 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Gay marriage' question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:57 PM Here, TIA....this is just for starters: Here, (just for starters)TIA, read up on it... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: John P Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:02 PM Here's a number: go find 100 gay people and ask them whether any of them had a choice about who to get turned on by. Here's another number: go find 100 straight people and ask them whether they had any choice about who to get turned on by. Here's another number: You will find 100% agreement. You should consider using common sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM Try not to be a TOTAL ass, GoofuS (Oh, sorry! I really shouldn't be asking you to do the impossible!) No, I do not know the "queer gene's" mailing address, apartment number, and zip code, but geneticists agree that there is more than enough evidence extant to indicate that homosexuality is genetically determined, probably by a combination of genes, and they are currently seeking further data. Don't bitch at me, take your whining to them!! AND why are you getting hysterical!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:06 PM ...even though I have disagreements with the source...there is some factual evidence. Oh, and the closest, for all those who can't come up with it, or didn't know, and just spouted nonsense, the closest thing they have to a 'genetic link' is 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. Oh, I know...you 'knew' it all along...but they are ONLY indicators...NOT the determining 'gene'....unless, of course, you wanna' stretch the truth...which I'm sure some of the more outstanding, outspoken ASS-umers, may wish to do...and probably will... ...but it ain't the 'gene'. That issue will lie in the subject of 'receptors'...formed during the gestation period. (That is for all those who make the claim that they were that way since birth). GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM I'm neither hysterical or anything like your over active imagination may wish...shit..I'm even doing your homework FOR you...you expert, you! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM Ah, so you are in fact willing to accept the burden of proof for your own position. That is a start. Thanks. But it is an opinion piece - an interview of an openly anti-gay (and not surprisingly devout Catholic) pyschiatrist. No *proof* at all. Get me something from the peer-reviewed literature, and I promise that I will read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM TIA, Gladly.....but at this moment, time does not permit..because some musicians showed up...but I SHALL. ..and like I said, prior, I did not fully agree with the source..as you also noted. Will be back. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:59 PM GfS... that link quotes an opinion of a contributor to the "Catholic Medical Association" (in 2003) It ends with suggestions about 'what good Catholics can do' You got any corroborating stuff (with or without lots of red underlining) from recent, unbiased sources? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:05 PM Goofus, like I've been saying all along: Evidence for homosexuality geneDon Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:47 PM ""I do not discriminate against Blacks, Women or Homosexuals, but I do stand against obviously stupid legislation." It was clear from his previous statement that he was referring to criminal behaviour being rightly discriminated against."" Stupid in his opinion Keith, which makes it worthless as a statement of fact. You really need to try to understand that Ake describing legislation as stupid says more about his agenda than about the legislation. The above statement lines up very neatly with a plethora of similar statements along the lines of "I am not a .......... (choose among racist, misogynist, homophobe etc. etc.), but..........!" Most such statements serve merely to emphasise that the speaker is precisely what he is claiming not to be. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:53 PM Having avoided taking the plunge of conventional heterosexual marriage thus far (and I'm 64 years old)....I haven't really gotten around to considering much the pros and cons of gay marriage. And I doubt that I will. I have no reason to. As to whom one is attracted to, that's something each person figures out by themselves, going by their own instincts, and I place no judgement upon it. Not my business who you're attracted to. I doubt that it can all be explained through genes...maybe some of it can, but very likely not all of it. It's probably partly genetic, partly cultural, partly familial, partly pschological, and so on, and so on...a VERY long and complex story! In past societies where homosexuality was deemed quite acceptable, there was a lot of it happening, and people took it for granted. It was very common, for instance, among the men in classical Greece, where men would often have both male and female lovers (or wives, in the latter case), and they were quite open about it. It's a political football right now, which is why it's getting so much bla-bla all the time in the media. Politicians are using it to push their various agendas. It helps them keep the pot of controversy and self-righteous posturing (from either the pro or anti-gay perspective) boiling, and that's very useful when you are practicing the old "divide and conquer" game that politicians are so enamoured of. I do sympathize with Gays who are facing discrimination. Certainly! But I feel that the politicians and media are (mostly) just cynically using the issue to push their own careers forward, and not to liberate people. It gives them a soapbox from which to holler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:58 PM ""He has said nothing against the gay community, merely pointing out the huge risks that MSMs run from infection. He actually cares about them. If STIs did not exist he would have no objection to same-sex marriage or anything else."" Watch out Keith. Your sycophancy is preventing you from using your brain to any real effect. The vast majority of STIs are found in the Hetero population, and if Ake's concern for health risks is genuine, he is strangely reticent about the health risks to that community. No mate, Ake doesn't give a rat's arse about the health of Gay men. He'd like to see them locked away as they used to be. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 13 - 09:34 PM A point, Little Hawk. It's not the politicians who are pushing for gay marriage (most of them are terrified of taking a stand, particularly in favor because of their religious constituents), it's gay people themselves who are damned sick and tired of being discriminated against for something they can't help. Not very different from being discriminated against because of the color of your skin or the shape of your eyes. Because it has to do with sex, about which most humans have all kinds of hang-ups, fed to them mostly by religious fundamentalists and those who can't keep their noses out of other people's--businesses--for various reasons, these people are having wall-eyed fits at the idea, and resist the concept that it's a civil rights issue the same as racism. Where it HAS been legalized or is generally accepted, there is no sign of societal breakdown or that the world is coming to an end. It's an issue not too far removed from, say, interracial marriage. In some places, that STILL has a big "yuk" factor for some folks. As long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights, who the hell's business is it anyway!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jan 13 - 10:07 PM For sure. It's nobody's business except the partners directly involved. We never had any disagreement there in the first place, Don, so no need for the exclamation points. I didn't need any convincing about that. I think some politicians are having an absolute field day with it, though. They salivate over the possibility of all the shit they can raise about it. They use it to get people righteously enraged at their political opponents and to apparently hold what their supporters think is the "moral high ground" and cast guilt upon all who don't take their particular side in the matter. This has worked well for both the Right and the Left, and they're not about to stop stirring the pot, because politics thrives on controversy and division. Others, of course, are afraid to touch it. It depends on how risky they think it is in their particular case...and that may depend on what region they live in and who their most loyal supporters are. As for Gays who are pressing for their own civil rights...fine...I sympathize with them and I have no problem about that whatsoever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 13 - 11:03 PM Well, I followed the recent Washington State campaign pretty closely, largely because Barbara and I have a couple of friends who are gay and we know several other couples—and a member of one of these couples is a state legislator. He was involved in the campaign of course, as was another legislator he knew who was also gay. But other than these two, and a couple of fairly religious-type legislators who were opposed to the initiative, none of the local politicians wanted to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. I don't see this as an issue that politicians really care to turn into a football. At least, I can't name a national politician who hasn't shied away from it. (Speaking of what a chicken thinks.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM LH: "As for Gays who are pressing for their own civil rights...fine...I sympathize with them and I have no problem about that whatsoever." So is there any logical reason to belittle those who support them? Because (sorry) you did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Jan 13 - 12:37 AM Oh Fuck it. Full disclosure. Here is what you are up against: My grandfather was gay (and a holy roller preacher with a hetero marriage but my grandmother knew everything). My uncle (his son) is gay and in a long-term (37 year) monogamous relationship (now marriage). My sister is lesbian and in a longterm (15 year) monogamous relationship. I am totally hetero, and have never "promoted" any orientation, but... Two out of my three daughters are lesbian and are either in monogamous relationships or not sexually active. My niece is a non-sexually-active lesbian and flipping brilliant. There has been no "indoctrination" in my family. The rest of us (a HUGE) family are hetero. So fuck you to hell all of those who who say this is a "choice" or a "behavior" and compare my family to child molesters or sluts. My daughters are more intelligent and more accomplished than you (or I) will ever be. But I will not trot out the degrees and international awards to prove it...you can just talk out your asses and make me laugh to refute this...everyone reading this knows at least one of my daughters' names and musical or scientific accomplishments - no shit, you really do. But you don't get to hear it from me. I am just sick of the bullshit. In 13 years of reading and discussing in this pit, I know who gets it and who is an asshole. And I get to live with my "deviant", "unhealthy", "mind-blocked", and oh horrors "liberal" family. Alas, poor me. You bitter, ignorant, self-righteous homophobes can come at me all you want. I *know* who is happy and who is secretly scared and miserable. But I (as Jesus would...though I cannot claim to be a Christian) love even you, and encourage you to eschew all denial and fear and loathing, and just be true...to others and yourself. Peace and Good Night. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM Thanks for that, Tia. That sums it up. Anything else on this subject is just meaningless noise. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Jan 13 - 02:14 AM Don T Stupid in his opinion Keith, which makes it worthless as a statement of fact. Clearly not intended as a statement of fact, but as no legislation specified you might be in agreement yourself. Or are you stating that no legislation has ever been stupid? Of course heteros get STIs but the risk of infection among MSMs is many times higher. You have been given the reliable data showing that FACT Don. Why do you keep taking us backwards? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:43 AM Of course heteros get STIs but the risk of infection among MSMs is many times higher. And your solution for this is...? Or is the fact you keep harping on about this more about your desire to demonise homosexuals? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Jan 13 - 07:09 AM Akeneaton's statements about MSMs and STIs have been honest and accurate, and foolish to challenge. I do not "keep harping on about this." Don T raised it again and I just responded. Ake is of the opinion that allowing same-sex marriage might encourage more into a very dangerous lifestyle. I do not agree, but I can not prove it to be wrong. It is a valid opinion, though open to challenge. It is no reason to make accusations of homophobia or bigotry. Why is the application of labels to your opponents so important to you? Just debate the issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 05 Jan 13 - 09:33 AM The issue is that there is a thread called gay marriage question. The only answer to a gay marriage question is "I do." There is no other answer. So, we are left with homophobia Keith, pure and simple. You state Akenaton's data to be honest and accurate. You then say it would be foolish to challenge it. By saying what you did just there, you are either being foolish or perpetuating an awful disgusting set of lies. Akenaton has just about enough intelligence to twist statistics, mix data from different countries, never mind different demographics (!) and draw conclusions to support his hatred of anybody who doesn't have a hernia or has more money than him. For some reason, he seems to focus this on gay people, and then only male ones. He says it promotes a dangerous lifestyle. Considering that marriage promotes monogamy, you still seem enough of an idiot to repeat his diatribe. I don't take you seriously, so stop asking for the issues to be debated when your agenda seems to be as disreputable as his, and at least he admitted he hates gays. You wish to wrap it up in false data, mainly supporting his data. You want some data? Here you go! 1 + 1 = 5.7634. Judging by your track record, you won't see the slight error. Oh and Goofus. Just fuck off, there's a good chap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Jan 13 - 09:47 AM The data is from impeccable sources and not open to interpretation. I studied it myself during a discussion here two years ago. You can produce nothing to discredit it because it is accepted fact. You and I agree that we have no objection to gay marriage, but I am not so arrogant as to believe there is no alternative view except for homophobes. You clearly have not bothered to even ask what are the objections to it. (Ake is not at all representative of those who object. He is on his own.) You have no idea what objections people have, but instead of finding out just assume mindless homophobia. That is arrogant, ignorant prejudice Musket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge Date: 05 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM I `ad that Sandy in my cab the other day. I picked `im up at `is little cottage in Chelsea. `e said, "`Allo Jim, you alright then?" I said, "Yeah Sandy, apart from a slight toothache. What can we do for you?" `e said, "Oh Bless! Would you take me up to Shepherds Market, we`re `aving a conference to decide the `omosexual marriage question." I said, "Blimey ,I dunno what for, I thought it `ad already been settled." `e said, "What do yo mean?" I said, "Surely the question is, DO YOU TAKE THIS MAN TO BE YOUR LAWFUL WEDDED `USBAND/WIFE,(Delete where required)!!" Whaddam I Like?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM S0o Don gets a wet dream, because he chases down the 'gene' number I posted..and makes a big deal over it. The gene you posted has the 5 markers(even though you were not as specific as I was...but what you posted, is common knowledge amongst those who know that stuff..so stop pretending you 'knew it all along'..or you would have posted it when I asked for the gene number. If you would have read much about what you are spouting, you would have also read that this gene has 5 markers, or an 'indication'..and is NOT the particular gene that determines anything. Yuo seem to take a little bit of info and blow it out of proportion and sensationalize it, as if to the less informed, it looks like you know jack shit about whatever bandwagon you jump on...speaking of bandwagons, stick to music..there you DO know something, but this stuff is really NOT your cup of tea, in the land of expertise..and you do more damage than you do giving help. Fair enough? TIA, Hello...I have to admire your 'full disclosure' post. You and I have indeed butted heads in the past, however, my hats off to you, and I have to respect you in this matter for your honesty. Unlike others, it is a pain in the ass to find solutions, for a lie. I will try to shed light on the subject for you, the best I can. First of all, you have (hopefully) read my posts on the 'receptor issue'...I don't know what you know about that, so I'll start with acquainting you with 'receptors'. This is a video that I thought was a great explanation for the 'lay person', who may not be familiar with them. It lays some of the understanding, as to why some people feel as if they 'were born that way'...and have mistakenly credited the 'genes issue' as the sole reason. I really hope this may begin to help you to understand and/or cope, with questions you may have. It does not specifically address the homosexual issue, but DOES adequately get you acquainted with receptors and the roll they play. I'm not sure of which segment..you'll have to watch them all, but the segment on receptors is well done, and you may find it fascinating, and enlightening....and you may begin to see the groundwork...that too many people overlook. Regards...and happy viewing! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 05 Jan 13 - 01:56 PM Go on then Keith. Spell out an alternative to equality. If you can I shall be happy to discuss it. But watch out, it may be something that promotes inequality. In which case I might just dismiss it as disgusting bigotry. It isn't rocket science. Opposing marriage based on the choice of gender of partner is bigotry. You haven't collected a single statistic so stop lying. There are no medical statistics on gay marriage. None. Zilzt. There are statistics on anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex but if you are linking that to gay marriage you have a particularly sick mind. Why the fascination with gay sex Keith? Plenty available on other web sites without you polluting Mudcat with your fixation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jan 13 - 02:36 PM Goofus, you're an idiot! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Jan 13 - 04:53 PM Musket, the debate about gay marriage has nothing to do with STIs or statistics or homophobia. How can you pontificate about it without having any idea what the debate is even about? Educate yourself and then come back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM Ake's argument is that he is against gay marriage because gays don't really want to get married (not according to them) and that they're responsible for an epidemic of HIV/AIDs which (somehow!) will get worse if gay marriage is allowed. GfS's argument is that sexual orientation is purely a matter of choice and to arbitrarily CHOOSE to be gay is "sexual perversion." And HE CLAIMS he can cure them through counseling and therapy (attempts along this line have proven to be an abysmal failure, sometimes leading to depression and suicide) . Both of their arguments are far from the mark—and when presented with counterarguments, they, especially GfS, get insulting and abusive, amply demonstrating that they are fully aware that they're on very shaky ground. Their arguments against gay marriage have EVERYTHING to do with homophobia. And there are a number of pretty pathological reasons for THAT! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:42 PM ""Or are you stating that no legislation has ever been stupid?"" Nothing of te sort Keith. I'm stating that Ake's opinion doesn't make it stupid, when you put it alongside of his oft stated antipathy toward certain minorities. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:50 PM ""Akeneaton's statements about MSMs and STIs have been honest and accurate, and foolish to challenge."" If you ignore the contrary opinions of organisations like the HPA (whose publications you and Ake cherry pick like a couple of autumn squirrels). STIs are rampant in the hetero population, but you have no problem with their marrying, or for that matter with their promiscuity. You reserve all your horror antipathy and bile for Homosexuals. I'd have rather more respect if you just came out and said "I can't stand the perverted so and sos". At least that would show the courage of your bigotted convictions. Don T. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:55 PM ""You have no idea what objections people have, but instead of finding out just assume mindless homophobia."" If you march in lockstep with a bigot and support all his bigotted utterances, what does that make you? Simple question, but I expect either no answer or a slippery evasion, and in that department you never disappoint. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM ""here are statistics on anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex but if you are linking that to gay marriage you have a particularly sick mind."" And not just sick! Stupid as well if you haven't noticed that anal sex is not the sole property of the homosexual community. Heteros do it too. Quite a lot of them! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: frogprince Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:32 PM "Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome. The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality." Obviously the conclusion that "there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality." Is based, not on fact, but on the predisposition of the researchers (who are in all probability gay) to defend homosexual behaviour. A more reasonable conclusion would be that the practice of homosexual behaviour eventually changes the makeup of the chromosones. In the case of the remaining 7 sets of brothers, they had, in all probability, not yet engaged in enough homosexual behaviour to cause the observable changes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:41 PM Heteros do it too. Quite a lot of them! I am sure none of us knew that. Thank you Don T. If you march in lockstep with a bigot and support all his bigotted utterances, what does that make you? I stated that I disagree with his views on gay marriage. I support no bigoted utterances, but the statistics he produced were all from impeccable. reliable sources. If you ignore the contrary opinions of organisations like the HPA (whose publications you and Ake cherry pick like a couple of autumn squirrels). That is a simple lie Don. The stats are unequivocal. You say that STIs are rampant in heteros. That is not a very scientific statement. They are present in the hetero population but tens of times more prevalent among MSMs. It is not fair or just, but that is how it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 05 Jan 13 - 07:46 PM Keith, I am beginning to think that they are quite mad. Dons posts misrepresent everything we try to say, Ian spouts words like equality and discrimination in the manner of an old time evangelical preacher.....no attemped at objectivity ""Equality is the reality"".....laughable and at the same time so pathetic, the "right on" left wing liberal on the right wing fundamentalist pulpit!.....I am rather relieved that he seems to hate me so much. I am sorry Tia about your disfunctional family, but emotive as your post may be, do you really think that it adds anything objective to the discussion? Additionally, you may have found that it would have carried more impetus without the obscenities. As always Little Hawk has things pretty well summed up....the whole issue is of course ramped up by politicians who know the power of the media, a fact which I am sorry to say Mr Farage may find,to his personal cost. I do not hate homosexuals. I do not fear anyone...man beast or Deity! Get that into your thick heads. I work for homosexual customers, if I wished to discriminate I would do so through the withdrawal of my services.....which are in great demand in this area. Male homosexuality appears to carry within it a propensity to very high promiscuity....due in my opinion to male sexuality without the braking system of the family structure and the nature of male homsexual practice. The word "marriage" does not cause men to become less promiscuous. It is obviously stupid to bring forward legislation to promote sexual behaviour of MSM as safe and healthy, when within the demographic there lie such severe health problems. Action needs to be taken immediately to stop the rise in all std infections especially hiv, amongs MSM.....to say that is a bigoted statement is cruel and disgusting. It means that our "liberal" friends care more about their precious agenda, than the quality of life of mostly young male homosexuals. Millions have been poured into "education" to no avail, according to CDC, homosexuals now account for the majority of the aids budget, but still they are unable or unwilling to regulate their behaviour. The health agencies say that "other initiatives need to be instigated and brought to bear on the hiv problem in MSM".......code for a degree of compulsion.....not locking away Don. In conclusion my stance is to irradicate the scourge of hiv/aids in our respective countries, and that wont happen if we say to our children...all is well within male homosexuality....it is just another of humanity's rich tapestry of sexual behaviour. I also try to illustrate the hypocrisy of the political system and how it can make grown, reasonably intelligent, men and women, behave like 4th grade schoolchildren. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jan 13 - 08:17 PM Standard comeback is that Ake, GfS, et al are being misrepresented when their own words are thrown back at them. Same old same old. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Jan 13 - 03:29 AM Don F, yesterday I highlighted an example of Ake's own words being selectively edited and thrown back. It was done to justify labelling him. Why do you try so hard to do that? How does it forward the debate? This thread was about the UK gay marriage debate. My position was in favour, but that the deeply held convictions of opponents should be respected and given a fair hearing. It emerged that the proponents here do not even know what the objections are, which really makes my point. The causes of being gay are no part of the debate outside this thread. I think that GFS is wrong, and that the accumulating evidence will eventually make his position untenable, but it is not yet proven. Why does it make you angry? STIs are not part of the debate outside this thread. Ake's statements about it are factual, and the proof is in the stats. If he were a homophobe he would be happy to see them die. Instead he calls for interventions to save them; frequent testing and discouraging unsafe practises. If my son was MSM, I would put exactly those pressures on him, not from homophobia but from love. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM ""Action needs to be taken immediately to stop the rise in all std infections especially hiv, amongs MSM.....to say that is a bigoted statement is cruel and disgusting."" It is bigotted when you show no commensurate interest in stopping the rise in Chlamidia, Gonorhea and other STIs in heterosexual males and females. Statistics are available for the steadily worsening situation both in transmission of those STIs and also the rise in HIV in the Heterosexual community, but you're not interested in that. The HPA has been carrying out research into dealing with HIV/AIDS, and they have stated unequivocally that it has been reduced to the status of a chronic manageable condition with a near normal life expectancy. That seems to be well on the road to what you originally stated as your aim, that HIV be taken seriously and action taken to reduce the effects. Or was that original expression of concern for the health of the Gay community just a cover for your real agenda? Tell us Ake, given that research has very considerably reduced the effects, precisely what action you are advocating. Do you want them all locked up, or would castration suit you better? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:00 AM The health agencies say that "other initiatives need to be instigated and brought to bear on the hiv problem in MSM".......code for a degree of compulsion.....not locking away Don. In conclusion my stance is to irradicate the scourge of hiv/aids in our respective countries, and that wont happen if we say to our children...all is well within male homosexuality....it is just another of humanity's rich tapestry of sexual behaviour. Code in your somewhat less than reliable interpretation for a degree of compulsion. Nowhere do they actually suggest that Gays be forced into celibacy. Perhaps they see Gay Marriage as a route to reducing promiscuity as hetero marriage does. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM This thread seems to me to have oddly lost its way long since. Monogamous permanent relationships for same-sex couples have been legally recognised for some years in the UK by the Civil Partnership Act of 2004. All of my several same-sex longstanding couple friends have availed themselves of it, and my late wife & I attended some pleasant parties to celebrate this. I can't see where statistics of the proclivity of persons of any particular orientation being more or less liable that others to contract certain diseases or disabilities, have any relevance to the question as to whether such relationships should now be permitted by our laws to introduce an element of religious vows into the formulation of the partnership & call it Marriage instead of Civil Partnership ~~ or even just to change the name Civil Partnership to Marriage, as with hetero couples who marry before the registrar rather than a minister of religion. All these considerations being so vehemently debated here seem to me completely marginal to what the thread is really asking; and to be in any event way behind the fair, or locking the stable after the horse has bolted, or whatever other proverbial or idiomatic phrase for such considerings may take your fancy. There have, I repeat, been legally recognised same-sex partnerships for nearly 9 years now. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Jan 13 - 07:22 AM It is bigotted when you show no commensurate interest in stopping the rise in Chlamidia, Gonorhea and other STIs in heterosexual males and females. No. The rate is many, many times less among heteros. That is not bigoted. It is a fact that they are not "commensurate" Statistics are available for the steadily worsening situation both in transmission of those STIs and also the rise in HIV in the Heterosexual community, Only among other high risk groups. In the general population the increase is much slower, so the huge gap is actually widening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Jan 13 - 08:30 AM Oh, well: I did my best. If they would rather go on bandying irrelevant statistics about STIs, the nature and accuracy of which they are never going to agree about, instead of trying to address the actual thread question and postulate what difference it would make to anybody except the principals concerned in the transaction, whether a Civil Partnership, after 9 years of legal recognition, was called a Marriage, or whether any religious component should be therein admitted, I have done. And I hope it keeps fine for them. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Jan 13 - 08:37 AM akenaton, My point was that I am sick of people denigrating my loving, cohesive, and HIGHLY accomplished family. Yet your take-away was "dysfunctional". You surely do fear and loathe homosexual, and I can only imagine what happened in your life to make you such a bitter hateful person. Sadly you will probably struggle through a miserable life and take it to your grave. A little honesty (even sprinkled with obscenities) would probably change what is left of your life immensely for the better. After getting it all off my chest, I feel much better, and have nothing but deep pity for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Jan 13 - 09:41 AM MtheGM, I have made the same point as you about the irrelevance of STIs and stats. to this debate. However, when someone makes an error of fact and I can help to clarify, I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 06 Jan 13 - 10:17 AM Dysfunctional? Akenaton you disgusting specimen. Oh. On other matters. Keith, don't go around applauding Akenaton's false and misleading statistics and then start spouting the obvious bit about gay marriage not being about STDs. Some of us have been stating that consistently rather than just when we are made to look idiots. Are you still supporting him after his latest contribution? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM Nicely put, Michael. I understand fully Don's desire to not let things go in this thread, which would mean leaving it looking as though Mudcat is a homophobic forum. I'm of similar mind myself, but I'm flagging in the face of all the prejudice, the thinly-veiled demonisation and the downright homophobia. The most recent post of Akenaton's is the most depressing thing I've read here in a long time. What a sad bloke he must be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 06 Jan 13 - 12:03 PM "Equality is the reality"........"God is the light and the way" Spot the difference :0) There is no God and there is no equality under this system, even with a new way of life, there would be no such thing as "equality"; we are all different and would have different contributions to make. Unfortunately within this particular system our value to society is weighed against our earning ability. We are what we earn. Go spout your equality speal to the unemployed young people who have been denied any fulfillment....their lives over before they have even begun...by this wonderful egalitarian system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Jan 13 - 12:29 PM Ake ~~ I feel bound to say that you seem to me to have lost any sort of cred you might ever have had [if any] in re this thread and others of a like topic, in using of Tia's interestingly described and obviously interestingly and varyingly peopled family, the word 'dysfunctional'. What on earth, unless you really are beyond any sort of intellectual or moral redemption in this particular, could you possibly have meant by such an epithet? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 06 Jan 13 - 01:15 PM Mmm there is no god and there is no equality. So by saying equality is difficult to achieve we shouldn't try? A bit like saying we can't so shouldn't fight crime or get trains to run on time. Why bother having an Internet or providing power to homes. Health doesn't work cos we all die anyway. You'll be saying next that we can't treat people as equals if they don't want the same lovers as you. Oh you just did. Anybody going to defend his stance? Or can the thread either close or start looking at the issues surrounding gay marriage for once? |