 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:55 AM Yeah, we did. Although not a church you peasant. A cathedral. But they wouldn't do it. Yes I did have my children christened. I have been married in a church for that matter. What has that to do with superstition? Do you think Morris dancers genuinely believe they will achieve a better harvest? Do you think I lit a bonfire every year to celebrate thwarting a catholic coup? Some of round here love tradition. I would have loved the cathedral that Mrs Musket rang at from being a child to moving to university to have returned the favour but they didn't, so like I said.. No contest. By the way, not accepting the rights of others is bigotry. Full stop. (Applies also to churches if they want normal people to carry on the tradition of church weddings. Do you really think attendees at weddings, funerals and christenings actually listen to or believe the nonsense in prayers? Perhaps they should. They might notice how irrelevant it all is, as many have already when hearing the marriage and female bishops debates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:54 AM "participate in a marriage contract" I find this phrase very telling... mainly because it relates to the legal requirements and obligations of the involved parties... that have been further "refined" with pre-nuptual agreements... in the not so long ago past, it was not just religious bans that needed to be read, but the parents/guardians arranged said marriage and for aristicracy, royal approval may have also been required. Marriage for "love", while not unheard of, was socially disruptive to the "normal course of behavior"... the US Supreme Court decision is merely one step towards providing equal treatment under the law... no more no less... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:29 AM Guest-one-note didn't read that article closely. The lesbian mayor of Houston thought the original subpoena was too over-reaching and asked them to back off the extent of what they were asking for. Shouting that it is time to tear down the churches sounds suspiciously like one of our trolls trying to arm in another front in this argument. Marriage is a contract that can be transacted in church or by the government. Churches with retrograde views of humanity will continue to deny their sect's sanction of gay marriage, but there should be no reason for municipal and above entities to deny it. This doesn't need to be a battle against the churches, it needs to be a considered approach to getting the local governmental bodies to climb on board the band wagon that says everyone is entitled to participate in a marriage contract. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:24 AM "The main difference between our hotel and a church were a bar, reception facilities that you could actually use for an occasion and no silly mumbo jumbo based on fantasy. No contest." Funny. You have told us how you tried to have a church wedding and how angry you were at being refused. Where were your kids christened Musket? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:20 AM Sewell is just an example of a normal and intelligent person who does not yet accept SSM. There are many such apart from bigots, who probably do not care anyway. Of course marriage is much older than Christianity, and it has always been between man and woman until now. Society's mores are always but slowly changing. They never have and never will change for everyone on the same day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:13 AM Religion fucks you up. Brian Sewell may be fucked up, or he may be up to his usual controversy for self publicity games. The arts world is used to it. Regardless, he is entitled to his opinion, but it is just that. The man who says bombing northern working class towns would be a blessing isn't exactly saying the same as Betjeman did about Slough. I didn't detect any irony anyway. But like I said, he has an opinion. I'd value his opinion on some paintings I bought over the years but I doubt I'd ask him anything as a typical anything other than art critic. His opinion on his sexuality? He certainly demonstrates how low acceptance by society affected his well being. If we didn't have views like Akenaton's and apologists for them such as Keith, Sewell wouldn't have to have had his experience and made his choices. Its this stupidity that marriage is something to do with superstition that gets me. As sciencegeek points out, multiple wives as objects, akin to slavery and rape are also historical forms of marriage. In the name of the god construct for that matter.. I'm married, but it has nothing to do with christianity or any other nonsense. It is, as it always been, a commitment by two people. Churches don't even marry people, they carry it out on behalf of the registrar down at the local council, (UK.). Just like the big dipper at Blackpool. That does marriages too. As did the hotel we were married in. The main difference between our hotel and a church were a bar, reception facilities that you could actually use for an occasion and no silly mumbo jumbo based on fantasy. No contest. Two vicars, an Imam and a smattering of religious friends and family enjoyed it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:46 AM There seems to be some confusion with the term "marriage". While the term may have had a historic religious origin, likely not Christian, it has evolved into a legal term and concept in government institutions. In this discussion, it should not be confused with a "church sanctified marriage" . From what I see, no government is suggesting that any religious group would be required to open up their marriage ceremonies to gays. What is being refused in some locals is to be considered married, under tgese givernment statutes and institutions. My read of Brian Sewells marriage comments, IMO, they mostly reflect his lifelong confused relationship with the RC church (he has split with it because if his homosexuality, though indicates he remains a RC agnostic). He has said he feels personal guilt related to the RC church and his homosexualty. In one phase his life, as a homosexual, he attempted to remain celibate while a member of the RC church to remin true to the doctrine, but later abandoned it and left the church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:06 AM marriage is a term applied to whatever is acceptable within a culture/society to define relationships and rules of inheritance. Since human males do not have the ability to carry an embryo/fetus to term, a major focus was placed upon control of females in order to identify/confirm paternity. As for forms of marriage... in the Judeo-christian tradition we have references to multiple wives, harems and assorted concubines. All of whom seem to be regarded as possessions of the male figure. And shall we investigate common law marriages? It's a term with multiple meanings and nothing more, except in relation to emotions and legal definitions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:00 AM What do you mean "I see nothing about relative gender"? That has been integral for thousands of years, and getting everyone to see it differently will take time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 16 Oct 14 - 08:37 AM Marriage is a bond between two people in love who wish to try to bond for life if possible. I see nothing about relative gender. It may be that people, myself included, don't see the attraction in people of my gender at that level of sharing, but that is very very different to seeing merit in restricting the rights of others for something they have access to as a right. How many more interpretations of "bigot" do you need? How about defending bigotry whilst expressing rank hypocrisy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 08:29 AM Brian Sewell is a normal, respectable person. Views are changing, but not everyone changes their view at once. People who have yet to see it as we do are not all bigots. Marriage as a bond between man and woman has endured for millennia and it will take time for a complete paradigm shift to occur, as it did with female suffrage for instance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 16 Oct 14 - 08:02 AM It's off everything. He waded in with his discredited take on sex in order to make me look bad Considering my many posts on this thread decrying bringing it up at all, his approach is all the more at the level of Akenaton's credibility. Hey Keith! All these respectable people as you call them who oppose marriage as a right of all. Is it based on irrational hatred, organised bigotry or personality disorder? What is your basis for calling them respectful or normal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 07:39 AM Ok, KA of H. it just seemed to be off topic and I was curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 07:29 AM I have not. I was just correcting what M said about me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 07:27 AM Keith A of H: Exactly what is your purpose in continuing to bring up HIV rates in one Global country, the UK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 07:23 AM Musket, it was the PHE annual report on HIV in UK. They are the definitive figures. What could you under any identity put up against them? (Just a few weeks to the next report) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:48 AM A RCc school perspective on the report on teaching on gays where these schools exist. One interesting comment, in the discussion section: ""The Catholic supporters argue that we should praise the RCC for evolving it's ideology all the way up to the 19th century. Irrelevant. It will always be a dragging a couple of centuries behind."" However, it does seem the church could be more progressive than a few on here, not once blaming gays for the HIV epidemic, and classifying the community as being in the "disgusting" catagory. gays and catholic schools |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:11 AM Yawn. 😲 Stop making things up Keith. There's a good chap. A link to a study paper exploring aspects of what historical data tells us and a link to an annual report crammed full of data and commentary on all aspects of public health and how we use such epidemiology, which you failed to make any point from, doesn't make you look good. In fact, coupled with your defence of bigots, it makes me wonder if you have no shame after all. After all, linking marriage to disease statistics is precisely what sickens many on here judging by posts. Give it up whilst people quietly forget your unfortunate stance eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 05:26 AM "The data Keith and Akenaton referred to, but portrayed accurately by him.)" No. I copied in data from PHE and linked to their annual report. No one produced anything to challenge it because those are the definitive figures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 14 - 10:21 PM I'm talking about the mayor o Houston. It's about time they got a gay one. Now they'll get a taste of whats it like being repressed. She's a woman too. It's about time. Tear those christian churches down. Burn their dam sermons. All that shit has to go throu her now. Burn the dam things. Hateful Christians. Finally now we get to be on top. & fuck that tax shit. Just shut the doors. We got the power now. Shut down those churches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 14 - 10:06 PM You KNOW they aren't going to tear any churches down. Why not just look for signs of progress within the structure? This pope has done about 3 centuries of change in a couple of years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 14 - 09:52 PM Christians repress homosexual women. Its about time they got theirs. Tear those churches down! Go girl! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 15 Oct 14 - 08:17 PM From a recent RC working document, could this Pope obtain change? "Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?" Could there be change in the RC church? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:50 PM Preaching about political topics is crossing the line in the separation of church and state issue. If they are churches they should not be working to influence political decisions. Your summation of the article was sketchy - here is the important kernel: the city believes they played an important part in the case. Further down is this tidbit: Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance, has often spoken out in support of LGBT rights. However, he said Houston's subpoenas would have a "dangerous, chilling effect." Whether he agrees with their politics or not, if they are lobbying for political change, they should start paying taxes, they are now lobbying, not keeping their activity to the spiritual lives of their parishioners. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM Some Houston pastors are being forced to hand their sermons over to the city -- and they're not happy about the government reading over their shoulders. Houston has asked five local conservative pastors to turn over sermons about a controversial new city ordinance that bans discrimination against LGBT people. The original subpoenas demanded to see any preaching related to homosexuality and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/houston-pastor-sermon_n_5992044.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics Alright! You go girl! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 15 Oct 14 - 05:49 PM ""I would like YOUR explanation of the horrific sexual infection figures which affect MSM. Or is it just "none of our business"?"" Idea: Why not open your own thread on your topic, rather than attempting to have your way by hijacking this oneto promoting your obsession. Your topic has been "discussed to death" on mudcat and elsewhere, and I supect few have much interest in your anti-gay propoganda- regardless of how deviously you try and disguise it as "caring interest in the plight of the global gay community" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 14 - 03:14 PM "It is also my opinion that most people find the practice disgusting." Oh...now it is your 'opinion'... and is "most people" more or less than "vast majority"? Your opinion is simply misguided. You have no idea what "most people" think. I believe the idea that "most people" think how YOU think is called 'projection'...something like that. And Musket is quite right... we ought to confine this to marriage. The legal and ethical issues go far beyond simple cultural norms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 15 Oct 14 - 01:45 PM From what we read, his mouth might be more usefully employed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Oct 14 - 01:37 PM The human body isn't constructed for it? You jest! You can report that YOU find it disgusting. You can't speak for other people unless you ask them all and they tell you and agree that you can speak for them. I don't find it disgusting - I simply don't care one way or the other what couples choose to do behind closed doors. The fact that I'm not personally interested in it doesn't mean I'm going to dictate to anyone else what they can or can't do. Anal sex for dummies. There are many things that humans do that are unsafe. Risky behavior isn't limited to sex - in all of its many forms and orifices. UNPROTECTED SEX of any sort is risky behavior. I haven't read this thread all of the way through. Has anyone protested the old fashioned blow job? Does that also disgust you, Ake? Is the mouth really only for breathing, drinking, eating, and speaking? Would you object to gay marriage if they all promised to practice only oral sex? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 15 Oct 14 - 01:16 PM SRS...What I did say is that AI is dangerous, that cannot be denied. It is also my opinion that most people find the practice disgusting. The human body is not constructed for AI. For the rest of you, just for once, I would like YOUR explanation of the horrific sexual infection figures which affect MSM. Or is it just "none of our business"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 15 Oct 14 - 01:05 PM Akenaton wrote; (in mentioning a Mudcat member who we haven't seen for a while.) "he is not only a liar, but also a coward and certainly not fit to be a doctor. His disappearance had nothing to do with Mudcat moderation, and everything to do with imminent libel proceedings." Actually, if you have grounds to say he is not fit to be a doctor, you have to report your evidence to The General Medical Council. He wouldn't take you for libel though, it's defamation of character he could proceed with. I doubt he would get far, because the test would be how credible you are, and it is quite clear that your confusions and opinions on sexual health are not capable of convincing a single person, so there would be doubt as to whether anybody was swayed by such tosh. I recall he was quoting the real facts on the subject, they certainly concur with the data I had access to at the time. (The data Keith and Akenaton referred to, but portrayed accurately by him.) Regarding the thread in general, SRS and I have made the same point, that sex is irrelevant in a thread about marriage anyway. Perhaps we are feeding the hate monger by discussing the subject. it would be far better to stick to discussing whether marriage is something for all to enjoy or whether we are comfortable with bigotry and a sub human class, as Akenaton and the more sinister and disgraceful people spouting religious reasons seem to think is acceptable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 14 - 11:44 AM I went to a podiatrist yesterday for an opinion on a tender spot right behind my left small toe.... it hurt when I walked barefoot on a hard surface. He looked...said it was nothing but reduced padding due to age, and advised me that it was like beating your head on a wall... if it hurts, and you don't like it, and feels better when you stop, don't do it! You, Ake, don't have to like anything you don't care for... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Wesley S Date: 15 Oct 14 - 11:39 AM "Anal sex is dangerous and disgusting to the vast majority of people." By all means let's legislate against anything we think is disgusting to us. I for one can't stand seafood. Esp clams and oysters. Just the sight of them makes me ill. And improperly cooked they can cause illness and death. Dangerous AND disgusting. So let's deny civil rights to all of those misguided people who go to Red Lobster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Oct 14 - 11:08 AM Anal sex is dangerous and disgusting to the vast majority of people. Ake, you are speaking for a lot of people who you know nothing about. I wouldn't care to make any such characterization, especially when I have read on more than one occasion that those participating in anal sex are more likely to be heterosexual couples, not gay partners. Some years ago I attended a liberal arts symposium to do with women's sexuality and the arts, and one of the lectures was a frank discussion of anatomy regarding arousal. Here is your factoid of the day: The anatomy of the clitoris is not just the little bud you may know about, it is a Y-shaped organ that wraps around the uro-genital area and beyond the anus. Male erectile tissue has a cognate, extended into the core of the body adjacent to the anus. You may not LIKE it but that area is highly sensitive to stimulation and is used accordingly. This, of course, has nothing to do with gay marriage. But for you to characterize gay sex as only anal sex or straight sex as only vaginal is simply wrong, and for you to characterize anal sex as "repulsive" to most people is also wrong. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to who in any given area thinks it is or isn't okay, and the flip side applies - you can speak for yourself, but for no one else. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 14 - 11:04 AM The basic point from my knowledge and from Ed's link...etc., is that Ake's statement of what "the vast majority of people" do & think is pure wishful thinking. I would call his reasoning "half-vast". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 15 Oct 14 - 08:40 AM you do not need to work in a bookstore of any kind to get a feel for what interests are out there. Specifically, the are fan fiction sites that host stories written by members/public generally using pre-established characters and scenerios from movies, books, anime, television. They have a rating system that includes a category referred to as slash - sex of the non-heterosexual variety. I found myself astonished at the number of women of all ages who write slash stories. It's Ake's worst nightmare. And not all that easy to find interesting stories that do not include slash relationships. While an obsession I do not share, I can confirm that it is out there and going strong. And I would be remiss to neglect to state that in many cases, the authors profess themselves to be in happy heterosexual relationships and/or marriage. It would appear to be a bit of a seesaw situation... intense attraction vs. equally intense aversion. I find it is not to my taste for a variety of reasons, but can not imagine any case where my opinion could be used as justification to deny the "benefit" of marriage to any couple that desires to marry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 15 Oct 14 - 07:29 AM In a country of 5.3 million about 4500 people are currently living with HIV. Big fucking epidemic. If our resident humanitarian really cared about the health and welfare of his countrymen he'd be rattling on about other, far more serious behavior-related health problems like obesity, alcoholism and smoking but he's not because he's a disgusting, bigoted homophobe who gets a pass from a few around here due to the kindly, avuncular manner he puts forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 15 Oct 14 - 07:01 AM Oops, excuse tge typos in my last post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:59 AM Your book storec experience seems to be reinfirced by stats BillD. There is information that anal sex is growing in popularity among youth, a group deemed most vulnerable to HIV infection. Male female anal sex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: sciencegeek Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:52 AM one thing that I've noticed homophobia is the vehemence displayed... it's like pushing a person's button and getting a conditioned response. Ake seems to gloss over lesbians and focuses his attention on gay men... more specifically, on the possibility of anal sex. Might this be the real issue for him? My question to him and others is how can any one possibly equate banning marriage for homosexual people as a means of preventing anal sex? Or think that marriage somehow sanctions it... But then again, phobia is an unreasoning fear of something... and we can easily see the unreasoning aspect for ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:35 AM Keith A of H: The truth is the statistics vary country by country,(even in the west) where differences in populations, demographics, population mixes, discrimination laws and prevention approaches differ. In is a Global disease, and, as such, one (note one person in particular) can manipulate the statistics to paint just about any picture one wants. That is why "cherry picking" information through a propaganda attempt to demonize one group or sexual practice leads nowhere. My preferred approach is to pay attention to the experts, who deal with the issues and those impacted directly. Stigmatizing any group is pointless, as is discrimination. It drive people away from education, prevention and treatment, versus helping them avoid this disease, live better with it, and reducing the spread. Thats why accepting gays into the mainstream community is important, versus Ake and others frequent attempts to isolate and demonize them. Legaluzing gay marriage is one of the small steps, though not a total solution by any means. BTW, have you noticed Akes attempt to hijack this thread and convert it into a anti-Gay-HIV discussion-one that has been extaustively discussed on this site before? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:33 AM Keith, I wasn't suggesting that AI was the only cause of the STD epidemic amongst MSM, I'm sure behaviour patterns have as much of a detrimental effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:11 AM Ed, that is understood but it does not apply in Western countries. Ake is entitled to his opinion on AI, but I too think he is wrong. Others behaviours must be the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 15 Oct 14 - 06:00 AM From Ian. "Best bit was when a registrar doctor with an interest in folk music who happened to be doing a placement in sexual health waded into the debate, he was a liar too apparently 🙀 We haven't heard from him in a long time on any subject. He told me there is little point where moderation can be misguided." This is the person...a who tried to smear me as an abuser of animals. When challenged to produce one piece of evidence to prove his charge, he disappeared. If he actually exists, which I doubt, he is not only a liar, but also a coward and certainly not fit to be a doctor. His disappearance had nothing to do with Mudcat moderation, and everything to do with imminent libel proceedings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 15 Oct 14 - 05:52 AM ""Worldwide, the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through sex between men and women, and roughly half of all adults living with HIV are women. "" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Oct 14 - 05:44 AM " The word you're struggling to get to is "screened" " Steve, is that compulsory screening? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Oct 14 - 05:38 AM "The last time I tried to put forward the statistical evidence base that informs commissioning of sexual health services here in The UK, the bigotry team united to call me a liar. " ThAt would be the PHE figures which actually Ake and I posted, and you challenged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 15 Oct 14 - 04:09 AM Anal sex is dangerous and disgusting to the vast majority of people. Guest back at you, "HIV rates are falling worldwide"....except in the MSM demographic, where they continue to rise steadily. Infection rates for most Western countries can be obtained from unaids. If you cannot find them,please post back and I will supply them for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 15 Oct 14 - 03:46 AM On a lighter note Akenaton wrote Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton - PM Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:58 PM Bill do you really think that any more than a tiny minority of women enjoy or allow anal sex? Most women are either forced or bribed into this. I have lived a long time and have never heard any woman admit to enjoying this practice. I think that's brave. Most men wouldn't own up to not being able to satisfy their sexual partners. 😹 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 15 Oct 14 - 03:30 AM The last time I tried to put forward the statistical evidence base that informs commissioning of sexual health services here in The UK, the bigotry team united to call me a liar. A bit rich considering my role in teaching health improvement, not to mention chairing a health authority and PCT and then regulating healthcare. I possibly know more about the subject than other BS topics, but the sad thing is of course, debating sexual health in the same debate as gay equality is illogical in the first place unless you enjoy twisting figures to support hatred. Best bit was when a registrar doctor with an interest in folk music who happened to be doing a placement in sexual health waded into the debate, he was a liar too apparently 🙀 We haven't heard from him in a long time on any subject. He told me there is little point where moderation can be misguided. I have been berated for my attitude towards the more nasty elements of Mudcat, of whom there are very very few, but you know what? I don't regret a single comment I have made about their disgusting diatribe. Not a single word. |