I am also anti on the grounds of damage to the very important family structure. That is nonsense... straight people can continue to marry in the same way... allowing gays to marry changes nothing except a few dictionaries.... and dictionaries reflect common usage, not universal truth. (BTW... *I* have never even hinted that you were latently homosexual. I have only wondered about your basic motives, given your reluctance to approve of even the idea more 'gay rights' if the health issue were solved.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:23 AM To return this question of "marriage": in the UK, we have had for some years now the availability of a legal "civil partnership": Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce. Wikipedia So the objections which Ake keeps raising are irrelevant ~~ the sort of relationship he predicates 'marriage' as liable to open the way for has been, in all but name, available for the past 8 years. Five couples in my close and immediate acquaintance, all of whom had faithful & stable partnerships for years previously, have entered into such partnerships. Four of them are still together; the other has been terminated by death. So all that is really being discussed here is whether it is appropriate to use the word marriage, in place of 'civil partnership' for such arrangements. Baleful prognostications about potential health hazards seem to me to be the day-before-yesterday's tired controversies. It is simply a matter of nomenclature with which we are concerned here, surely? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:11 AM Okay then, if we are to follow your line of logic, here is a very simple question: In Swaziland, HIV is epidemic, and affects women at approximately twice the rate of men. Would you favor making marriage to Swazi women illegal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:44 AM Yeah Keith. So there is increased testing and the increase, year to year is anything but "massive." Akeneton. Do you have another point to make or shall we consider this topic closed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:23 AM From Jack's link. By the end of December 2011, 53,161 MSM had been diagnosed with HIV in the UK.7 The number of new HIV diagnoses among this group has been steadily increasing since 2001 - peaking in 2007 at 2,811. It is likely this trend is due to an increase in HIV testing, although a rise in high risk sexual behaviour has also been suggested as a contributory factor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Henry Krinkle Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:25 AM The whole (pun?) concept(pun?) is heinous (pun?).... (:-( 0)= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm They have massively increased!! If massively increased means stayed stable with a recent dip. Rose gradually from 2000 in 2002 to 2900 in 2007 and back down to 2500 now looking at the graph. AIDS diagnoses slowly decreasing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM But I keep telling you, infection rates have not decreased over the last ten years when legislation has become more "liberal", civil union, homosexual "marriage", less marginalisation etc. They have massively increased!! If that is the crux of your objections to my stance, then it is you who are being unreasonable. Please stop insinuating that i am latently homosexual. This is an intellectual debate, and that line makes you all look foolish. gnu is obsessed by "trolls"....surely this does not mean that he himself is a troll? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 08 Oct 12 - 10:43 PM Ake...this is a compliment... It is precisely because many here can tell that you are intelligent that many are pretty sure you have a hidden agenda. You seem way to smart to actually believe the self-contradictory argument that you cling to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM "Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?" Yes, Ake, I would agree with the statement. As to the "why," homosexuals are not allowed to form legally and socially recognized stable relationships. If they were, there would be a measure of social pressure to form such relationships, the same as heterosexual couples with the concomitant social pressure against promiscuous behavior. That is the fundamental contradiction in your position. Decrying the amount of HIV infections among homosexual men, you would deny them a legal and social means of mitigating the situation. I don't think it is because you can't see this, it is because you refuse to see this. And this raises questions about why you refuse to see the obvious. I have mentioned the church that I sometimes go to. It not only accepts same-sex oriented people, but it has performed a number of same-sex marriages, and whether state law recognizes them or not, this church—and its congregation—does. There was a lot of discussion of this issue a couple of decades ago, and we were warned that the congregation would deminish to a very few people. It didn't happen. I think we lost a total of three members. Out of a congregation of--what?-about two hundred and fifty or so. By the way, this has NOT become a "gay church." It is a main line denomination. Lutheran. The number of same-sex oriented people in this church reflects the demographics of the community at large. The first same-sex marriage ceremony was performed nearly twenty years ago, and ALL of the couples are still together, and NONE of them have contracted HIV/AIDs. As to the "marriage is for procreation" argument, two of these same-sex married couples have children. One of the couples adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Believe me, these kids are having—and will continue to have—a far better life than they would have had if they had been left were they were. And they are healthy, happy kids. One of them is an acolyte in the church and the other is a bit young for duties like that yet. There are a fair number of kids out there who are wards of the state or who languish in orphanages who would be far batter off in circumstances like these two lads have. Another couple decided they wanted to have children that were biologically their own. They contracted the services of a "surrogate mother." Fertilization by artificial insemination. The first man had a baby boy. Then the same surrogate mother (they wanted the children to be, at least, half-siblings) was artificially inseminated by the second man. BAM! TRIPLETS!! It's a real snort to see these kids in church on Sundays. As to the matter of feminine influence on the boys, all of the men involved have sisters and various female friends who dote on the lads, so the boys are not in any way deprived in that department. And as to the knee-jerk charge about the dangers of pedophilia, no way in hell! These men regard these youngsters as their children and themselves as fathers. And the youngsters themselves see nothing particularly unusual in their families and are obviously healthy and happy. By the way, there are at least five main line churches (denominations that have been around for centuries) that I know of in this area that recognize same-sex marriages and conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, whether, as I said, state law recognizes them as valid or not. [Let them choke on that at the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference!] It is in the state's recognition: community property laws, inheritance laws, and things like hospital visitation rights where legal recognition becomes important. THIS is the nucleus of the civil rights issue. No, Ake. Your objections don't wash. And although I tend to think you are a pretty intelligent guy, that you don't seem to be able to grasp THIS really makes me wonder why. I have some theories, which I'm quite sure you don't want to hear. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: gnu Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:10 PM ake... "on health grounds"... that is exactly your own arguement that you deny. Sigh... another million posts won't get you to understand. When someone argues illogically against their own arguements ya just can't teach them their arguements are inane. I'll check back later, maybe. I doubt if any of this crap will change... in a million posts. It would take some intelligence and some modesty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM Only one question for you Bill....respectfully. Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:59 PM Sorry Don...you're right, that was a stupid joke....apologies. But I am not trying to dodge anything, I keep getting asked the same questions and I think I am answering them adequately. Howard and Ian were trying to distort the figures, so I quoted direct from CDC and HPA. I may not be well educated, but I am not stupid, I can spot games people play, a mile away. Bill I have answered your question many times. I am against legislation to bring forward homosexual marriage mainly on health grounds. I have advanced facts to back up my stance many times, surely I dont have to go through it all again. I am also anti on the grounds of damage to the very important family structure......details above. So in conclusion, if the hiv rates among MSM were to drop to anything approaching hetero levels, I would still be against the legislation. I have stated this many times before.....why is it so important to you? On "equality" the only issue the pros can bring forward, I notice that no one has addressed the position of people who wish to live as man and wife with a close relative. There have been cases when these people have offered to be sterilised, so that there would be absolutely no health problems, yet they are denied all "rights" even civil rights insurance rights etc which are now available to homosexuals. They have to live a secret life, always in fear of prosecution, yet the "liberals" look the other way.....I smell hypocrisy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 08 Oct 12 - 11:09 AM "Give up on him." well... that might be a plan! I am reminded of a story. A biology professor was trying to get his class to follow some of the details of a chapter on reproduction by having them read parts aloud. When "Miss Jones" was asked to read she kept substituting, when she came to the word 'pregnant', "unwell". After a minute, he stopped her and asked: "What was the woman's condition, Miss Jones?" "Umm...she was 'expecting'." The professor sighed: "Miss Jones, the word is "pregnant" P-R-E-G-N-A-N-T....your mother was 'pregnant', your grandmother was 'pregnant', and by the grace of God and the help of some young man, someday you too, will be 'pregnant'!" Well, Miss Jones gasped and ran out of the class in tears. But the incident was reported to the Dean, and the professor was ordered to apologize...in class! So, a couple days later, the professor came in, sat his books down and announced: "The other day I made a mistake when correcting Miss Jones. I now wish to retract what I said...I do not believe Miss Jones will ever become pregnant." ------------------------------- There's no way to change some folks' mindset... so.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: John P Date: 08 Oct 12 - 09:48 AM Folks, all the myriad flaws in Akenaton's reasoning have been pointed out to him literally hundreds of times over the last few years. Are you really expecting him to suddenly come up with responses to you? One of the things about bigotry is that there is no defense for it. He doesn't have the answers to your questions because those answers don't exist. Akenaton has, for years, put forth his unethical ideas, been soundly refuted in 100 ways, waited a few days in silence, and then put forth the same ideas again, all without ever having to respond to anyone, other than to tell them they are stupid liberal sheep. I think he has proved that he's not going to get any better at this. Give up on him. Since his particular form of bigotry is tied in with his sexual orientation, he probably can't help himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: gnu Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:14 PM I came back to see where this million post thread is at and I read... From:akenaton - PM Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM "There is a fundamental contradition there." Ahh........but is it "folk"???? Who left the fuckin' gate open? *************************************************************** Who left the gate open INDEED! Ya gotta be shittin me? I can't tell you how funny that strikes me. I am chuckling consistently. Thanks for the laugh at your own expense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:53 PM "..printing your posts in bold script and casting aspertions on my motives..." One was a simple failure to properly do HTML...was meant to be only a couple of words. The other... ah, the other....I ...and others..still have my doubts about your motives, since you STILL avoid a truly direct question about them. I don't read minds, and I wish this was merely a debate about facts - but people have been disputing your analysis of the relevance of certain statistics for many months, and you still seem to be comfortable with glibly asserting that it is merely 'health' issues that cause you to pursue this reasoning. Why would anyone NOT cast aspersions on such a superficial analysis? HIV/AIDS is a serious issue, and at one time it was spread 'more' thru homosexual partners, but this is no longer true. In any case, it has been pointed out that many, many gay people are in long-term, careful, non-promiscious stable relationships...yet you STILL wish to object to them having the same rights as others... and you seem to define attempts to obtain those rights as "promoting an unhealthy lifestyle". You need to review and reconsider a definition of 'promoting'. ummm... dare I ask again whether you'd continue to object to homosexuals being married and having rights IF the "health issues" were solved tomorrow? Check A for yes and B for no: A. B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM You're dodging the issue, Ake. And clumsily so. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM "There is a fundamental contradition there." Ahh........but is it "folk"???? Who left the fuckin' gate open? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:03 PM "......but do not parents of Down's Syndrome pregnancies have the option to abort the feotus?" Not if the self-appointed "guardians of morality" and "right to lifers" have their way. And the same "guardians of morality" would also deny same-sex couples the right to form legally recognized stable relationships, which would be a strong incentive for the reduction of promiscuity. There is something hypocritical about your claims of concern about the spread of HIV and your opposition to gay marriage, Ake. There is a fundamental contradition there. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:45 PM Ian....Homosexuals are many times less "marginalised" today than they were twenty years ago, yet hiv rates are many times higher amongst them. Correct me if I am wrong, but do not parents of Down's Syndrome pregnancies have the option to abort the feotus? I never watch television.(hardly ever), I am not "clever", I have had limited education. Whether you own or merely borrow the computer you use, is none of "my fucking business" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:29 PM Losers occur when society finds excuses to marginalise them. Liberal ideology is about living together in harmony. Or so I'm told. Wouldn't know, living in my ivory tower. Using your warped logic, parents over the age of 45 have a marked increase in giving birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome, so let's stigmatise fucking in middle age eh? Or would that make too many people "liberal" whem they oppose such an idea.. Let's not encourage poor people to have televisions. After all, they'll only use them to watch lowest common denominator daytime telly, thus leaving less budget for high brow programmes for clever important people like you. Let us not encourage gay people to marry. Obviously, it is better if they are promiscuous hedonistic poofters. That way, it's easier for you to point and blame. Let us welcome idiots having computers and half a brain. Then we can see the state of society should dangerous idiots have their way. Jack the Sailor appears to have a point after all.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:09 PM Ian...There are no winners associated with these terrible figures, only losers and most of them are homosexuals. Of course that is of no importance when set against the survival of "liberal" ideology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM "Smoking is unhealthy, drinking to excess, texting while driving" Kendal, you are correct, and all of the above have been criminalised in one way or another in the UK. Next? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM Sorry to double post(pressed the wrong button). There are approx 9000 cases of TB reported annually in the UK, from a population of 64,000,000. Please stick to percentages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM Howard, you have noticed. His figure are extremely selective. Not only that, they fail to take into account the statistic I mentioned above. It is a bit like saying they cured cancer tomorrow and the day after, The Daily M*il leading with "Heart disease. Biggest killer" Tell you what. Let me hypothetically say OK Akenaton, your cluster figures represent the overall picture. After all. I am we'll used to meetings with politicians whom presume tabloid interpretations require action rather than HPA figures. Even then his solution is not tenable in the 21st century, at least not in polife society. So do me a favour Akenaton. Don't try to win the figures argument because even if you did, you fall at the hurdle of solution. You can't tell a stakeholder in society that society disapproves of your right to a peaceful private life. If your (or those whom you get your figures from) figures painted the picture, NHS health promotion budgets would have to be seen to reflect doing something about it. In reality, health promotion is rightly targeting the HIV issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: kendall Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:53 PM Smoking is unhealthy, drinking to excess, texting while driving etc. the bottom line is this: Who I marry is none of your f*****G business. In no way does it threaten traditional marriage. The control freaks are jumping at shadows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM Howard, the latest estimate from HPA(Ian's organisation of choice), is just under 430.000 MSM in the UK and infection rates are rising steadily. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Howard Jones Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:16 PM 3000 new cases of HIV, out of a UK gay population estimated to be 3.6m, doesn't seem that many to be getting in such a state about. It's considerably fewer than, say the number of new cases of TB (more than 9000 new cases reported in 2011). But I'll ask the question again, if you're so concerned about the health threats to gays, why are so opposed to allowing them to be monogamous relationships and for these to be fully recognised in law? By the way, not all gays seeking to get married are male - HIV is almost unheard of amongst non-drug using lesbians. |