 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Gay marriage' question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros. Additionally, although i dont believe in organised religion, millions of people do and I think it odd that these people should be asked to re-define their beliefs to accomodate a tiny sexual minority. I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children, so I would be against re-definition to include lesbians. As I said to Ian, what is to stop homosexuals of both sexes starting their own "gay" church, with "gay" clergy and "gay" congregation? Problem sorted....nae bothir! I suppose in a fraction of the time that the conventional church has existed, the "gay" pews would be bare and empty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:24 PM Just WRONG. No relationship with the real world. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:30 PM ???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:38 PM Akenaton: "I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children..." YES!..the nucleus of ALL societal fabric of ALL civilizations! Did anyone here come from any other form of civilization? NOPE! It's just a 'trendy' self indulgence for the self absorbed, to be hung up in promoting random family structures!! As far as second and third marriages..it's still in the pattern of trying to compensate for what went wrong in the first one...often formed while they were too young and naive. A classic saying, "Youth is wasted on the young". Got another little story for ya'............... This guy, who was quite a womanizer in his younger days..(and married four times), told me this, not that long ago..."Women are the second most thing I hate......you know what the first is??...That I didn't hate them sooner!!" BTW,(side note)..womanizers are usually those who actually hate women...though they keep fucking them....and with a little skillful probing, will admit it! Nice yakkin' at ya'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:45 PM Akenaton: "????" He's just coming unglued...you just can't keep postulating his nonsense and keep your shit together, at the same time....eventually the cracks begin to show. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM G'night Sanity....thanks for the smiles...A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM For those of you who seem to be hell-bent on reproducing like rabbits, let me present you with a few sobering facts: David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, estimates that the sustainable agricultural carrying capacity for the United States is about 200 million people; its population as of 2011 is over 310 million.A few years back, the government of Malaysia, becoming very aware of the overpopulation problem, tried the tactic of (believe it or not!) encouraging homosexual relationships in hopes that it would cut down on the dangerously increasing overpopulation figures—and the increasing number of food riots in that country. The program was an abject failure because heterosexuals did not want to change their sexual orientation! Nor could the "patriotic" few who tried to comply keep it up. The homosexual population kept doing what they were doing. The heterosexual population decided they didn't like their new "life style" and returned to their old ways. People don't "DECIDE" to change their sexual orientation. Along about 2030, I'll see you at the food riots! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM "You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros." A. Do you have statistics to back this up? B. You seem to be comparing Lesbians pairs in your country who can not marry to hetero couples who can. Are you? C. Are you saying that women should not be allowed to marry because they may get divorced? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM Save food..be a homosexual!..Is that your new rap? Eat me! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 08:13 PM No. You have the characteristic of MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY! You keep blathering on about the joys of having children and seem to be saying that children are the whole point of marriage, hence marriage should be denied to same-sex couples for the simple reason that they can't reproduce. As I pointed out in a post a short distance above, I know of more than one same-sex couple who have ADOPTED children, taking in children who, for whatever reason, their natural parent or parents could not keep or did not want. And again I point out that 1) the idea that homosexual couples only want to adopt children so they can molest them is bigoted, stupid, and ridiculous; and 2) these adopted children are one helluva lot better off in a family situation, even if it is not a traditional family, than they would have been if left in an orphanage. Don't get a hernia trying hold onto your prejuduces and twisting yourself out of the way of the truth. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jan 13 - 02:11 AM Froth: "And again I point out that 1) the idea that homosexual couples only want to adopt children so they can molest them is bigoted, stupid, and ridiculous; and 2) these adopted children are one helluva lot better off in a family situation, even if it is not a traditional family, than they would have been if left in an orphanage." They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that???? Never mind, I already know.... ..and I already know why you can't admit that. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:25 AM ""They are there for all to see and you clearly accept HPA as a reliable source. So what is you objection? Show us some false data or doctored stats."" HPA states clearly that HIV/AIDS has been reduced to a chronic manageable condition. So what is your objection? Show us some false data or doctored stats. If Ake is so concerned with the health of Gay men (though I have never believed that he is), why is he not pleased with this progress and why does he still object to low risk Lesbian marriages on the basis of ""other considerations"", whatever that means. I strongly suspect that if HIV/AIDS were totally eradicated tomorrow, Ake's position on Gay marriage would not change one iota. In fact, I'm bloody sure of it, just as I'm sure you would still be supporting him. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:32 AM "".and THAT goes for a lot more than just the homosexual, reproductively impaired issue."" You just can't resist those little, unjustifiable, denigratory references can you? God help any poor sod who relies on counselling from you. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM ""This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex......and in my opinion, the straight and accurate figures that I quote on male homosexual health, have a great bearing on the issue."" Your premise is absolutely false and from false premises anything follows, in this case bigotry follows. Marriage, either hetero or homosexual, is not primarily about sex. It is about loving and committed relationships. It is only comparatively recently that society stopped hounding homosexuals and jailing them. Of course, prior to that time it was about brief meetings with nothing but sex involved. Fortunately, we are more enlightened these days(well, most of us are), which has opened the way for long lasting and committed relationships. You constantly repeat your tired mantra that ""Homosexuals are inherently promiscuous"", without a morsel of evidence, yet steadfastly oppose anything which would tend to reduce that supposed promiscuity. The effects of the disease, thanks to medical research, have been vastly reduced, to what the HPA condiders manageable, yet you persist in your claims that it is a worsening plague. Your whole demeanour is that of a committed homophobe, who will never accept any degree of equality for those whose activities (though neither your business, nor affecting you in any way) you deplore. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 13 - 06:01 AM Baldwin wrote "Another Country" in 1962, while decriminalisation of homosexuality didn't occur until July 1967. So Baldwin was describing the situation while Gay men were forced to pursue furtive liaisons in toilets and back alleys, and any long lasting relationship inevitably led to discovery and jail. Nice try Ake, but no coconut! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM ""They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????"" Because, you dozy twit, their biological parents are not, by reason of either accident or design, available to them. Christ, what a bloody know nothing twerp. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jan 13 - 07:13 AM Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs. He actually sates that is his only concern. HPA states clearly that HIV/AIDS has been reduced to a chronic manageable condition. HPA also states, "HIV continues to be one of the most important communicable diseases in the UK. It is an infection associated with serious morbidity, high costs of treatment and care, significant mortality and high number of potential years of life lost. Each year, many thousands of individuals are diagnosed with HIV for the first time. The infection is still frequently regarded as stigmatising and has a prolonged 'silent' period during which it often remains undiagnosed. " There are about 500 AIDS deaths every year in UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jan 13 - 08:40 AM Dumb T: """They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????"" Because, you dozy twit, their biological parents are not, by reason of either accident or design, available to them. Christ, what a bloody know nothing twerp." Don't you think that loving, caring parents who bore the children should be promoted?????...and responsible??? or did you take a lesson from the other Don, and parse out a phrase out of context? Back to you!..You're the know nothing twerp for interpreting that so stupidly. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 08 Jan 13 - 01:48 PM Pointless, trying to enlighten someone with no more intelligence than a kumquat. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 08 Jan 13 - 02:55 PM Being a Liberal--and proudly so--I may change my opinion on an issue in the face of new facts or compelling argument. And so I do that in this thread. I have decided to become homosexual. Here are my reasons: I can revel in the "friendship" people show me on the Internet, on the street, from "ex-gay" counselors, within a whole shitload of court decisions and legislation, and, of course on Mudcat. I can have sex without worrying about pregnancy. I can have sex and enjoy the risk of getting HIV. I can enjoy special treatment when I apply for a job, because most employers prefer to hire gays. I can enjoy special treatment if I go to prison. I can enjoy feeling universally loved wherever I go, because everyone is so friendly to people who "choose" to love someone of their own gender. And so much more... I have "decided" at the age of 30(++) that I will make this change in my life, because to not do so would suggest that I was unable to make correct choices. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM "Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs. He actually sates that is his only concern." Nice try KAoH, But our attention spans are not that short. STIs are not a factor for Lesbians, but Akenaton opposes their marriage because it might lead to divorce or confusion among main stream "Christians." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 08 Jan 13 - 04:00 PM "They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that???? Never mind, I already know.... ..and I already know why you can't admit that." Whatever you're drooling about is a mystery to me, GoofuS. What parents are boring which kids? And what is it that you think you know? (You? Think? Hah!!). And what can't I admit? And why? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: frogprince Date: 08 Jan 13 - 04:37 PM If children are orphaned while too young to fend for themselves, they should be killed and buried with their parents. Much better for them than to be adopted by defective reproductively impaired so-called human beings. Don Firth, do you have children; if not, it is obvious why you would side with other reproductively impaired people over real parents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:23 PM No, froggy, all systems go. Yup! One son. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jan 13 - 10:25 PM Well...tell him the rest.....he asked an honest question with an explanation of trying to understand your position...at least give him the courtesy of giving him the rest of it, so he can make an honest assessment of why you hold your position. Fair enough? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM What rest, GoofuS? What, exactly, are you referring to? (And don't talk to me about courtesy. Since you're the rudest person on Mudcat, you're in no position to talk about "courtesy.") Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 09 Jan 13 - 01:59 AM See? I told you it would be fun when Goofus joined in again! This thread needed lightening up and Goofus manages that with his nonsensical waffle and bullshit. The good professor and I are having a good chuckle aren't we boy? Woof! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: frogprince Date: 09 Jan 13 - 08:29 AM Actually I had heard about your son, but forgot; I know now where gfs is going. He is back to how you should have locked your son's mother in the cellar in order to keep her from separating you from your son during his growing years. Obviously what you haven't mentioned is that your son is gay; that has to be inevitable, since you "abandoned him, and he wasn't raised by his two natural parents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jan 13 - 11:34 AM Now THAT'S a jump! No wonder you are so detached from reality...you make up your own! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 11:56 AM ""Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs. He actually sates that is his only concern."" And when asked what his attitude would be to Lesbian marriages (lesbians being a low health risk group), he replied that there are "other considerations". So my statement would seem to have some basis in fact and it is likely that there will always be ""other considerations"" offering an excuse for discrimination. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 09 Jan 13 - 12:00 PM I noticed in the paper today that UKIP have sacked their youth leader for supporting gay marriage. I suppose that is positive on two fronts. 1. Just in case anybody ever thought they were a political party we can rest assured they are not open to reality after all. 2. Younger people can't see the fuss in general. Not even those previously swayed by a closet racist gang masquerading as a political party. Still, so long as we know why some people support bigotry. They are told to it seems. Is that better or worse than a bigot by choice? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 12:02 PM ""There are about 500 AIDS deaths every year in UK."" And how many deaths among the hetero population of Africa, where some 40% are HIV positive. I don't hear Ake expressing any concern, or objections to them marrying. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 12:09 PM ""Back to you!..You're the know nothing twerp for interpreting that so stupidly."" Twit! There are two reasons why children are up for adoption. 1. The parents are deceased. 2. The parents don't want them. In the first case, even you, with your airy fairy spirituality, would be hard put to achieve a result. In the second case, a loving, caring, relationship is, by definition extremely unlikely. I'd rather see a child parented by two gays, male or female, who would love him/her, thanm forced upon biological parents who don't want to know. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jan 13 - 01:59 PM You STILL don't 'get it'..and YOU'RE still a moronic twerp! Of course there are legitimate reasons that children go up for adoption, one, of course being death of the parents...though that is a miniscule reason, by the numbers..the other is that the parents don't want them....don't you think that parents giving up their children because they are selfish pieces of shit, and 'don't want them' should NOT be promoted, and that some effort(at least) should be given to promote parents having children to get their act together...and not make 'adoption'(which is a good thing, but also often abused), just a convenient trash can for unwanted kids??? Yes, those who adopt, are far better, (in theory) than those who just abandon their kids with no thought, other than how they are going to 'make it' at their next self indulgence(and avoiding child support, of course)...whether it be their careers, schooling, another lover, an addiction or just being a fucking flake. I have a hard time finding 'respect' for those parents who just blow off their kids for selfish bullshit...and you know what is really tragic..and speaks to how fucked up our society has become??...there are just too many of them!! Now if you stayed with your kids and raised them, I'm sure you can agree with that...then again, if you were an asshole, selfish pig and correctly thought you were a worthless human to even want to attempt at raising your own kids....you will probably be inclined to 'defend' abandoning them...for ANY reason! Once you have kids, life's road is layed out for you..either as a mother or father...and just giving up on your kids, and blowing it off, is a DEFINITE sign of a worthless piece of pig vomit. I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!! GfS P.S. Defenders???? (..Like they have a good enough reason) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jan 13 - 02:03 PM DonT: "In the second case, a loving, caring, relationship is, by definition extremely unlikely." They should have thought of that before she spread her legs, or he bullshitted her into fucking her.....but, instead of taking a stance on that..let's promote readily available trash cans for the 'inconvenience' as the result of their irresponsibility!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM That's pretty much it, frogprince. But my son did not grow up to be gay. He's a flaming heterosexual, as I am. He did grow up in a real family. His mother married (be it know that I offered marriage, but her circumstances were such that she refused, so it wasn't a matter of me being unwilling to do the honorable thing, as Goofus would have you believe), and my son had a father, mother, and siblings. Then, finally, his mother told him, when he was twenty-one, who his real father was, and he wanted to see me. But he got shipped off to college in Ottawa where he picked up a degree in Philosophy. When he got back to Vancouver and was living on his own, he phoned me. We had a long chat on the phone and he came down (south) to Seattle and stayed with us for a time. Barbara said that when she picked him up at the train station, she had no problem recognizing that tall, young man as my son. The resemblance is rather striking. Other than teaching, you can't do much with a degree in Philosophy, so when Hollywood started making movies in Canada (because it was less expensive to film there than in Hollywood, for some strange reason), he worked as a grip on several movies. Concurrently, he has written a screenplay about the lost Franklin expedition in Canada. Hasn't done anything with it yet, but I'm encouraging him to do so. Not only historical, but highly entertaining. Far from being gay, when he was at the university in Ottawa, he met a bright young woman there, and after he (his mother named him "Don" for some strange reason!) and I spent some time together, he returned to Ottawa, and he and Shannon are working together on ecological issues under contract to the Government of Canada. The two of them will be moving out to Victoria, B.C. within the next few months to live there and set up their business operation there. Partly, he said, because they are tired of Ottawa winters, and to be where we can visit frequently (a pleasant ferry ride between Victoria and Seattle). The move won't disrupt their business because they telecommute, so it doesn't really matter to the Canadian government where they work from. In fact, Don and Shannon spent two weeks in Hawaii a couple of years ago, and since the work got done, the Canadian gummint didn't even know they weren't in Ottawa. Barbara and I are looking forward to seeing a lot of them in a few months. And no, Goofus, my son is NOT gay. Don Firth P. S. By the way, Goofus, since YOU brought it up, what the hell does THIS have to do with the subject of this thread? Or has your position become so untenable that you're flailing around trying to distract people and divert them from the fact that you're way out of the realms of reality on this matter? Well, perhaps it has THIS to do with the subject: I theorize that it is quite possible that your homophobia is brought on by fear. You said, in the Prop 8 thread (and if you deny it, I will link to the post so that everyone here can read it for themselves) that your father, after siring several children including you, "decided" he wanted to be gay, and deserted the family to grow up on their own when he ran off with another man. So if same-sex orientation is genetic, this could mean that YOU are carrying the gene—and you're fighting like crazy to stay in the closet to yourself! Hence, your frantic insistence that homosexuality is NOT genetic, that it's a matter of choice. And you're doing your damnedest to chose NOT to be gay. And you're scared! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Jan 13 - 03:06 PM Do you folks ever read what you write? Don..read through your post and count the number of times you deliberately insult sanity....and you are not the worst offender. there really is little point in trying to discuss issues if all this personal stuff is going on. As Keith says why dont you just confine yourself to addressing the points made. One GOOD thing about these threads is that anyone reading them can get a view of both sides of the argument. I'm pleased about that, because the pro's have only one argument "equality" the great myth, whereas the anti's have several, secular and religious, societal and health related. Someone above said that Baldwin's depiction of male homosexuality could be discounted, as homosexuality has become more accepted by society and can be practiced more openly......well this openess and acceptibility has produce worse than ever health figures in all STDs especially hiv; so it seems that "cold anonymous risky sex" is still endemic to male homosexual practice. "More an addiction than an orientation" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM ""I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!"" Quite right Goofie! As the father of two much loved children and the five grandchildren with which they have brightened my existence, I too have a complete lack of respect for that type of worthless human. Almost as much lack of respect as I have for a dumb shit who suggests that their kids would have a great life if their errant parents were coerced into coping with the responsibility they ran away from in the first place. You can promote all you bloody like, providing you are willing pick up the pieces when those kids come back and tell you what particular hell on earth you condemned them to. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:44 PM ""As Keith says why dont you just confine yourself to addressing the points made."" You mean keep to the issues as did the perpetrator of the following: ""If the complete absence of your signs, and the complete absence of a single person who knows where one is to be found is not sufficient evidence, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT? You can post out of date links and call it evidence, BUT THERE ARE NO FUCKING SIGNS HERE YOU TWAT!"" Now who could that have been? OH YES! Now I remember.........IT WAS KEITH! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:50 PM ""Someone above said that Baldwin's depiction of male homosexuality could be discounted, as homosexuality has become more accepted by society and can be practiced more openly......well this openess and acceptibility has produce worse than ever health figures in all STDs especially hiv; so it seems that "cold anonymous risky sex" is still endemic to male homosexual practice. "More an addiction than an orientation""" If you are going to quote me then do so honestly, assuming that you can remember the meaning of the word. ""Baldwin wrote "Another Country" in 1962, while decriminalisation of homosexuality didn't occur until July 1967. So Baldwin was describing the situation while Gay men were forced to pursue furtive liaisons in toilets and back alleys, and any long lasting relationship inevitably led to discovery and jail. Nice try Ake, but no coconut! Don T."" Now the whole forum can see just how deviously you try to change the meanings of posts to which you have NO ANSWER! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM Ake, you will notice (or perhaps YOU won't) that GoofuS has been insulting and denigrating me from the start, and he went so far as to dig into old threads and drag up a somewhat painful incident from my past in order to wave it around and claim that I shirked my duty as a father. That is a lie! He doesn't know the full circumstances and he attempted to put the worst possible interpretation on it. It is extremely unfortunate when people feel impelled to do this (as an alternative to arguing FACTS), but GoofuS made allegations about me in an effort to insult me, and to attempt to undercut my credibility. And I am not going to let that sort of thing pass!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:01 PM Do feel free though, to try to explain just how you extrapolated from evidence printed in 1962, to reach the conclusion that because Gays were forced underground then, they will not have changed their attitude toward long term commitment NOW, when their relationships are legal. I am assuming that, if you had any hard evidence of current rampant promiscuity, you wouldn't have relied on fifty year old anecdotal evidence from one author, but instead would have produced up to date data. Very shoddy debating from one who prides himself on being logical. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:10 PM Sorry Jack, I missed your earlier posts. Let me reiterate. I am against homosexual "marriage"....i am not alone in this strange opinion, in my area a very large majority would support my opinion. In my country, the biggest survey(consultation) resulted in 30+% for....60+% against. The survey(consultation) was conducted by the Scottish govt. My chief reason for opposition is the health statistics pertaining to male homosexuality and I believe that the proposed legislation amounts to the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy. I do not believe that male to male sex is safe and healthy and should not be promoted as such. Homosexual "marriage" or civil union, where they have been instigated have had no appreciative affect on infection rates. I am also against homosexual "marriage", because I believe that heterosexual marriage is in general much the better template to raise children and form an extended family structure.....homosexual unions are completely different in that respect...the short duration of these unions on average and the lack of children would make the stability required, very hard to achieve. So I would be against homosexual marriage for both genders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM Don...I was not "quoting"you, I'm not nearly angry enough for that...neither am i able to do all the exclamation marks, black text, or puffs of steam required :0) I was simply paraphrasing your words so that your meaning might be more clear to our avid readers. If I have you all wrong, feel free to put me to rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:28 PM Let me reiterate. I am against homosexual "marriage"....i am not alone in this strange opinion, in my area a very large majority would support my opinion. In my country, the biggest survey(consultation) resulted in 30+% for....60+% against. The survey(consultation) was conducted by the Scottish govt. Yes, LET you reiterate. You think, like most other morons, that repeated reiteration will somehow make a lie more true. I refuted this days and days ago, yet you think, by raising it again days later, we will have forgotten. Well I for one have not forgotten. The results of your precious Scottish "consultation" included a ton of "votes" gleaned from petitions which were organised for the sole purpose of skewing the result and from a mass campaign of standardised postcard voting, both of them tactics organised by the "anti" side only. Remove these from consideration and you get precisely the same result as you get from HONEST polls carried out from the rest of the UK, which show, broadly, that there is an overwhelming majority of around two to one in favour of gay marriage. Doubtless you will now ignore this inconvenience, wait for another week or so and peddle the same lie again. Well good for you. I'm waiting, moron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:40 PM Sorry GUEST(Don)? I have no knowlege of the subject to which you refer. Would it not be better just to stop all the nasty stuff regardless of who started it? Name calling is very unseemly for grown ups and gives a bad impression of anyone who indulges in it. Its getting worse on this thread....now most of the posts just consist of a heap of abuse.Its hardly worth responding at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:51 PM Well a couple of us certainly think it's worth responding to you when you deliberately perpetrate lies. Not only that, you insult us by perpetrating the same lies that we have already roundly refuted and which you think we might have forgotten about. If you don't want to be called names, don't insult us with lies, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:54 PM Moron??? Typical example Don. The Scottish consultation contained representations from interested groups, which included religious groups, LGTB groups civil/human rights groups etc. It is the most representative survey of opinion that we have had so far. Scotland has historically been a rather socially conservative nation, so I would presume that a referrendum on the issue would produce an even larger majority against. Steven is again indulging in wishful thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:59 PM No, Ake, it would not. GoofuS is telling lies about me and I am explaining, briefly, what the truth is, not just to refute GoofuS, but in my own defense. He accused me in open thread of irresponsibly abandoning my son in order to discredit me as a human being. I set the record straight. Would you not do the same? GoofuS delights in hitting below the belt. In more ways than one. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jan 13 - 08:03 PM It is not representative at all, liar. It's fine to organise postcard voting. It's fine to organise mass petitions. I've been involved in both myself many times. Nothing wrong with it at all. But it is not fine to extrapolate from the results that two-thirds of Scotland is opposed to gay marriage. That is simply untrue. The only fair guide we could have for finding out is a neutral, unforced poll, innocent of leading questions, of a large and representative sample of the Scottish people. That has not been done. A poor second would be the result of your precious "survey", once it's been shorn of its pressure-group votes. And that gives a result consistent with the rest of the UK, two to one in favour of gay marriage. I'm really sorry that you find facts so inconvenient. The rest of us try to cope with them as best we can. |