BS: 'Gay marriage' question

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:38 PM

Saulgoldie....I quote directly from CDC and HPA....Please illustrate where I "twist" the figures they present.

The most inportant statistic is the one which states that "Men who have sex with men" account for over 60% of all new HIV cases.

This is higher than all other demographics put together!

At least my old adversary Don, has the balls to admit that this equates to a massive over representation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:45 PM

BTW....I responded above to Ebbie's question regarding what action I would recommend to alleviate the horrific hiv figures among MSM.

What action would you all recommend?....if any.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:00 PM

But Ake, you are opposed to one of the most powerful incentives to bring the figures down.

This is why I think you don't really give a damn, you just hate gays.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?

I do not hate homosexuals, my recommendations which were echoed in a recent CDC paper, would cut infections and save lives.

What would you recommend?   None of your business?, Look the other way? Let them suffer?.......Who hates homosexuals you or me?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:16 PM

"echoed" should read...."hinted at"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 06:34 PM

"...when only a tiny minority want it?"

You have statistics for THIS survey? YOU have no idea who would choose what IF they had reasonable choices.

In any case, ANY marriages would help ......


I'm curious as to why you think all these people arguing with you are doing so, and why you imagine we all can't see the... ummm... logic in your statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:37 AM

And your recommendations were. . . ?

And the basis for your contention that only a small minority of gays want stable relationships? Everything I've read and heard says just the opposite.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

Bill...of course I know why some people dont believe the evidence of their own eyes...."liberal blindness"....it is related to "snow blindness", but is caused by reading and believing too much of their own propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM

Just seen something I disagree with.

I have no issue with bodhran players being persecuted. They've had their wicked way with us for too long. One bugger started a tempo so ruddy fast the other month that most guitarists would struggle to keep up. Luckily I didn't have many toys as a child.

Sorry, as the Akenaton theory of hate has run its course and can be seen for the shallow spectacle is it, I was looking for another angle to the debate and saw one...

Someone told me its international coming out day today. Not holding my breath but curious as to the old "ah, that would answer a few things ..."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

I don't really have anything to add to this thread other than to state that being caught by your spouse typing "UK marriage annulment law" into Google is apparently legal grounds for a rollicking good shouting session.

Be warned.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 04:33 PM

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

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual (you need to show that it is if you want anyone to believe it, but let's just suppose...)

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

Without a direct and cogent answer to this simple question, your entire "logic" will fall apart.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM

"... caused by reading and believing too much of their own propaganda."


LOLOL! And conservatives have a direct line to the fount of truth? Maybe special dark glasses to filter out "flashes of insight"?

"snow blindness"
Do you have the phrase 'snow job' over there? IT is related to a blizzard of statistics designed to obfuscate & dissemble. The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM

...and the crickets are chirping...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 02:57 AM

Just read this in the letters page in today's Indescribeablyboring;

Ian Burford (Letters, 11 October) needs to remember that the Oxford English Dictionary ("on historical principles") is not normative but descriptive: it records how words have been used. After Elton John, along with many others, marries his partner, and refers to him as his husband, I'm sure the OED in its next revision of the word will record that fact too.



Interesting, and for me slams another door in the face of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM

Ake, that was a low blow, talking about my balls. And if I had any, I'd likely slap you silly. Or is it "slap you, silly?" No matter.

OK, so let's talk about those stats. No, I'm not going to plow through them. I am sure they are cherry-picked and definitely leave many more questions than they pretend to "answer." Like:

IF homosexuals ARE the most numerous carriers and spreaders of AIDS, exactly how does banning same-sex marriage "help" limit the transmission of AIDS?

If you are going to speculate on the mindset of gay men, please show some credible information to substantiate your claim.
For instance, how many gay men do you know who are married and contracted or transmitted AIDS through being married?
If you don't know any, or even if you know 10 or 34, 0r 134 how do you know how many total fit these criteria?
If the problem is gay men, how does prohibiting lesbians from getting married help?

How many women have AIDS?
How did they get it?
Were they married at the time?
How did their heterosexual marriage "protect" them from getting it?
Did they get it from their husbands?
Where did their husbands get it?

How many more women have AIDS now than 5 years ago?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?
Would persecuting them improve the AIDS situation?
How would it?

How many heterosexual men have AIDS?
How did they get it?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?

How many men contracted AIDS through the use of street drugs?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?

How many people transmit polio?
How did we deal with that as a public health issue? Clue: We vaccinated e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!! Not just Amish, not just Native Americans, not just celibate people, not just Mormons, not just Wiccans, not just Mensans, not just chess champions, Not just members of mate-swapping clubs, and certainly not gay-married men (because we had much less idea who they were), but e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!! We vaccinated e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!!

And so on. No, Ake, once again and still, the only conclusion I can draw from your ranting is that for whatever reason(s), you just plain have an irrational hatred of gay men. And I honestly cannot see why. But you do. By the way, "coming out" as a homophobe here at Mudcat is probably one of the safer places to do it. And you would like receive much support as you try to improve yourself out of this sad condition. Eh, whatever.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM

He was talking about your balls? Good heavens! Call up Vito and "the boys" and have him dealt with severely! I intend to do that with Spaw when he gets well, because he has said absolutely terrible things about my balls...and numerous times too!

I've had a pleasant thought here, though. If I should ever decide to become a gay man...or if the mysterious workings of Nature or Destiny should decide that for me...I have an enormous resource here at Mudcat Cafe with which I can research all possible permutations and challenges of the new role I would be taking on...meaning, of course, this thread and the numerous other threads on the same theme.

All my questions will be answered, from the Alpha to the Omega! This is a great comfort.

On the other hand, there's not much material here on the forum telling me what to do if abducted by space aliens or taken prisoner by New Guinea headhunters...

Oh, well...you can't ask for everything!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:29 AM

Saul...you have shown no indication of having "balls", either in the physical or the metaphorical sense.

I was referring to Don Firth, who had the honesty to admit that MSM are massivly over represented in the HIV figures.
For the thousandth time 2% of the population account for 70% of new infections......these figures are stark and incontrovertible.

Btw I am a stonemason/steeplejack to trade, and for some strange reason have never been "slapped" in adulthood.

Only a fool issues physical threats on a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 12:15 PM

So true! And only a fool issues a physical threat to a Chimp, but for a completely different reason.

Seein' as how the gay humans are now gettin' their own special "pride" days to celebrate their lifestyle, I am makin' it part of the APP program to demand that "Primate Pride Day" be declared as a new national holiday...August 1st every year. Towns and cities that do not comply will be labelled as "specist communities" and will not be allowed to stock bananas on store shelves.

If there's anything I can't tolerate, it's a damned specist...a primateaphobe! They are the lowest of the low. They live on a diet of hatred. They should all hang their worthless heads in shame. I got no respect for them at all. If it was up to me, they'd have to wear a tattoo on their foreheads saying "specist scum", so everyone would know just what they really are when they go walkin' by.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM

Akenaton!

When in the hell did I say THAT!??

In any case, the figure, which is highly arguable, has NOTHING TO DO with the issue of gay marriage!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM

Sorry Don....The question was not meant as a stick to beat my opponents with, but simply to see who was treating the debate in a realistic manner.

Of all who are involved in this thread, you are the only one prepared to admit what is an obvious truth.
The others are not willing to debate in a reasonable fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM

ake... "The others are not willing to debate in a reasonable fashion."

Apparently, neither are you. What a stunned as me arse thing to say. An inane statement that cannot be proven? Sounds to me like something a troll would say.

See yas when I sees yas.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM

I repeat myself!

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs."

*IF* it were the case that absolutely every HIV case was a gay male, it would not mean that their rights should be different! In fact, gay males who did NOT have HIV would be a statistically safer bet to be allowed to marry.

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs." or statistics...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM

The latest figures I have seen (CDC) say the figure is 43%.

It is still more of an argument for passing same-sex marriage laws, which will encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

Anyone who can't see that has to be just bloody pig-headed, or flat-out prejudiced, or have their own hidden agenda.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 07:55 PM

I suppose reasonable debate means ducking a simple question:

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

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual (you need to show that it is if you want anyone to believe it, but let's just suppose...)

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

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 11:01 PM

No, no, TIA; you don't understand! if gay people are allowed to marry, they will think that everyone approves of their conduct. Then they will practice more homosexual activity than ever, and that will lead to even more HIV infections.!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:14 AM

Careful Frogprince...

Irony tends to fall on deaf ears around here. There are those, and one inparticular who would accept that at face value rather than see how if takes the piss out of their pathetic bigotry.

Mind you, I once put it to Akenaton that he had his head in the clouds. Turns out I was more perceptive than I thought now that he has seen fit to share his CV with us...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 03:22 AM

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs." (Bill)

Why then are all sexual minorities not treated equally?
Incest is arguably safer than male homosexuality, if procreation was removed from the equation, but there are other questions regarding the future of "society" to be considered."Rights" are proscribed!

These considerations also apply to legislation on homosexual "marriage" with the added problem of very high rates of sexual infection associated.

"Rights" are not, and should not be universal, but conditional on the behaviour of the minority concerned.

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

Lovely word "behaviour."

It usually gets into documents with other words, such as "moral" and "judgement."

As a monogamous marriage would not be spreading any infection, you have just been blown out of the water. By talking of their behaviour, you are commenting on their lifestyle as something that should not have the same rights as a "straight" marriage.

Kindly apologise for your earlier "I have nothing against homosexuals" bullshit in this and myriad other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 09:57 AM

Ducked again.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 10:34 AM

Anyhow, we have the monogamous marriage situation already, & have had since 2004, only it's called Civil Partnership. All this thread concerns really is the question of whether to recognise its equivalence by actually calling it 'marriage', to which some disproportionately influential organisations like the church have certain to me unaccountable objections. All these other health/lifestyle-encouragement &c things we are going on about here are simply a rehash of all the arguments everyone went over 8 years ago when the Civ Ps were established in law.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:22 AM

At times MtheGM, the thread has been on thread as it were. I suppose the rehashed arguments are because the term civil partnership was not acceptable to bigots and equally not acceptable to decent people. The third way strikes again, I'm afraid. Bloody Bliar!

At other times, the thread has been a showboat for peoples' views on diversity in a civilised society, and for my money, society still cannot hold its head high. Too much influence by those used to not being questioned, whether that be religions or those who feel their views reflect their society. Well yes, if your society is still in a 1950s Rupert the Bear cartoon strip where Dad smokes a pipe and worries about Johnny Foreigner whilst Mum does the household chores and children dream of repeating their lifestyle. After all, anything else is "common" and "disgusting, what?."

Snag is, we all live here. The trick is not to judge others or try to stifle them, and that works both ways. I have a fairly distant relative who, if Gays are mentioned, says "dirty buggers!" His daughter has yet to tell him her "flatmate" of the last two years is a bit more than a bill and pizza sharer.

The society Akenaton would wish to inflict on us would make sad situations like that all the more common, and I think that's wrong, I just do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:28 AM

"Incest is arguably safer than male homosexuality, if procreation was removed from the equation, ..

Incest is not a 'sexual minority' as relating to sexual practices, but rather a social practice. It is proscribed (mostly) because of direct and long standing knowledge of genetic issues. Since procreation CANNOT easily be removed from the equation, we legislate against marriage between close relatives. Add to that the sad fact that much incest begins with predatory behavior and incest becomes a special category.

The issue IS: given sane, not closely related adult humans, why not allow them to marry on an equal basis, no matter which sex they are... or choose to be.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:49 AM

Let me add.... there are many many cases of brothers or sisters not marrying, but simply sharing a home.. (often the family home)... all their lives. They are often considered a bit eccentric, but people mostly shrug.

   Do you not suppose that 'some' of those situations are also a more intimate relationship? The law only deals with attempts of closely related M-F pairs trying to marry, or improper adult-child situations.

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

Incestuous relationships do not qualify for the "rights" granted to homosexual unions or "marriage"....no matter how often you shrug Bill, and procreation can be removed from the equation....as you know very well.

Anyway, what you think is not important in this context...what the law says is important and sexual relations between close relatives even if both agree to be sterilized, is a criminal offence.....and certainly does not qualify for any "rights"

Of course these people do not have the backing of the "liberal"/ media bandwagon, to ignore any damage to societal structure or health issues.
Laws are made by politicians and they always sniff the direction of the media guff.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM

Would two brothers who indulged in sexual relations be committing a criminal offence?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:39 PM

The social plot thickens.....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 03:37 PM

"Incestuous relationships do not qualify for the "rights..."

Yes..I realize that, and I am not suggesting they should- I am merely questioning your catagorization scheme.

Two brothers? Yes, I suppose they would be breaking the law in most places, but I imagine they'd seldom be noticed.... two sisters even less.


YOU brought up incest as a presumed "sexual minority"... I don't consider it part of this debate, since incestuous marriage is already against the law for reasons other than HIV/AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM

I can't see how two brothers would be breaking the law but even bringing it up, or bringing up incest, is not germain to the thread. Merely an attempt to illicit response perhaps? Thread drift is a deflection?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:46 PM

I tried, but I could only take so much, and then I scrolled to the bottom.

Ake - Shut up, would you? I have friends here who's views differ widely from mine yet, on a personal level I value them greatly. I've not hung around the 'cat a lot in recent years, but, in internet terms, I think we we had a relationship once, right? For the rest of you going "hurhur", that means he called me names cos he's Scottish & I'm a dirty Sassenach, and I called him names because I'm English & he's just an ignorant Sweaty Sock... ;-)

Ake is not an ignorant hate-filled bigot. But Ake, you are sounding like a right bleeding idiot here. Yes, I've got the idea that you don't like the idea of gay marriage. I think we've all got that idea by now. If you're repeating it for the 14th time (and you are), you're wasting everyone's time. Especially your own.

What two (or more) people get up to in private is no-one's business but their own. So long as it's consensual. Quibbling about pointless distinctions in wording is, well, pointless. What does it matter whether it's called civil union or marriage? I don't doubt that it is possible to arrange a "marriage" ('twixt whoever) in a solictor's office & to be sueing for divorce before the ink is dry on the certificate! So what price marriage? Really?

My neighbour is in jail on a gun charge. Not because he's gay, but because his evil cow of a wife stitched him up. I've a couple of very good friends, male, who have been together for more than a decade. I don't know if they want to get married, but if they do, why shouldn't they? How would their marriage be less valid than the godawful fuck-up that Graham has patiently suffered (yes, Ake, there is a daughter involved. Gods help the poor little lass)? I cannot conceive (pun)!

Then there's Muppet. Whilst I largely agree with his views in this thread, he has yet again shown himself to be an intolerant, arrogant troll. You can agree with Muppet. Or you can be wrong. He may be a doctor (of course, we've only Ian Mather's word for that), but he's just as capable of being a narrow-minded ignoramus as anyone else!

As for Guest from Sanity, I will take it on trust that every single one of the rest of us is incurably insane. Because if he is sane, I think that's not a place any of us want to be!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 04:59 AM

Raedwulf.....you know I think you are the "bee's knees", even tho' we are about to be divorced.

I see what you mean....I do get fed up answering the same question continuously, but sometimes there are issues other than equality to consider.
Out of respect for you, who I have previously offered to adopt, so that you qualify to wear the kilt and develop a little national pride, I will shut the fuck up......till the next time.

My very best wishes......we could do with seeing you more often on these pages.....A