BS: 'Gay marriage' question

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Henry Krinkle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:28 PM

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

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: 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: Henry Krinkle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

Sordid.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM

Okay, so are we saying that "promiscuous" and "predatory" are synonyms?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:19 PM

TIA is coming across as bright enough. Your tactics are being reflected back at you. Is it you who is dim?

"what applies the breaks on masculine predatory sex, is the extended family structure."

I don't understand this, do cousins of Gay men go to the bars and tell potential sexual partners that their relatives are "playas?"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM

Haha.
Sorry back atcha good fellow.
Calling someone dim when you run out of rational arguments is definitely a debating tactic.
In fact, there is even an official name for it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM

You may be saying that, the possibility had not occurred to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM

You are a funny man ake! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM

Mr McGrath seemed to understand nmy meaning well enough?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM

Your meaning is nonsense. If McGrath "understood" nonsense then bully for him.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:50 PM

Maybe its the difference in nationalities....Goodnight Jack :0)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:06 PM

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

UnFUCKINreal. You actually posted that for everyone in the world to read for eternity?

Are you really that brain-dead?

Not that *I* or anyone else who read this thread NEED an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 11:46 AM

Hello Sailor!

You can call me Ian all you like. Akenaton however cannot. It would mean I was comfortable with his familiarity. I am certainly not. When I said I have no hang ups with my name, I was referring to members of the human race as evolved.

I suggest people read his last longer post a few posts above where he explains his stance and view.

I doubt I have anything to add to it. He describes homophobic bigotry so well, you'd think he had inside knowledge of the condition.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 07:05 PM

You are being pretty childish Musket. If you don't want him to call you "Ian" why don't you be polite and simply ask. "Please don't call me Ian." You are attacking ake personally for honestly and civilly expressed opinions. Banter is fine but it becomes tedious when the other person does not banter back. Half banter is no banter.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 03:07 AM

Hello sailor!

You are obviously far more mature and rational than I am.

He may be putting his views in a civil manner, but the views themselves are far from civil.

As I said before, by trying to be rational in debate with him, you inadvertently give him a veneer of respectability. I try to see other viewpoints on most subjects but where people try to justify despicable bigotry with twisted "facts" rather than good old plain ignorance, I give no quarter. You see, the problem is, he isn't just a fat headed idiot in the pub with a tabloid hangin out of his back pocket. No, he appears to be intelligent. My refusal to even try and see his view is possibly because he would not see reality if it hit him in the gonads. Spouting homophobic views and trying to influence people with lies is not free speech, it is abusing the concept of free speech.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

His acting rationally gives his opinions a veneer of respectability. Your attacks and petulance give yours the stench of irrationality. I agree with you for the most part on gay rights but he seems more reasonable. You may think you are calling him names to defend what you believe are rational ideas. But clearly it is not working.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM

Problem is, my seafaring friend..

If we don't attack and denigrate those whom prefer two tier society, we end up with apartheid South Africa, The USA up till recently etc. It was people saying no, there is no place in society for having less rights based on creed, colour, sex etc that started the road to equal society.

I don't have rational ideas. Society does. I am merely reflecting them. If you think he is being reasonable, I suggest you have a good hard think before putting such thoughts in the public domain. I am sure you are a nicer person than that...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM

If it wasn't so pathetic, I could just about manage a laugh.

What fucking irony.....it's exactly as Little Hawk said!

You're a brave man Jack, to champion the right to express an opinion on this forum. Knowing you for all these years,I would "suggest" that you need no one to tell you how to think!   Ian loves liberty until it conflicts with his version of the truth....I took the time to respond to Howard's invitation, now he has disappeared into the ether;
If my stance is built on lies and bigotry how come no body can point out the lies or bigotry in these pages.

All we ever get is "It's just no' fair mister" and a heap of abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM

I dont need to. I just read your posts. I am not spouting a truth, not having versions of anything and not putting an opinion versus any other. I am reminding you and others that equality is the reality so why say otherwise? If you don't think equality is the reality, you are not grasping reality and expressing a view of how things should be in your mind. Fine, but opening your mouth or typing upsets people. decent honest people. Just remember that. If a gay Prime Minister made you second class for not being Gay, you might legitimately complain. But till that day, stop celebrating the stigmatising of others.

You are saying that a legitimate lifestyle choice should not be encouraged and then come up with spurious statistics that do not stand up to scrutiny when applied to your hypothesis. I spend time in a professional capacity these days looking at clinical evidence based guidance, as health and social care providers in England are regulated on reflecting such guidance and I cary out inspections and assessments for the regulator. There is nothing nowhere in any UK published guidance that acknowledges a single part of your "they are all promiscuous and spread disease" stance. You and your mates at The Daily M*il exacerbate a problem that should not even be there in the first place.



See? he quotes decent honest contributors such as Little Hawk and Jack the Sailor, and by doing so he feels propagating his version of reality is legitimate.

No fucking surrender. Get back under your stone and on the way, issue an apology to the people living their lives, not interfering with yours, whom will remain stigmatised whilst ever hate speech is entertained by shallow people.

Fuck you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM

You know, in all this, er, "discussion," I have yet to see someone say, "A homosexual act harms me because..." and fill in the blank. You may get weirded out by seeing it. Don't look. How many people are unpleasant to look at for any number of reasons? Are they touching you inappropriately? Are they kissing you? Are they enticing you into their "cult?" Of course, not. Unless you are predisposed to being enticed. And aren't you free to be enticed into whatever cult you choose?

No, through all the arguments I have heard or read, I have yet to hear someone state exactly how they are hurt by a homosexual act. Alright, I can hear you sharpening your swords. No, this doesn't include minors, the mentally handicapped, or people whose minds are chemically diminished. And it does not include force or any form of coercion. These are the same terms that apply to heterosexual sex, and they are quite reasonable. So don't try to "red herring" this one by using children or animals, or any other absurdity. You know exactly who I am talking about and what the parameters are. So...How are you harmed?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 03:13 PM

I wish we could discuss morose marriage in depth for a change. ;-) After all, it's a lot more common than gay marriage.

Musket - You still seem surprised by the fact that Akenaton is an intelligent person. And not a religious fanatic. And not a rightwinger. And not a drooling yobbo covered in swastika tattoos.   Gosh! What a surprise! You'd be even more surprised if you read many things he's posted here about other subjects than this particular one, and discovered that he's got many other good qualities too, and is quite politically progressive in a number of respects, and totally opposed to, for example, the Religious Right in the USA. I don't think you comprehend his position on gay-related issues...nor why he takes that position. It's not that he hates gays. It's not that he wishes to persecute gays.

There's no reason why Akenaton should not have "a veneer of respectability" on this forum. He is a respectable person.

Your desire to categorize him as a "bigot" reminds me of how some people will characterize anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government about anything as an "anti-semite"....or anyone who objects to something Obama has done during his presidency as a "racist"...or anyone who criticizes anything Hillary Clinton does as a "woman-hater", "sexist", etc.

It's similar to the Inquisition labelling someone whose opinions they didn't like a "witch". The accusation, once made, cannot be disproven to the one who hurled it. This doesn't make it true.

saulgoldie - I've never felt that any homosexual act harmed or threatened me, and I couldn't care less about other people's wish to engage in same, if that's their choice. Nor to marry if they want to. I simply don't care one way or the other. It's a non-issue to me. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even object to someone marrying their dog...as long as it was clear that the dog was in agreement with the arrangement. ;-) If they could find a church to sanctify the arrangement, I wouldn't mind that either. Their choice, not mine...cos it's their life, not mine.

What I do object to is cynical politicians using certain highly emotional wedge issues to divide and conquer the public by continually harping on those issues in an exaggerated fashion and setting people against each other. And that's what's been going on around gay rights for quite some time now, as well as around a number of other "hot button" issues that get people all worked up. It's calculated. It's manipulative. It gets far more media attention than it deserves...and that was the plan all along.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 06:56 PM

Ian....I have said it before and I say it again,you are becoming irrational.
" I am reminding you and others that equality is the reality so why say otherwise? If you don't think equality is the reality, you are not grasping reality and expressing a view of how things should be in your mind."......Do you know what these words convey to me?   The rantings of a religious fundamentalist....isn't that ironic?

"I spend time in a professional capacity these days looking at clinical evidence based guidance, as health and social care providers in England are regulated on reflecting such guidance and I cary out inspections and assessments for the regulator."

If the above is true, I fear for the National Health Service, and the poor souls who are the subject of your "inspections and assessments" ...I "suggest" that you see a doctor.

Saul...trail your red herring somewhere else, we are discussing bad legislation here, not whether we can be "harmed" by the sexual behaviour of others.
One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour.

Now unless Howard returns from the outer reaches, I shall draw a line under this. Thank you to the good men and few, who were prepared to stand up to the Fascism of the "silencers". Good night and may Aton protect you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 07:19 PM

"One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour."

As are many heterosexuals harmed by their sexual behaviour - it is their behaviour that is causing the harm, not their sexual orientation. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 11:08 PM

LH: Your desire to categorize him as a "bigot" reminds me of how some people will characterize anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government about anything as an "anti-semite".

Sorry, Little Hawk, that's a really, really bad analogy. In fact, it demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you want it to. It is demonstrably true that many people who disagree with the Israeli government are not anti-Semites. Those who say otherwise are ignorant boobs who make assumptions about other people based on their membership in a group. On the other hand, it is demonstrably true that, both legally and ethically, gay people should enjoy the same civil rights as everyone else. People who say otherwise are ignorant boobs who make assumptions about people based on their membership in a group. So the people you are defending in the first part of the above quote are just like the people you are castigating in the second part.

You say you don't care about civil rights. I'm so sorry for you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM

Yeah Littlehawk. Pointing out where others may agree with him on othe matters makes his stance on homosexuality ok. The Kray twins loved their old mum. [insert other examples of "surely can't be that bad"]

Ok I'm a fundamental lunatic who it isn't worth debating with because I am so far up my own arse I refuse to consider the merits of hating a broad section of society based on their choices in love and companionship.

I'm comfortable with that.

I'm reminded of Arlo Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant having to discuss father rape And all kind of groovy things, based on those he was sitting on the bench with.

This thread is about gay marriage. Everybody seemed to be discussing gay marriage till he came on board with his well worn prejudice and hate. I don't frankly care that he may have views on subjects that may resonate with mine. I don't care that he may disagree with a stance of mine on a subject that could make me think and alter my view. (I have altered my view on many subjects through being informed by debate, contrary to what you say.) But acknowledging bigoted hate is too big a price to pay to pretend to look reasonable. I'd rather be seen as forthright and stubborn.

Bigotry is a term banded around to describe anybody who disagrees with you. However if you wish to see it in pure dictionary form, try to imagine yourself as a gay person reading his diatribe. In fact don't try to put yourself in other's shoes, read them as the reasonable person you undoubtably are.



Sorry if I refuse to see the merit in encouraging him.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 04:21 AM

Whether or not the law catches up, society is moving on. People are increasingly talking of gay couples being "married" - "civil partnered" is too cumbersome and somehow too impersonal. I have noticed that reports of one of police officers killed in Manchester have referred to her intended civil partnership and how she was enjoying planning her wedding - the word wasn't enclosed in quotes or used ironically, and I suspect the papers were simply reporting the words used by her friends and colleagues.

I suspect for most people it isn't an issue. For those for whom it is an issue, the issue is homosexuality rather than marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:07 AM

Ian Musket Mather Blather. Look below to see what a reasonable argument looks like.

>>>"One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour."

As are many heterosexuals harmed by their sexual behaviour - it is their behaviour that is causing the harm, not their sexual orientation.<<<

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:10 AM

Howard...Homosexuality has been with us for ever....it is not an issue as you say, it is a fact of life,as are various other minority sexual practices.

However, legislation to promote homosexual practice as "safe and healthy", certainly is an issue; and although "most people" on Mudcat or in certain sections of Western society may support such legislation, "most people" where I live are against the re-definition of marriage to accomodate a sexual minority no matter how powerful or well represented they may be politically.


In the UK, all "rights" are contained within the Civil Union legislation......Tho' taking the very poor civil union rates into consideration, I reiterate my view that homosexuality and monogamy go together like chalk and cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:36 AM

That is a weak argument. As I understand it, marriage rates in the UK are at historic lows. It does not logically follow that mixed sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 09:19 AM

Ake, you didn't even pretend to address what I said. OK, let me rephrase it. Exactly how are you harmed if two adults of sound mind and clarity of thought and free from coercion get married?

If someone steals from you, they have caused you material harm. If someone punches you, they have caused you bodily harm. If two people get married, you are harmed exactly how? Remember, no animals, minors, force, or people of diminished mental capacity. They are all red herrings, and you know it. And...go.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM

Saul, my stance is that homosexuality is an unhealthy practice and should not be promoted as "safe and healthy" by legislation to make it part of mainstream society, in the same way as we presently proscribe people who practice incest.
I dont understand what you mean about homosexuals "harming" me personally. Of course most of the "harm" is done to male homosexuals themselves, by their generally hedonistic lifestyle.

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 to 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"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 11:42 AM

"....homosexuality is an unhealthy practice..."

Homosexuality is neither of those things, it is an innate sexual orientation. Anyone, hetero, homo, bi, trans etc. is capable of engaging in unhealthy practices hence, by your logic, it can be said that heterosexuality is an unhealthy practice.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 11:52 AM

"Homosexuality" is not a practice. Unprotected and unsanitary sex are practices which are unhealthy whether it is same or different sex couples or groups that engage. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about a married couple doing their thing.

Guy's and girls give each other diseases. Guys and girls do kinky things. Marriage tends to decrease the risks substantially.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

If we are concerned with everything people do that is unhealthy, then we must broaden our list of concerns much more widely than just with homosexuality. How about skydiving, motorcycle riding, getting a tatoo, eating any of a variety of substances that pretend to be called "food," playing soccer, playing cricket (whateverthehell THAT is), doing gymnastics, falling in love, or, or, playing the banjo? How about striking a match? How about talking on cellphones...anywhere??!!! Are we supposed to protect everyone from these by making them illegal, or at least making the participants subject to persecution, ridicule, and deprivation of human rights?

Protecting the institution of marriage? Well, haven't people and our ancestor species been doing something resembling marriage for millenia? No? Well then, how did you get here? And if it is all that strong, why is there so much infidelity and divorce? If the "institution of marriage" is so fragile that it must be "protected" from homosexuals, then it is weak, indeed, and should fall anyway.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:59 PM

So I take it that a chosen lifestyle is unhealthy.

Ok. Why? You are making a mental leap that all gay people are as you say hedonistic.

This thread is about gay marriage. Sorry if a state of love and mutual desire to settle down as a couple doesn't fit your statement of unhealthy lifestyle. Between my marriages , I had a hell of a time thanks to Internet dating. You could say heterosexual hedonism. I would.

So, and I am trying to be civil here, could you either name something uniquely homosexual that is unhealthy or kindly shut the f... Sorry, I am trying to remain civil.

Here's a statistic for you. Of all rapes on The UK that were reported between 1998 and 2010, over 99% of the victims were women.

Unhealthy hedonistic bastards strike again. Pity they weren't homosexuals eh Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:15 PM

"Of all rapes on The UK that were reported between 1998 and 2010, over 99% of the victims were women".

Yep; we need to do something about the western cultural practice of allowing women to go out in public without a male family member to chaperone. Look what allowing this to be accepted as normal and mainstream has led to!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:42 PM

"/// should not be promoted as "safe and healthy" by legislation to make it part of mainstream society


Not only is is not "a practice"... it is not "being promoted as healthy"

It is being recognized as one of the several human sexual orientations! What is healthy or UNhealthy is a separate issue.

Sorry Ake, but no one here believes that your concern is merely about health, but is your simply your cover story for a basic 'aversion' to homosexuality. It is not clear whether you have admitted that to yourself, or have really convinced yourself that 'health' is the issue.

You have been asked several times whether *IF* health problems were solved, you'd relent... but you mostly dance around that question.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 05:16 PM

About those who are overly concerned with what other consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes, I have grave suspicions as to what motivates their concern.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:32 AM

Is incest an "innate sexual orientation"?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM

Ian.....HIV rates in UK/USA.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:38 AM

No. Incest means you are too lazy to go outside of the home where you were raised to find a mate. It is the sexual equivalent of couch potato.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:51 AM

Bill... Do you believe that printing your posts in bold script and casting aspertions on my motives, give these posts more gravitas or make them seem more sensible?

If you do, you are sadly mistaken....and will soon find yourself in the company of Don T and Dont F, who are among the inhabitants of the "slightly deranged" Mudcat annex.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:56 AM

Hi Jack...what are you doing up a this hour?

I think you are being a bit unfair, it may be genetic.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 06:26 AM

UK. Falling amongst homosexual men, rising in heterosexual women. Source - Health Protection Agency (HPA) Annual reports, consistent since 2002 to latest publication covering year 2010-11.

That said, the rise is from a baseline of rising in line with population numbers and Townsend deprivation scores.

USA, I don't have any figures to hand, I would have to get them the same as anybody else. UK figures are ready to hand near my desk. Are you saying USA figures, (and there are many USA figures to go by, WHO use an amalgamation of them) are not reflecting a similar picture? I would find that odd if it were.

So, even when being civil and trying to see where you are coming from, the facts fail your prejudice. Even if they did coincide with your preconceived views, the answer does not lie in your second class citizen model.

So perhaps it would be best if I stopped this short excursion into being civil with you. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth anyway.