BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

Sordid.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM

Tia...I'm sorry, but you come across as being a little dim.

Is this a debating tactic?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM

"masculine predatory sex"

I think this phrase was just used as a synonym for homosexuality.

Pretty evidently it wasn't. Read the first half of the sentence that came from.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:28 PM

It's all your fault.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM

I can understand that some people will, in any thread mentioning homosexuality, inevitably begin discussing anal sex. I don't know why so many other people join in. I don't know why people like arguing the same shit repeatedly, and often, at length.

You have men who have sex with men, and you have Black women, probably who also had sex with men. I think we can blame men for spreading HIV. If some people blame male homosexuals, it's logical to just blame ALL men.

Personally, blaming either group seems fairly stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:43 PM

>>>That's Mr Musket to you. (Or Dr Mather, Mr Mather or plain Mather, even that twat for all I care. ).

But calling me Ian infers a familiarity that is just not appropriate. <<<

or

>>> I don't have any hang up whatsoever with my name. <<<

Which of these is true? Please pick one and stick with it. LOL

BTW, You mean "implies" not "infers"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:18 PM

"masculine predatory sex"

I think this phrase was just used as a synonym for homosexuality.

Wow. Homosexual relationships can't possibly be consensual.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:28 PM

The fact is, homosexual behavior is NOT deviant to them!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM

Howard....perhaps you haven't noticed, but I have spent years debating the issues that you mention....there have been several very long threads on the issue of homosexual "marriage", in which I notice you have not been a participant.

Perhaps you could find the time to read them before you state that I am unwilling to debate any of them. I have always only been against legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthy practice....It patently is not so.
I have quoted the male homosexual health figures on numerous occasions
The low takeup rates for homosexual union/"marriage"
The fact that homosexual unions/"marriages" in general terms only last a fraction of the time that hetero marriages do etc.

These statistics point to the conclusion that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and indeed the figures for sexual partners are many times higher for male homosexuals than for heteros.

These debates always end with the pro "gay marriage" side falling back to their default position of "but its just not fair".

I have drawn to their attention that other sexual minorities(like those who practice incest) are routinely deprived of rights, even if they agree to be sterilised......but no answer is forthcoming.
The whole sorry charade is media driven.....homosexuals being flavour of the decade.

You mention that marriage would put a brake on homosexual promiscuity, but that is not neccessarily true; I know several married people who are not strictly monogamous......what applies the breaks on masculine predatory sex, is the extended family structure.

Children are the key....in general terms.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM

No, no, no...please. Let's do play figures!

Like these from UNICEF:

"In Swaziland, as in many African countries, women are the backbone of the communities; they maintain the household, generate income, and shoulder the burden of caring for sick family members. This stabilizing role played by women is fast eroding as the HIV pandemic takes its toll. **Women between the ages of 15 and 49 are reported to constitute more than half of all infections.**" (http://www.unicef.org/swaziland/hiv_aids.html)

Don't you care about Swazi women? If we allow Swazi women to get married it will make sex with Swazi women seem "normal" and exacerbate the HIV epidemic among Swazi women, right?









And BTW, I must agree with you. These are completely silly arguments. (And that is exactly my point....Ouch).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM

It seems to me that Akenaton put his finger on the main issues in his post of 02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM. It's a pity he won't debate any of them.

There are many questions concerning the effects on society of the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy...

Monogamous sex, whether hetero or homo, is safe and healthy. Promiscuous sex, hether hetero or homo, is risky. Traditionally, one of the defences against promiscuity has been marriage.

You can't have it both ways: you can't complain that gay promiscuity causes health issues and then object when they want to form stable relationships to avoid it.

there are many questions regarding the re-definition of marriage, both religious and secular...

This is about civil marriage. What the different religions do is up to them.

but to some people it all boils down to one word, equality.

This word requires to be examined and its true meaning determined.
Does it mean rights for all regardless of how we behave and how our behaviour affects society and ourselves?

No, but it should mean equal rights for people who behave the same way. Why shouldn't all people who wish to form stable relationships and have these recognised by the law have the same rights?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM

Aye, playing with figures is your party piece.

You say that a rabbit is going to appear out of a hat and massage the figures till it pops out, to the joy of your sycophants all sat in a circle clapping.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM

Tia....you really are a silly girl/guy.

At a rough estimate, how many "Black" women do you think there are in the good old USA?

2/3% of the population(MSM) account for over 70% of new hiv infections.

Dont play with me on figures!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:49 AM

I dunno. I thought this whole gay liberation thing was something that came out of the '60s sexual liberation/free love movement. Turns out now that all the gays want to do is settle down and get married. Bless.

A couple of women I know have just embarked upon same-sex marriages. I'm as happy for them as I would be for anyone else. Why would you not be?

As it happens, a number of ex-girlfriends of mine have subsequently become lesbians. My take on it is that after me, no man could possibly measure up so really the poor things were left with no alternative.

I'll get me coat.....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:56 AM

The CDC statistics use a slightly different population profile to the HPA figures for The UK as you would expect. One similarity though is the alarmingly higher rate (and not exactly falling) amongst heterosexul women.

Part of the commentary in their annual report for 2010/11 (the most up to date I have to ready hand) suggests a drop in gay infection incidence over time that matches increasing c society acceptance as equal stakeholders.

So, both sides of the pond, methinks it is the bigots who need to ask if their odious views drive responsible lifestyle apart?

Hello Sailor! Never said you agreed with him. I may sometimes wonder which planet you are on with some of your more irrational comments on other threads but don't confuse accepting his view with being willing to debate it. Either way just encourages him by giving his position a veneer of respectability.

I don't have any hang up whatsoever with my name. It's Ian Mather. I just changed it to Musket (an old school nickname of dubious origin) when someone involved with the government regulator I advise and carry out work for googled me and found my Mudcat posts. Considering I occasionally send myself up, polarise my views to make a point and generally poke sticks at people to flush out sanctimonious drivel, I wouldn't always stand by every last comment or stance.

If you love me as much as you seem to, you might cut and paste the above in order to denigrate anything I say on any subject in the future you disagree with.

Anyway, you started it ages ago by getting precious over my comments re the geographical location of Dumbfuckistan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 09:15 PM

TIA... I am SO glad I checked back on this thread one more time. Thank you.

That is the best post I have ever read. Bravo!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA (wearing Akenaton's hat)
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 09:06 PM

From the CDC:

"In 2009, black women accounted for 30% of the estimated new HIV infections among all blacks. Most (85%) black women with HIV acquired HIV through heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women was more than 15 times as high as the rate for white women, and more than three times as high as that of Latina women." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/)

Those of you who support legal marriage for black women are the real bigots. Don't you care about black women? It is your knee-jerk-liberal support of marriage rights for black women that is leading to the HIV epidemic. If you promote monogamous marriage for black women, it will make black women marrying seem "normal", and that will lead to more black women having sex, and more HIV among black women.

And this is all backed up by CDC statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM

Trudeau was right about one thing. "The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM

I'll try not to do so, JtS. But, if it barks something intelligent or funny, should I still ignore it or am I allowed to compliment it?

Hahahahaaa... just shittn ya, buddy. Like that is gonna happen very often. Hehehehee... minds me of the line from the old song, "Hank, why do you crank the way you do?" >;-D

Anyway, I really don't care about anyone's sexuality within the confines of respectful behaviour and the topic has been done to death so... gnightgnu.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM

There you go again, Jack. Pottie mouth.
Your Mum would be mortified to hear her little boy talk like that. Mortified.
(:-( O)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:44 PM

Please don't feed the poop poodle any more turdy treats.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:41 PM

In my opinion, for what it's worth, two guys going at each other anally is just nasty and gross. Creepy too.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 04:57 PM

Crank... "Homosexuality is deviant behaviour. Plain and simple."

???

Your behaviour is deviant, intolerant and disgusting. You are seriously fucked up. Unless you are just being a troll and then it's worse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 10:29 AM

Mister Lather! I haven't backed up Ake's views, If that is what you were saying. All I said is that you and he disagree. I did mock the little name game that you were playing. But only because it is childish and stupid for you to whine and complain about about being called your own name.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:06 AM

See?

Littlehawk, your logic is without doubt commendable and on many subjects, I would wonder who this self opinionated prick is? I am not typing as in conversation though. I am not being Ian, "Musket", "well hung stud" or any other name I regularly answer to.

I am making a point and making a point isn't connected with putting two sides over, it is pushing said point. My point is that society shall forever debate subjects such as gay marriage, mixed race marriage, women priest and dare I say it, people with learning disabilities being in love, whilst ever there are those who look down on lifestyles and social norms that are different to their preconceived views. (Getting bored with saying bigot, I am describing it instead.). All those subjects have been debated at political party conferences here in The UK over the last few years. In years to come, those of us still around may wish to hang our heads in shame if we didn't speak out about the absurdity of debating where society should be accepting without condition. It isn't about having a different view, it is about the global accepting everybody as an equal. That is the start of debate, not the result.

But where people question how others live, it is up to them to question their own views, not for decent society to lower its moral outlook to accommodate them. If Akenaton has a problem with gay relationships, fine. But his insistence on quoting lies and propaganda to justify his position is not nice, not clever and frankly, bordering on disturbing.

I'll happily debate why people have issues accepting ideals that had not hitherto been accepted. I can even on occasion see the perpetrator of crime as a victim nonetheless. But in this day and age, debating gay marriage is about trying to understand why the likes of Akenaton have such extreme views rather than trying to find common ground with the bugger.

By saying what you just did, and backed up by Jack The Sailor waking up and typing, all it has done has, from his last post, is make him feel that his views are worthy of consideration. All views are I suppose, but that's why we have people trained in dealing with personality disorder and to be honest, in trying to understand his stance, that's about as far as my regard for him can go on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM

And you have such a pottie mouth, Jack. Did you pick that up from the other sailors scow? What would your mum think?
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM

Should pedophiles be permitted to marry children because they get them turned on?
Homosexuality is deviant behaviour. Plain and simple.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM

Little hawk is the best example of real liberalism that we are likely to encounter here or anywhere else.
You and perhaps three others here are closed minded ranters who do not deserve to be on the same page as him.


There are many questions concerning the effects on society of the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy...there are many questions regarding the re-definition of marriage, both religious and secular, but to some people it all boils down to one word, equality.

This word requires to be examined and its true meaning determined.
Does it mean rights for all regardless of how we behave and how our behaviour affects society and ourselves?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 10:44 PM

He's not the stereotypical gay-bashing monster that you imagine in your mind.

Who cares? I know that Akenaton is intelligent and writes with depth and subtlety on other subjects, but a gay basher is a gay basher. I don't really care what causes a person to be so perverted. I can't speak to what's going on in his head. On this forum, in this thread, he's a gay basher. A pervert. A person who wants to have something to say about what other people do in bed. A person who wants to deny civil rights to a large group of other people. A person who ignores all facts on the subject. A person who won't and can't defend his perversion with any form of facts or logic. A person who reads health statistics and thinks they mean that other people should be second class citizens.

And you know what, Little Hawk? People who defend bigots are almost as bad. Maybe even worse in some ways -- you're supposed to know better. You should consider getting your head out of your ass on this subject. Some of us have gotten to the point where we stand up to hate speech and call it what it is. We're tired of playing nice with bigots, and they don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. If they weren't passing laws I wouldn't pay them any attention, but that's not the case. Akenaton and all the other bigots want to make other people illegal because of who they get turned on by, which means it has an immediate and large impact on me and the society I live in.

If Akenaton was on this forum going on about how black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people because that would be the ruination of society, would you be defending him? What's the difference between that and what he's doing with gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM

Hear!!!!Hear!!!!
(:-( 0)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:17 PM

Hmmmm No need to thank me ake, I was just telling Gnu what he had no good reason to know. Not everyone pays as much attention to Mather as you do.

As for the "puppy" analogy, think of the Mudcat at a multi-seat outhouse. People sit and shoot the shit. Some disagree like Ake and he who must not be called Ian, but that is cool. Its the dirty little yappy poodle which chooses to occupy the basement and bark up at people's butts occasionally swallowing someone else's turd that makes this place the delight that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:15 PM

Anybody who, in this day and age, calls homosexuality a lifestyle is seriously out of touch with reality and, I submit, would benefit greatly by doing some research into the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM

You find it incomprehensible that a fellow atheist (something you apparently very much approve of) could possibly disagree with you about something else than religion, Musket??? ;-) That's funny. Your own post is so redolent of various unconscious forms of unthinking bigotry and rigid stereotyping of other people based on the most superficial assumptions about them, that it doesn't really surprise me that you are so keen on hunting out evidence of bigotry in others.

There's stuff I disagree thoroughly with Akenaton about. There's stuff I agree thoroughly with him about. There's other stuff where we might partially agree and partially disagree. I have learned, through long experience, that one cannot instantly categorize a person's relative worth/intelligence/morality/fundamental beliefs or anything else based on his opinion about just one of the world's many contentious issues.

If you were to read everything Akenaton has spoken about on this forum in the last few years...rather just confining your attentions strictly to his comments about gay rights issues and legislation regarding same...you would soon find out that he is not the vicious homophobic monster who haunts your particular anxiety closet. You probably agree with him about a great many other things in life. Just not THIS particular thing. And you don't begin to comprehend why he has the opinions he does. You don't wish to even try. You want to either "save" him (by making him change his views), intimidate him into silence, or condemn him eternally amongst the circle of your peers as an antisocial bigot (which means, reduce his value to a zero quotient in the eyes of yourself and others).

He's much more complicated a person than you imagine. I find it hilarious that you are confounded by the fact that he is an atheist, and that...

"He cannot even hide behind superstition as he claims to be atheist."

You were expecting him to be a Christian fundamentalist? Well, too bad. He doesn't fit that stereotype at all. "claims" to be?????? His atheism is dead obvious if you bothered to pay any attention to the stuff he's been posting here for years and years.

Nope. He's not the stereotypical gay-bashing monster that you imagine in your mind. Not even close. You've pigeon-holed a bird here that is not even a pigeon in the first place.

Remember: When one is on a witch hunt, what does one find? A witch! Every time. And then one burns the witch.

My suggestion is not to go on a witchhunt in the first place, because the probability is that there is, in fact, no witch for you to find here. There are just other people here, people as complicated and multidimensional and unstereotypical and unpredictable and unique and idealistic as you yourself are. If you treat them with the respect you'd like them to treat you with...it might eventually be possible to get to know them AS real people, rather than as "political enemy" stereotypes.

There are certain things I'll never agree with Akenaton about. So what? I could say that about almost anyone. It doesn't change the fact that he also has many good qualities and useful thoughts to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM

ake... "but I certainly do want to do something about legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthly lifestyle; to the extreme detriment of the family structure and homosexuals themselves." "so what is the problem??

ake... ABOVE in this post is my problem... YOUR logic. Legislation will not turn YOU or anyone else gay. Don't be afraid. It does not mean YOU have to turn gay.

As for "safe and healthly", well, I guess I just gotta say, what fuckin stone age bullshit is that?

Listen up all and sundry... gay exists... it ain't goin away. The only thing that needs to go away is intolerance and ignorance. Fact is, I don't know ANY gay people (that I know of fer sure... I got some suspicions). But I surely wouldn't treat them any differently than I treat anyone else. Why would I do that? I just ain't a prick, period. I was raised not to be a prick. To treat... nevermind.

And, I GOTTA say it again... them gay parades?... shove em. THAT kinda shit pisses me off BIGtime. Be gay but don't shove it in my face eh? When ya do that yer just another ignorant, intolerant no-mind asshole like the people you rail against. It certainly detracts from everything you wish to gain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM

Your arrogance has also caused you to completely miss the point of Little Hawk's post.

Foolish chap.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM

"I could be quiet. I could let it pass. I could try and agree to disagree." .....or you could just be wrong, but you are much too arrogant to even contemplate that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 05:54 PM

Yeah but it works for me.
Although a puppy might have some redeeming features.

After all, every ruddy post, he cannot help himself. Just go up a couple of posts. Lamenting that homosexuality will always be with us. Who the flying fuck are "us"?? Then goes on to show concern about legislation that promotes equality.

Ok running his nose in a shitty carpet isn't perhaps appropriate. But at least we can get a vet to neuter the sod?

In case anybody has lost the plot, this thread is about gay marriage. It invites both sides of a debate, granted. But I am not sure there are two sides to this.

You either see "gay marriage" as a term to describe two gay people making the same sort of commitment as any other couple, or you have views that have no place in decen society. He cannot even hide behind superstition as he claims to be atheist.

I could be quiet. I could let it pass. I could try and agree to disagree.

Acceptance or complacency however just encourages and perpetuates bigotry and hate. Fuck him, I'll point and glare if that's the same to you. Such ignorance and hate brings out the worst in the rest of us, me included.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 02:19 PM

Musket, there's a difference between another person and a puppy. A puppy is a small, helpless creature who is in your care. That means you have control over him and you have the responsibility to train him, thus are in a position of superior power and authority in regards to him.

This is not true of the other people you are talking to on this forum. Accordingly, I don't think your puppy analogy works, nor can it be expected to yield the results you anticipate or desire.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM

gnu...I dont wish to "shit" on you, or even to be on unfriendly terms, but many of your posts are personally offensive and I find it difficult to start into a conversation with someone who seems to have taken an extreme dislike to me personally.
I have stopped responding to some members, whom I see as either liars, or just not worth the effort...I have never catagorised you as such.

I have friends here who's views differ widely from mine yet, on a personal level I value them greatly.

I am a registered member and am committed to what I post, I would never waste my time for so many years trying to wind people up.

You seem to have a very good understanding of many issues...especially political issues....so what is the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 01:49 PM

You should try debating with your puppy Ian, they say everyone finds their own level in debate.

By the way, I dont want to do anything about homosexuality, it seems it will always be with us, but I certainly do want to do something about legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthly lifestyle; to the extreme detriment of the family structure and homosexuals themselves.

I don't advise getting too deeply involved in debate with fido, as intellectual defeat could lower your self esteem even further.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM

That's Mr Musket to you. (Or Dr Mather, Mr Mather or plain Mather, even that twat for all I care. ).

But calling me Ian infers a familiarity that is just not appropriate. I drink with nice people and drink with idiots. I work with nice people, I work with idiots. I etc etc.

But I draw the line at civility with the appalling individual we know as Akenaton.

When Akenaton sees others lifestyle choices as something to "do something about" I cannot for the life of me begin to take his stance as a debating point. I don't discuss the merits of shitting on a carpet with a puppy. I rub his nose in the stuff till his behaviour reaches an acceptable standard.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM

They can still take them to a minister to pray away the gay.
Thank God.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 11:19 AM

Sounds like a typical California-style controversy, all right. They got poodle psychiatrists there too, don't they?

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 10:28 AM

Good news! California has banned the screwball therapy that purports to turn gay kids straight. They've decided it is child abuse, since it not only doesn't work, but often leads to severe depression and suicide. The therapy has been widely condemned by real therapists. Social "conservatives", of course, are screaming that it is an invasion of the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Article in New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM

ake... "Thanks Jack...nice to see somebody is paying attention. Its a bit difficult when gnu occasionally asks a civil question. I don't like to be thought rude."

Not everyone reads every post on a thread and not everyone knows there is only ONE (is there?) Ian that you refer to so it is ONLY being polite to EXPLAIN yer post. What is so hard to understand about that that you have to go out of your way, MOST incorrectltly and illogically, to shit on me?

Keep it up trolls. Keep supplying your own rope.

Following you around, Cranky? More like I am trying to shake off a yappy little dog biting my pantlegs. Fact is, yer a toothless little yapper and, yeah, I am kinda fond a you in an odd way. Or, maybe it's more curiousity as to what inane shit you will post next. Like when you simply post troll shit with nothing to do with a thread it seems like you take the inane to a whole other level. It's like when some people can't avert their eyes from a horrible accident. Yeah... you are a horrible accident that I can't take my eyes

So, ake... please do try to be polite (as I do.. read my posts and you might get an idea of how to do so) when you are being such a twit. It's just rude.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM

Meanwhile the battle for equal primate rights goes on! When will marriage between Chimps, other apes, monkeys, and Humans be made legal? When, I ask you?

When I'm elected president, that's when! Vote APP in November.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 06:48 PM

But the fact of the matter is, Don, gnu, Bobert, SRS, Jack and several others follow me all around Mudcat like a litter of little puppydogs.
I think they want a treat or their ears scratched or their heads patted.
Good little puppies all.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 04:19 PM

We always wear a great big smile
We never do look sour
We hang out here at Mudcat
Laughing every hour.
(:-( D)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 03:54 PM

Youse cannae help yursells... kin ye?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 02:29 PM

Point taken, John. You're right!

Don Firth