BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision

Subject: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:20 PM

OK - another popcorn thread:

Story here

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for legal same-sex marriages in five more states.

The court refused to hear cases from the states -- Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana -- seeking to keep their same-sex marriage bans in place.

Couples in some of those states began applying for marriage licenses just hours after the Supreme Court's decision.
CNN affiliate WVEC in Norfolk, Virginia, talked to a same-sex couple who rushed to fill out their marriage license documents. Officials in Virginia began issuing same-sex marriage licenses at 1 p.m. Monday. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said all of the state's 54 county clerks must start issuing same-sex marriage licenses. A similar order could be issued by day's end for Indiana and Wisconsin.
"Supreme Court" trended on Twitter with dozens of people weighing in -- and trying to figure out exactly what the high court's move meant.

Experts say its refusal to hear the cases from those five states also means that six more states -- West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming -- could soon have to lift their bans on same-sex marriage, because they are covered by the same circuit appeals courts that initially struck down the prohibitions.

Once that happens, the number of states permitting same-sex marriage would jump from 19 to 30.
At issue is whether gay and lesbian couples in all 50 states have the same equal protection or due process right to marry that opposite-sex couples have.

In Utah, just hours after word from the high court came down, Gov. Gary Herbert said at a press conference that he felt "surprised" and "disappointed" that there was no "finality" on the issue of same-sex marriage. The state would comply with Monday's order, he said, and same-sex marriages would move forward.

"Regardless of your personal beliefs," he urged, "... please treat each other with respect and with kindness as we transition through this new law."

The court's action does not mean there won't eventually be a final ruling on the constitutional questions -- many court observers fully expect a landmark decision in the next year or two -- but it does signal the justices are not ready to jump into the politically charged debate right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:32 PM

Judging by another thread, this just shows that the "our system could never see it happen" applied to gun control is all bollocks, as gay marriage shows what you can do if you really try.

A very heartening story, and a step on the direction of equality for all in The USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:52 PM

Clarence Thomas & Scalia must have fallen & hit their heads. However, for whatever useful received, give thanks.

As Chief Dan George told us: "Sometimes, the magic works!"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 04:03 PM

or maybe they are hoping for a Republican administration that will fill future vacancies with more reactionaries...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 05:55 PM

Yay!   They are basically saying It's not an issue any more!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:35 PM

Good news and more states on the horizon. The 'solid South" still holds out, but they must feel the pressure.


-------------------

"applied to gun control is all bollocks, as gay marriage shows what you can do if you really try."

Except that marriage rights have no specific mention in the Constitution... whereas another well-known document says something about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:56 PM

...and then goes on about responsibilies but nobody ever quotes that part...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 12:00 AM

From the Declaration of Independence, which we do not swear to abide by, right?

…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 01:55 AM

I know. That sentence is rarely mentioned. It is a significant statement. Maybe its ultimate meaning will someday be ruled upon by the SCOTUS. In the meantime it seems few people are interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 03:22 AM

If you need a gun in your pocket where most of us have a dick instead, it would seem the pursuit of happiness is itself subjective...

It does seem odd that friends we ski with, now a married couple, check the local state situation before travelling to The Rockies. Sadly, Jackson Hole is out after an embarrassing "next of kin" debate at a health centre in Jackson after Paul broke his wrist. Their legal partnership, whilst it turns out should have been recognised wasn't. Insult to injury being both nurses quoting Jesus at him. Him being a lay preacher by the way.....

I can't understand his stance for that matter. He's still a lay preacher. I used to like drinking in The Mangy Moose. Moose drool is not bad for American beer. (Best compliment I offer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:36 PM

as the declaration speaks of the right and responsibility of the people of the states to change or alter governments which are not in accord with "the laws of nature and natures God " they might be "impelled" to a separation from such gvt.
not sure that compelling the dissenting states to conform to central gvt directive is an example of the above, but should enough americans have sufficient biblical values left, such as held by the founding fathers, they have the option of changing the administration next time round.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:53 PM

Meanwhile, described as having "deer in the headlights" looks, Kansas is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples... saying that the SC hasn't actually struck down their constitutional amendment.

And they're right, it wasn't the SC that struck it down, but down it has been struck nonetheless, so, we'll see...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM

but should enough americans have sufficient biblical values left, such as held by the founding fathers, they have the option of changing the administration next time round

You mean should enough idiotic fundgelical bigots like yourself?

Piss off, pete. Crawl back under the primordial rock you crawled out from under - whether it as 6000 or 6 million years old - makes no difference. Time your kind was recognised for the threat to hunmanity they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:29 PM

Aw, and there I was thinking it was all about the happiness of pursuit, preferably armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:33 PM

"but should enough americans have sufficient biblical values left, such as held by the founding fathers, they have the option of changing the administration next time round. "

I saw the same lines Greg did, but I'll just say that in spite of the 'biblical values' held by many back then, they also prohibited 'establishment' of any specific religion, while granting everyone the right to practice one of their choice. It is against our Constitution to change that, NO MATTER WHAT ADMINISTRATION they elect. Do NOT suggest anything remotely like "voting in fundamentalist Christianity" as a ruling principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 10:17 PM

Ah, right up there with Drunks Against Mad Mothers and the Right to Arm Bears.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:41 AM

So what other behaviors should be allowed? Should the supreme court allow pedophilia? Skin color and gender are conditions of birth, but where you stick your wang isn't. It may be a compulsion, but so is binging on your favorite sweet. You control those things.

Don't support lobbies that demand you condone certain behaviors. I see condemnation of Christians in this thread, but Christian behavior is just that, behavior. If you don't support Christian behavior, then how can you support one guy plugging another guy?

These things need to be thought through. Let local jurisdictions set rules for behavior. If you don't like the rules, avoid the jurisdiction. And lay off Christians. Jesus was cool.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:56 AM

When christians start laying off men who lay with men and women who lay with women, I'll start laying off christians.

In the meantime, have you noticed it is the more perverted in society who always get curious about the sexual side of gay marriage? I suppose they must also wonder how their niece and future husband get it up.

Ah, the Christian Wrong. We have them over here as well, don't we pete?

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:05 AM

Jesus may have been cool but those who have taken his message and perverted it to their own ends are definitely not. I am not aware that JC made any comment on homosexuality, but he did say "Judge not that ye may not be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:22 PM

Jesus did not spell it out, but he did affirm the definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his WIFE .

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:30 PM

If a person is Christian and doesn't want to marry someone of the same sex, they shouldn't be required to.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

And ya know what, Jeri? They aren't required to!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:59 PM

Do you hate shirt lifters, fudge packers, uphill gardeners, poofs and queers because Jesus told you to pete?

Tell me. Do you really believe all that shit or is it a convenient way to be a pathetic bigot whilst pretending to have credibility with other deluded filth?

Jesus didn't say that at all so why lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:14 PM

Greg, really?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:32 PM

So far as I know, Jeri- but what the heck? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:01 PM

sorry, gremlins seem to be attacking my computer...

marriage is about society/culture controlling behavior and, as importantly, resources... any intro to sociology or cultural anthropology text will have whole chapters devoted to different ways to determine kinship and who can hook up with who. as the mind boggles... :)

human nature being what it is, there will always be those who shoulder responsibility and those who shirk it... setting up rules helped keep things stable but only up to a point. My viewpoint is that everyone should get a shot at happiness, who am I to try and deny it to anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

What I find bizarre is that it's pretty much the same people who think government is "too bit" and too involved with people's lives who want government to determine who can marry whom. Not too hypocritical, but the fact that stupidity is so popular with right-wing douchebags means that a good percentage of them won't "get it" and the rest will just think either of them will get it, or none will dare say they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:20 PM

pete *******:   "Jesus did not spell it out, but he did affirm the definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his WIFE."

In which Gospel, and in which chapter and verse did Jesus say this, pete? Be specific.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:03 PM

Mark 10:7

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:42 PM

Mark 10:7 – Some early manuscripts do not have "and be united to his wife."   

Or are we accepting only the King James Version? And if so, why that one, when earlier versions are closer to the original language in which the Gospel was written?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:08 PM

Don, has it ever occurred to you that you have to work way too hard to find an argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:20 PM

Jeri, did it ever occur to you that Don is RIGHT?

In which Gospel, and in which chapter and verse did Jesus say this, pete?

I assume you meant this as a joke, or at the least a rhetorical question, Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:21 PM

Matthew 19:5

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:22 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:24 PM

Matthew 19:5 - and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'

I don't see anywhere where the sex of the "wife" is specified. Or, for that matter, the species.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:04 PM

"I don't see anywhere where the sex of the "wife" is specified. Or, for that matter, the species."

LOL. Hard to argue with that logic :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:09 PM

" Let local jurisdictions set rules for behavior."

No... absolutely not. 'Behavior' is very different from laws about public safety or taxes. Opinions that are based in religious tenets or cultural generalities that do not limit your freedoms should never be subject to voting or political whims.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one... if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, fine. It makes no difference whether 'marriage' was usually between a man and a woman. That is not a 'definition', no matter what conservatives would like it to be!
To 'marry' is to unite. It simply formalizes what has for eons been done informally- the sharing of home and responsibilities. NOTHING ABOUT gay marriage interferes with YOUR rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:17 PM

Did it ever occur to me that Don is right? Don asked a question. Are you asking me if he should have asked the question, or what?

I think it's an excuse to start an irrelevant tangential argument. Again. Still. I think there are some sad, lonely people with nothing to do but fight with others on the internet. I hate that they found their way to Mudcat.

Over,
Out.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

I think it's an excuse to start an irrelevant tangential argument.

Hardly tangential, Jeri. It gets right to the idiotic "Christian"[sic] fundagelical heart of the matter.

Are you asking me if he should have asked the question, or what?

I'm asking you why you think Don works "way too hard to find an argument", particularly in this specific case.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 07:31 PM

Why is the criticism of Christians allowed here but not the criticism of gays? Christianity and homosexuality are choices you make, so what's up with the mudcat hatred?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 07:39 PM

marriage is about society/culture controlling behavior
Actually it's about placing a monetary value on access to a twat. Preferably one that is attached to a female capable of breeding.

It really used to be about making babies. But it isn't any more, so let's not insist that it still be, or pretend that it's what it still is.

And anybody who still thinks being gay is a choice has been living under a rock.

Many even argue that children raised in a religion don't get to choose that either.

Mrr

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:17 PM

Guest: "And anybody who still thinks being gay is a choice has been living under a rock."

Exactly so! Although homophobes dig their heels in and deny the findings of science, sexual orientation has been long established as being of genetic and hormonal origin—NOT a matter of choice.

Let me put it this way: If God made a person homosexual, why should he or she be denied the right to marry?

Don Firth

P. S. No work at all, Jeri. This is an old argument that's been going on in the Mudcat B.S. section for years

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:45 PM

So if I choose to screw a light socket, God made me do it? Where you stick your thing is a choice. It may be a compulsion, but it's still a choice. You can control compulsive behavior. Homosexuality is not caused by genetics, no more than you're 'born a Jew'. Judaism is a religion and a choice, not a condition of birth.

Skin color and gender are conditions of birth. Transgender is a condition of birth. But making a choice to screw someone of your own sex is not a condition of birth. It is a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:09 PM

Read a little science, Guest. You're back in the Dark Ages.

If you feel like screwing a light socket, have at it!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:16 PM

Here, let me help:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:33 PM

Why is the criticism of Christians allowed here but not the criticism of gays?

It's not criticism of Christians you are seeing. It is criticism of people, most of whom self-identify as Christians, who want to impose their own moral choices on other people. The fact that they are Christians isn't the problem, and no one has ever said so. What you are seeing is criticism of bigotry. In my opinion, people that are bigoted against gay people and who want to tell other people how to live their lives are not Christians. Calling themselves so is an insult to all of the real Christians I know.

Also, gay people don't try to tell you where to go to church.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:39 PM

Sorry, that last was me. I forgot to sign my name.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:41 PM

Methinks we have at least a couple of people posting as "Guest" with no identifier as to which is which. It would be appreciated if you would sort yourselves out as to which is which.

Or is it one person who is schizophrenic?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:01 PM

Really, what difference does it make what the Bible has to say about marriage, homosexuality, or the price of beans? We live in a country that has a constitution that guarantees us freedom from religion. Anyone in the United States who wants to use their religion to decide a legal question is anti-American.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:01 PM

Cross-posted. Aha! Sorted.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:02 PM

Gays want to impose their moral choices on people too. That's the point here, it's all choice. You're not 'born a Jew', you choose to follow that belief system. The same with Christians. And gays choose to behave in a certain way.

And none of those groups has the right to impose its choices on others. You can't say 'God' in school, but your textbooks tell you about Johnny's two mommies. That's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:21 PM

What does Jesus have to do with how the people of the world form their domestic partnerships?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 10:23 PM

I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are same-sex oriented, and I ("straight" and married--to a woman--for the past 37 years) have never had any of them try to impose their moral choices on me.

It's the "straight" folks--and so-called Christians--who are trying to impose their moral choices on gays.

In what way is what a gay couple get up to in the privacy of their own home imposing their moral choices on you, Guest? Why are you so concerned with what they are up to?   Eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:41 AM

Again, what I find fascinating is that nasty bigots, especially those hiding under a cloak of religion always get around to sex as opposed to marriage when discussing gay people.

Why?

What is the fascination eh?

Ignorance is no excuse for posting hate. Pray tell us how you get it up and the kinky games you and your spouse get up to or keep quiet and remember that this is a thread that celebrates not deplores a legal landmark in a country often bereft of such advances.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 04:39 AM

How the good people of the US construct their legislation is no concern of mine, but the redefinition of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority, is bad for society. As guest has said, it opens a Pandora's box containing incest, group "marriage", open "marriage, and many other types of sexual behaviour which are in the long term destructive to society.

Someone above keeps saying that all opponents of "gay marriage" are obsessed by the sexual aspect, that is ridiculous, as "gays"(homosexuals) are defined by their sexual activity....if it was not for their sexual preference, there would be no need to redefine marriage.

I am opposed to homosexual "marriage", just as I was opposed to the criminalisation of the practice some years ago, there are people who have different sexual preferences, and if they wish to pursue them and both parties or group consent, then they should be allowed to do so, but legislation in favour of such a practice is totally different.

The sexual health figures for male homosexuals in the UK and US are horrific....the latest for new infections of HIV and most other STD's have risen to over 70% of all new infections, this amongst a group who make up only 1.5% of the population.
Why is this the case?....There have been no studies done, but it must have something to do with the nature of homosexuality and until we understand why these figures are so bad, we should be wary of bringing this behaviour into mainstream society through the legislative process.

Additionally, in countries where homosexual "marriage", or civil union has been adopted, it has been found that homosexual attitudes to monogamy in marriage, have in many cases devolved into "open" relationships, where the two original partners have other purely sexual partners, completely destroying the positive aspects of marriage as a vehicle to bring up a family and construct a recognisable society.
The question of children and the best way to bring them up is at the root of this issue, and children have been conveniently forgotten by those who press for this legislation.
Society demands more than individual freedom of expression, it demands responsibility for what we create.

I will have nothing further to say on this matter, insults or trolling will not be responded to ....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:22 AM

Your last comment says it all.

If you are ashamed of what you type, son't type it you disgusting lying bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:43 AM

"you disgusting lying bastard"
.,,.

The usual o-so-absolutely-convincing response to any of Ake's posts.

That Musket -- he really has an incomparable way with words, innit!

≈M≈

Usual caveat: I am expressing no opinion, pro or anti, as to Ake's points & opinions. Just deplore as ever the priggish self-righteous, know-it-all, minds·made·up·no·facts·please responses his invariably statistically based and supported posts always receive from the OK · PC · right·thinking·lefty · shout·down·the·opposition brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:43 AM

It is interesting that a homophobic person brings children into the debate, casting even further doubt on the character of gay people. (We have moderators and we have gay members, so lies about gay people should come under moderation.)

Everybody's story is different. Many people are marrying who years ago would have had to suppress their sexuality, often with disastrous results. I can never forget the plight of a lad called Bruce, who I was acquainted with when I spent more time in London. He had moved south to get away from his father who sexually abused him. His father in the meantime was rather forthright in his condemnation of gay people.

Bruce never stood a chance and suffered as a result. Like many who see London as a salvation, he moved back to where he came from, knowing he had to keep his sexuality a secret from his father and his father's abuse of him a secret from the family. His health, especially his mental health was compromised.

The removal of stigma of your sexuality helps people to be full members of society, and just like with race, disability and gender, sexual orientation is a part of society, not a problem of it.

It really doesn't help when someone feeds hatred and lies in the way Akenaton has in his post above. if it weren't for doubts as to his understanding of issues, it would be distressing for some Mudcat members to open this thread and read his comments.

As I said, that is why we have moderation, hopefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 06:25 AM

No Michael, he confronts criminals rather than appeases them.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 06:45 AM

Who does?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:01 AM

Damn. I wish that breadhead Mither would stop saying things I agree with. Still, it's usually only on a few topics, like bigotry and religion (not sure that that is not a tautology).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:13 AM

That Musket bloke

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:33 AM

Why, how valiant, to be sure! What these 'criminals' actually armed with, as a matter of interest, apart from Word Processor, & opinions that some pretentious prigs might purport to find uncongenial?...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:54 AM

I am at a loss to see how standing up for equal treatment is "imposing" on anyone else... or is fair treatment under the law the "imposition"?

I've never been sexually harassed by a homosexual individual... which is more than I can say for heterosecual males...

and if I had been, why should I condemn them all for the BS of a few? I don't regard all males as jerks, I let them prove it first. :)

and let's get another thing straight (so to speak)... it is NOT a choice on anyone's part to be either homo- or hetero- sexual. The only "choices" are whether to hide it, accept it, or end it by suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:01 AM

Incitement to hatred, Michael. Its what the politicians you and I vote for passed into law. Publishing lies in order to villify a section of society is a criminal offence in The UK.

Akenaton published his hatred from The UK. Granted, the legal requirement for removing it comes from whatever laws prevail in The USA but he is culpable where he resides. Free speech does not include published hatred.

As ever, I reported a link to this page via my ISP provider, who pass it to the police. Under existing treaties, similar to the ones where paedophiles were caught purchasing child porn, The US authorities could require Mudcat to pass the IP of the alleged criminal on. I gave them his actual name and location anyway.

To be honest, they have enough on their plate to be bothered to chase the little people who don't actually influence anyone but if you don't try to get this shocking behaviour stamped out, many decent people will remain being abused by reading hate. Teenagers especially have been known to commit suicide through reading hatred aimed at them.

If you can type out questioning my reaction, why not question his stance? Perhaps linking gay with "protect children" or the bit about married gay people sre promiscuous anyway so why allow them to marry? Or even ask why he puts "marriage" when he should type marriage?

Sadly, he is a UK subject, living in a country where a political party he claims to be a member of presided proudly over introducing gay marriage anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

I don't perceive his posts as you do, Ian. I have several times explained why, and do not propose to seek it all out to refresh &c.

I have explicitly declared myself neutral as to the content of his assertions, but deplore your efforts to silence him on matters which I can in no way perceive him at fault for urging. The legislation you refer to was not intended to stifle reasonably expressed rational debate, which is what you seem to me to be trying to do, with your blusterings about criminal behaviour which you propose to bring to the attention of the competent authorities, & all that sort of vainglorious bullfrogging.

It is clearly a matter on which our mileages vary, as the phrase has it.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:02 AM

ake says he will not be back to this... but if he is reading, I will repeat what I said above.

"It makes no difference whether 'marriage' was usually between a man and a woman. That is not a 'definition', no matter what conservatives would like it to be!"

again... the idea of 'redefining' is rhetoric to pretend there ever was a formal definition. It was commonly assumed that it meant man & woman, but that is not the point.
The point is: part of the human race IS gay, and not the 'tiny minority' that Ake suggests. They form bonds and live in situations almost identical to straight couple. They need the same legal rights as anyone else, for insurance, inheritance, taxes, buying a house, etc...etc. The 'state' controls the legal details of those issues, so what else should it be called to formalize the situation? 'Marriage' simply recognizes the partners' commitment, whether there is a religious component or not.
   NOTHING about it interferes with straight couples living their lives in their way!

It is just a matter of fairness and common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:08 AM

Times change as do people and laws.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:31 AM

FWIW I agree entirely with what Bill D sez just above.

But that does not justify attempts to suppress, by a combination of unjustified denunciations and threats, Akenaton's (or indeed anybody's) right moderately to express a contrary view.

I am surprised at the efforts made by many on this and similar threads to endeavour, from unworthy ·OK · PC · right-on · tendentious · lefty· motives, to obviate the right of free speech on the matters subsisting in the topic. I consider such efforts despicable.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:45 AM

"if you don't want an abortion, don't have one ,   if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, fine..." said bill
.....if you don't want to murder your mother, don't do so, if you don't want to marry your donkey, fine"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 11:53 AM

Not comparable, Pete. Murder is covered by laws about human rights, and donkeys can't have an informed opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 12:01 PM

Not only not comparable, but completely idiotic.


As expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 12:09 PM

Imposing the concept of "free speech" is a two way street- expressing ones personal disgust with the views of another would be included. If you are too sensitive, or closed minded, to hear the opposing view, common sense dictates one should resist the temptation to incite such views by posting on certain topics. Commenting on the topic and running away is a lame game, mostly by those who wish to spread their views without broad discussion from other perspectives, IMO. It bring an impression of "closed minds" from my experience.

However, with that in mind, civil discussion and mutual respect is a common courtesy that leads to a fruitful airing of views. Where is is absent, my expectations are low.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 12:11 PM

I make one exception for Bill.

Marriage was not "usually" between a man and a woman, it was ALWAYS between a man and a woman.....therefore it has been redefined.
1% of the population (Office of Statistics UK) is a tiny minority, and certainly not worth the redefinition of an important institution.

On the subject of our deranged member, If I was publishing anything criminal, untrue, or hateful, I am quite sure PC Plod would have chapped my door by now, I have been expressing my views on this issue for years.
What is disturbing, is that this creature seems to have acquired my personal details, which is strange as only two trusted friends here know my name or where I live.
I hope that the information has not come from admin, if that is the case I will retire from the forum immediately.

Stalking of course, is a criminal offense, but I would not lower myself to Ian's level....his posts are a fine example of his character.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:13 PM

[marriage] was ALWAYS between a man and a woman.

Please substantiate this claim.

I hope that the information has not come from admin

That's right, Pharoah - Max done sold you out.   Get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:14 PM

Pete's actually making the point he's possibly trying to refute. There are non-religious laws against those things.

In the US, it used to be illegal in some states for people of different races to marry, but that was done away with when folks got a little more enlightened and concerned with civil rights.

It's still illegal (Constitutionally) to make one particular religion the official one, though, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, despite those who desire a Christian version of sharia law.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:32 PM

The anti-"miscegenation" law is still on the books in Alabama, and a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still support anti-miscegenation laws.

There's the "new south" fer ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:37 PM

Homosexual behavior is a choice. Strong compulsion to screw someone of your own sex can be controlled. It's not hardwired into you and it's not genetic. It is a way of thinking. And thought to action can be controlled. One man does not have to screw another, but he may choose to.

The same is true of religion. The religion you practice, you choose to practice.

In the United States, the homosexual special interest group is getting away with things not allowed other groups. If the behavior of homosexuality can be taught in public schools, then why not the behavior of praying?

You progressives honestly won't be able to justify what's being done on the homosexual front. It is not fair, and your 'tolerance' of homosexuals is supposed to be about fairness. It is in truth about unfairness.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

Well, that's ignorant. You might have successfully resisted the desire to love people of the same sex in the past and currently, but you're always going to keep doing so. And if love is about fucking somebody, that's all you're going to get.

Greg, apparently Loving v. Virginia overturned them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:00 PM

"Homosexual behavior is a choice."

Let say for argument's sake that this statement can stand... then it should also stand that heterosexual behavior is a choice. And so is celibacy, for that matter.   

So why the desire to restrict freedom of choice???? We are discussing adults and adult behavior, which is really nobody's business except their own... provided the behavior is limited to said partners and does not cause grave physical harm. I think we can live with a few hickeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:10 PM

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Old laws no longer applicable may remain on the books, since their removal must be voted on. Legislators don't waste their time doing this, since the laws cannot be invoked or acted upon if they have been rendered void by Court actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 02:55 PM

I will try to suppress it Michael.

Every time and no surrender.

Inciting hatred is no free speech. Saying gay people remain promiscous is not a view, it is a lie to support inequality. Putting the word marriage in parantheses is not a view, it is an attempt to pervert equality. Saying that children need protecting from gay men is not a view, it is beneath contempt.

Whilst you are at it, don't forget to support the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema and watch the squashed bodies being brought out in body bags. Don't forget to support terrorists making videos to impress young men. Don't forget to support Akenaton's right to cause distress to gay people on Mudcat.

Oh, you didn't forget, did you.

😢

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:31 PM

""marriage' was usually between a man and a woman""


""In the USA, slaves were usually denied the opportunity to learn to read or write, to ensure that they did not form aspirations that could lead to escape or rebellion""

Both statements use the word "usually"- neither statement is a logical reason why situations cannot and should not change today. Especially, just because they were common situations in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 05:01 PM

Greg, apparently Loving v. Virginia overturned them all.

No foolin! But the Miss. survey results still stand. But I WAS wrong on Alabama- they were the last to rescind their law, in 2000, and at the time 40% of the voters voted to RETAIN the prohibition. Again, the "New South" indeed.

..since their removal must be voted on. Legislators don't waste their time doing this...

Geez, Q, the legislators in all the rest of the states in the union that had such laws don't seem to have minded wasting their time to rescind them & thought it appropriate to do so long before the year 2000 ( Except Miss- which rescinded the law in 1998).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:07 PM

"Jesus was cool."

Indeed, and neither judgemental nor fundamental.

"Jesus did not spell it out, but he did affirm the definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his WIFE ."

He may well have said this, but it neither directly, nor implicitly states that this is THE ONLY definition.

Besides which, his words are known only through reportage some 70-100 years after his death, and therefore subject to a degree of revisionism, depending on the agenda of the reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:16 PM

"if it was not for their sexual preference, there would be no need to redefine marriage."

Your ignorance is showing again Ake. There are many long term same sex relationships which are celibate, and there are many single gays who are celibate, though forming platonic friendships.

Your pre-occupation with the sexual practices of people you despise says more about you than about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:28 PM

"Marriage was not "usually" between a man and a woman, it was ALWAYS between a man and a woman" - Akenaton

Caligula married his horse, and since he was a divine emperor, it was legal on both secular and religious levels.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:33 PM

"One man does not have to screw another, but he may choose to."

The genetic makeup of the man you describe predisposes him to be ATTRACTED to males rather than females, regardless of whom he may, to quote your vulgar style of speech, screw.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 07:58 PM

1%... of 64,000,000 (?UK population) is 6,400,000 people. NOT such a small number

Be that at it may. Where the law is equal to 99.999% but unequal to the rights of 0.01% then we have inequality. It starts when ONE person is not afforded the same rights as another. This always was avquestion of equal rights.

If gayvfolk have an agenda, and I believe we do, then it is one of equality. Thankfully there are a great many straight folk who support that and I am heartened to see it on mudcat as anywhere else.

The smoke and mirrors school of disinformation surrounding homosexulity in order to somehow discredit the rights of gayfolk is losing its ability to affect the hearts and minds of decent people of all genders, sexulities and religions.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

Like.

There isn't any point in arguing with people who are trolling here because the world isn't working the way they want it to, unless it's just for fun. They've lost, and they're frustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 08:37 PM

1% = 640,000 but that is still not a small number.

And it irrelevant what someone believes Jesus said about wives... what is important is what is fair & decent.

Ake said that marriage was always M+F, but that, even if it WAS so (and it was not), it also irrelevant because the control of church marriages was by those whose basis was religious. Love & concern & emotional attraction are NOT necessarily the purview of the church.

Definitions and habit and cultural generalities are VERY different matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 10:11 PM

I'm not passing judgement on homosexual's practices. If they want to screw each other then let them do it. My problem with this topic is that if the choice of homosexual behavior is protected by the courts, then what other behavioral choices will be protected?

The homosexual agenda in the U.S. is being used to force open the door so that other behaviors will become 'protected'. Pedophilia and bestiality come to mind, but those are just sexual acts. If sexual perversions are sanctioned by the courts, then why not financial perversions?

Progressives are being told that the homosexual agenda is all about love, and the Christians who protest it are bad. Anti-love. But compare the Sermon on the Mount to a gay love song of your choice, and then decide which of the two truly promotes love.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 03:21 AM

Other than the disturbed mind posing as guest above, I am heartened by some of the wonderful recent comments, especially the bit about Caligula😄

Bigotry is a stain on society and one way to make it die sooner rather than later is normalisation at the legal level of lifestyle that offends people who go out of their way to be offended.

The ins and outs of the Supreme Court ruling are not things I understand from this side of the pond, but equality, whether real or still aspirational is something we can all recognise and strive to achieve.

Jesus only exists if you are a Christian. Even then, you can twist the words clsimed to be his like the bigots do or you can be comfortable with them for what they do say, as gay christians keep telling us.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 03:48 AM

2nd exception for Bill......could you please give examples of formal marriage. or Christian marriage involving two people of the same gender, before the redefinition?
1% of any population is a "tiny minority"

Caligula appointed his horse Consul, he did not marry it.
Caligula was also deranged.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:42 AM

Sorry, hadn't quite finished.

"Love & concern & emotional attraction are NOT necessarily the purview of the church.".........but marriage IS.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:50 AM

1. It's not "1%". It's 1.5%. And that is very likely to be skewed by high denial rates amongst older people.
2. That is based on self-reporting. 5% did not answer - probably because they are in fact gay or bisexual but are repressed.
3. That would fit with earlier Treasury and Stonewall estimates.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:54 AM

PS - US rates may be higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:40 AM

Sorry Bill... my maths was well out :(

Thanks for the correction

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:49 AM

Drive something underground then say it only affects a few people.

Mmmm...

By the way, my marriage wasn't in a church, nor am I a Christian, but my marriage is as legitimate as anybody else's. Ditto anybody and everybody who is married, regardless. Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more, nothing less as it affects others. Anything deeper is between those within the marriage. Churches have a licence from the government to conduct marriage, not the other way round. (UK, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere?)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:10 AM

A large number of todays marriages have no religious involvement. All marrages must involve a government issued licence to be considered valid. Many result in divorce, under the rules of the government, not a church. Few divorced seek a church annulment, but are considered divorced, regardless. Thus, the claim that marriage is today a church institution, not a government one,holds little logical water.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:20 AM

Who claims that?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:30 AM

Your Jesus freak mates for starters. Oh, and your pet.

Do keep up..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 07:06 AM

I am keeping up Musket.
I do not know who you think my "Jesus freak mates" or my "pet" is, but I have seen no one make that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: jacqui.c
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:21 AM

Keith - see akenaton - October 10 4.42am

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:42 AM

Ake: "I will have nothing further to say on this matter, insults or trolling will not be responded to ....Ake. "

This is rich. After one of his periodical, hate-filled, anti- homosexual diatribes he refuses to discuss his ill-founded, bigoted assertions. He's not just an ignorant troll he's a cowardly, ignorant troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:07 AM

Its alright Jacqui. Keith defends Akenaton when it comes to homophobic attacks on innocent people. They have form..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:17 AM

Thanks Jacqui.
Sorry Ed and Musket.
I never have and never would defend any homophobic attack by anyone Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:21 AM

Keith. For what it is worth to you, I thank you in all humility for that post.

Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:42 AM

"...Christian marriage involving two people of the same gender, before the redefinition?

There was no redefinition--- some progressive churches just began marrying people.... but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Modern_times_2
(you can scroll UP to see historical instances)
No one 'redefined' anything... some countries & churches just began formally legalizing it after many years of Christian denominations refusing to recognize it. I don't see that being stubborn and bigoted constitutes a 'definition'.
In any case.... imagine someone you know and like explaining that they have just been legally married to someone of the same sex. What has changed in YOUR life since yesterday?

There's a small financial change for the government as benefits are granted, but I doubt that is your concern Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 12:58 PM

Hopefully, an anomaly?


Pastor admits sex with church members with knowledge of AIDS 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:12 PM

Final exception for Bill.
When I was married, male homosexual practice was a criminal offence.
I opposed this legislation.
Marriage was clearly defined by Church and State as between 1 man and 1 woman.
As the years passed, the State came under pressure from the homosexual lobby, chiefly in the media, to allow civil union then "marriage" between two people of the same gender.
Legislation to allow this redefinition has been adopted in a minority of countries and in a minority of States in some countries.
This is clearly a redefinition of formal marriage.

The established Church in the UK (Church of England) has not accepted this redefinition, nor has the Church of Scotland, or the Catholic Church.

I was not married in Church and as an atheist I oppose the legislation on the obvious health and societal grounds.

In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a lather large majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:39 PM

Lets pick on an area of The UK, let's say Scotland for instance. There, a voted in government led by SNP, a party of social justice said in their manifesto they would legalise gay marriage to "remove the stain" as they put it. The Scottish people voted the government in and with cross party support, just like two other regions of The UK, England and Wales, equality in marriage was passed into law, the will of the people.

There are health and welfare considerations for gay people, like the mental anguish whilstever bigots are still alive and getting away with printing lies to persuade people to hate them. Time will cure those barriers though, the police and courts are doing their bit and decent honest people treat bigots with contempt anyway.

Just out of interest for anybody is confused, there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage" but we have marriage for all, equal to and in every way as valid and wonderful as any other marriage, gay or straight.

Perhaps the young man Bruce who I knew in London and suffered with his mental health because of a father who sexually abused him whilst hypocritically opposing rights for gay people will become a story of the past rather than the present once bigots realise their cause is not supported, and their time draws to a sorry close. People like his father rely on hatred of gays.

😰

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:46 PM

"When I was married, male homosexual practice was a criminal offence.
I opposed this legislation."

I aplaud your sense of fairness/justice in opposing legalized persecution. But ask if you really consider the removal of criminalization the same as fair and equal treatment?

I had tried to post something a few days back & it vanished into the ether... but I'll try again.

A few weeks back at a music festival, I could not find my way to a concert site... a young couple heard me asking for directions and kindly ame over and invited me to tag along with them, as they were heading the same way. We had a pleasant chat along the way and foound we had much in common.

The next day I saw them again and they had they two sons with them. It was wonderful to see such a warm, loving family with two perfectly happy kids. It didn't bother the boys that they had two "moms". What would bother those kids the most would be to hear hateful things said about the two people who love and care for them. Or to be deprived of one or other because the law only grants legal rights to one or the other parent.

To be legally treated as a family, current laws require marriage of some kind... civil or religious still requires some kind of paperwork from "the state".

Fair and equal treatment should never be denied to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:45 PM

Portsmouth or Mystic? If so, I know the family of whom you speak, and yes, they're all quite happy, and the sort of folks one would love living next door to.

At some point, I just give up. Haters gonna hate, stupid people are dedicated to stupidity, and life happens no matter what they want. I'm just glad laws are becoming less likely to interfere with people's happiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:42 PM

Laws are less likely to interfere Jeri. Lets all celebrate.

Bigots can for now carry on interfering by putting the seed of doubt.

If Mudcat was moderated, perhaps people wouldn't have to feel the distress of reading it eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:46 PM

Ake: "In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a rather large majority."

Graphic example of majority rule:

A lynch mob.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:51 PM

Graphic, and quite effective as well, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:58 PM

Best of all Don, a lie.

Scotland has a thriving set of gay communties, and many non communities as being gay isnt seen as a divide in many many communities. Three gay couples live within 100 yards of Akenaton for instance. I am a joint best man at the wedding of one such couple early next year.

His sort are dying out. Not too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:10 PM

"In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a rather large majority."

The majority of people of Scotland recently voted to remain with in the UK. Laws related to marriage are part of this system of governing. Below are the view of citizens towards gay marriage within the UK community of citizens.


Majority in Uk support Gay Marriage 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:02 PM

Poor Ake. As the world moves on, he and those of his persuasion are destined to go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.

It may cause him to weep, wail, gnash his teeth, and rend his garments, but the church my wife and I belong to is a quite liberal branch of the Lutheran church. It does not evangelize by ringing your doorbell, or backing you against a wall and stuffing tracts down your shirt front, it evangelizes with deeds. Free lunch programs for the poor and finding homes for the homeless, among other things.

One of the pastors once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It is not full of answers, it's full of questions."

Within the thirty-some years my wife and I have been going to this church, there have been three woman pastors. The current pastor is a woman.

And during that time, at least three gay couples and two lesbian couples have been married in the church. Of the gay couples, there are several attorneys and one State Legislator.

pete 7*s would definitely not be happy there….

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:11 PM

One of the pastors once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It is not full of answers, it's full of questions."

Don, nest time you run into that pastor, please tell him I wish I could shake his hand & buy him a drink and dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:50 PM

Homosexuality is a matter of choice. Strong compulsion, which some give in to. Genetics has nothing to do iwth it.

Why must I be supportive of someone's behavior? Must I support politicians who kill with drones? Must I support rapists?

If I want to kill puppies, I could use the 'homosexual tolerance' precedent to demand you support me. After all, homosexual behavior and killing puppies are both behaviors. And killing puppies rids the world of greenhouse gas offenders.

So if I want to kill puppies, is that protected behavior?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 09:16 PM

First of all, Nameless Guest, sexual orientation has been established as genetic and hormonal in nature (and in Nature). Read up on the latest on the subject and educate yourself.

And the rest of your post is pure blather!

Greg, a discussion I overheard one morning during coffee hour after the church service was a fellow challenging the pastor on the matter of Jesus' virgin birth. The pastor responded by saying, "Well, first you have to understand that in the various myths about religious figures of all faiths, the story is that they all entered the world in some miraculous fashion and left it in a miraculous fashion. The idea that Mary was a virgin probably came from the early church's efforts to attract the various 'virgin cults' into the church. What matters is what Jesus said, not the gynecological details of his conception and birth."

Also, the folks in this church have no problem with the "heavens" being 13,000,000 years old and the earth, 4,500,000 years old. Evolution? That's how God did it.

Like I say, pete wouldn't be too happy in the church I go to….

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 09:47 PM

Show me the genetic evidence.

May I kill your puppy, if it's something I choose to do? You have to support my choice. To deny it would be discrimination. Maybe I have a gene that makes me kill puppies. Do you have the right to say no to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 09:59 PM

Don, please don't be the troll's bitch again. He's not making much sense at all, and I wish we'd save our arguments for something less stupid. (I know: resistance is futile.)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:05 PM

Right, Jeri.

The evidence is right there for anyone to peruse. Look it up yourself, Guest. I'm not responsible for your education. Your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

I don't have a puppy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 11:55 PM

Portsmouth or Mystic?

We were at Portsmouth... though we all also make it to Mystic. Since 1985 for me.

If the boys get teased at all, it might just be that they are quite the pair of red heads. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 12:03 AM

Yep, that's them. I LOVE the hair!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Monique
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 02:27 AM

Don, there are 3 zeros missing to your figures, the "heavens" are 13,000,000,000 years old and the earth, 4,500,000,000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 02:43 AM

Don's church's outlook on life seems to be to look at the world as it is and say God did it. Far different to saying the world must be wrong because it doesn't fit into biblical theories.

We seem to be hard wired to have some form of faith. I assume it comes from the Darwinian notion of altruism, as exhibited by any species in one form or another. Our somewhat advanced notion of awareness and ease of communication inevitably leads to group agreement of such matters, or religion as we call it.

The problems stem from the notion that "if I am right, others must be wrong, so I must impress my ideas on them." Don describes a creed comfortable in its own skin.

Fair play to you.

😇

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 07:10 AM

"if I am right, others must be wrong, so I must impress my ideas on them."

My observation is this type of attitude comes from many keyboards on many mudcat thread issues. It is interesting that folks mostly bring up the behavior when they wish to chastise those who they see as being on the "wrong side" (aka not their side) of a perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 07:18 AM

We seem to be hard wired to have some form of faith. I assume it comes from the Darwinian notion of altruism, as exhibited by any species in one form or another. Our somewhat advanced notion of awareness and ease of communication inevitably leads to group agreement of such matters, or religion as we call it.

I am not too sure about faith being connected to altruism, Musket, but I see where you are with that.

Humans, being mainly social animals, use reciprocal altruism that almost certainly evolved (as in other animals) as a survival strategy. True altruism is rare, but it is exhibited by humans for sure.

I have thought about your comment a great deal and cannot think of a mechanism where faith would evolve in such way BUT that does not mean I do not think it has not happened. I simply cannot think what the primer would be. We certainly seem to have a deeper need to believe in something (even if that something is nothing as in atheists) and much good science and religion may have stemmed from that need. But science does indeed seek answers and religion poses many questions.

Once we started socialising and having language I well imagine it would not take long before the 'supernatural' events that were happening in nature would need some explanation. I guess our minds were hard wired back then with more empty space than they now are and within that space all sorts of theories were conjoured up in explanation of natural events. Back then, as now, the better orators would have been able to convince those around them of what was happening. Memes spread very fast so it is not surprising that civilisation now has these artefacts that can often haunt some. I do believe some minds are more open to suggestion than others and that some folk are better at placing ideas in those minds than others. If it's fopr good then I am all for it. What we are concerned about in this topic is perhaps when it is for the bad. Though I do think bigotry has a certain mindset, I do not believe people are born with it. They are taught it.

Now I say that from my stance as an agnostic. That is not to say I do not respect those decent religious scholars and followers who also seek truth and answers. It has nothing to do with me what they believe as long as it is not against me. And there are many religious folk who are just as decent as atheists, agnostics, etc. Takes all kinds to make a society. I believe that most people are actually good and want good for others. We see it all the time on mudcat as an example.

I am curious. Do you have a mechanism in mind that will show me how altruism and spirituality are/can be connected, or is it, like mine, a personal opinion?

Many thanks

mp

I will add, from other comments in the thread, that if homosexuality is a choice, and we accept that, then being straight must also be a choice and therein lies all sorts of things concerning fluidity within sexuality.

Personally I do not believe it is a choice. No person would choose to live a life of villification and insult if they had another option. I do not believe that one gene is responsible either. I think it is a group of genes that may also be affectred environmentally, pre and post birth. But then we look to epigenetics for answers. They will come!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 07:25 AM

"Though I do think bigotry has a certain mindset, I do not believe people are born with it. They are taught it."

Yes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 08:02 AM

I suppose my last post came over as meaning altruism leads to religion... In that altruism can mean caring for the plight of others, leading to "saving them from themselves" leading to "alpha male" without killing others to keep the title, then yes, I have a personal opinion that if any species developed awareness and sufficient communication, the sense of caring for / interfering with others could lead to something suspiciously like religion.

It is, however, just my lay opinion. I have no religious leanings, no superstition angle to my character and am wary of anybody wishing to inflict their take on life on others.

Ed's rather naive post above sets that very scene. I get rather angry, or at least as angry as a rational person can get on something as irrelevant as internet debate, when I see people go from expressing a view (fair comment) to saying people are wrong to do x (sod all to do with them what others do.) Confronting bigotry doesn't always look pretty, but any other approach gives their denouncement of others an air of respectability and that would never do....

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,responding to stupid...
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 08:29 AM

Does the puppy consent?
You are an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 08:49 AM

If Ed T is the Ed referred to in recent posts (there are more than one):

It is hardly "nieve" to observe and reflect that some folks, at times, criticise others for rigidly seeing things from one perspective, when these same folks often exhibit similar characteristics in many of their posts. That has nothing to do with reinforcing bigotry, which we likely all feel we do not do-but likely define it, and where it exists, differently.

It is indeed "odd" that seemingly intelligent folks are not open-minded and observant enough to see the lack in logic of their own perspectives/approaches, while pointing out the holes in the perspectives of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 09:08 AM

It is indeed "odd" that seemingly intelligent folks are not open-minded and observant enough to see the lack in logic of their own perspectives/approaches, while pointing out the holes in the perspectives of others

I really do try and see others points of view, if only to trry and understand how or why their opinion should vary so much to mine. If it is a learning environment I am happy to learn from others. But now here is the crux, accepting my opinions of what is bigotry is my opinion, I simply can never or accept bigotry in the face of evidence that show the high likelihood it is totally wrong.

Someone wanting to believe, for instance, that homosexuality is a choice I find a little obtuse based on all the evidence otherwise, though I would defend the right of that person to believe as they wish.

Only when they wish to turn that belief into a weapon of hate or harm can I never agree with it. This also goes for activists on all sides who would want to use insult and hurt (or worse) to further an argument or bring about change. I think aggression breeds aggression... but that too is only my opinion.

If we are to survive as a species we certainly need to move toward the middle ground from all sides

The difference being that I think bigotry does lead to or involve hatred. Arguing against it does not, at least against the protaganist, but may do against the subject. I hate hate!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 09:41 AM

"When someone else's safety and acceptance in society is on the line, your personal discomfort comes in a very distant second." 
― Courtney Milan

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 12:46 PM

The safety and acceptance in society for gay people still has a far way to go. However, we have reached the stage where bigoted opinions of a section of society with no reason whatsoever is wrong, and needs shutting up.

Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 01:41 PM

Thanks, Monique, for the correction. I should stick to words, such as "million" and "billion" rather than chance miscounting zeroes. Less confusing....

The universe and the solar system have been around a bit longer than the Biblical 6,000 years!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 01:43 PM

You seem to be arguing with yourself Musket, as I see no contrary opinion on the preferred plight of true bigots.

That gives you points to enter the "Mudcat looney-poster" catagory. (I suspect you have a few stored up points to add 'em to).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

Wow.. I appear to inadvertently debating with a philosopher.

Whats a true bigot when he's at home then?

📕📗📘📙 I shall have to read up in case I look foolish and out of my depth eh?

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 03:38 PM

""I appear to inadvertently debating with a philosopher.""

Since you are debating with yourself, I suspect few would say it was "with a philosopher":)

Don't confuse yourself (aka, place yourself on too high of a perch) that you are the only Mudcat member who has issues with bigoted statements-others just have a more reasoned, less boring, and less repetitive route to deal with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 04:24 PM

when bill said he was closing the evolution/religion thread, I predicted that such was the evolutionist and atheist crusading fervour that someone would bring it up again anyway. with a few it has been incidental, rather than aimed at me. however don firth seems to be that tortured soul that has to raise it specifically in connection to me
if it were not that rejection of God and his book , imo, were not so serious, it would be hilarious. here are all these highly educated skeptics that feel they just have to try and goad the only Christian here who takes the plain reading of scripture ,as held by most of the Christian church since the apostles. and many, if not most of them regard me as an idiot.   not only that but they view my biblical faith as some kind of a threat.....despite the fact, that it is they who give me the opportunity to share that faith and challenge their own faith position of, all from nout , and goo to you via the zoo belief.

I shall have to concede that it does seem that public opinion on homosexual/lesbian "marriage" has changed. the political and media campaigning has achieved this acceptance, and if you base your morality and socially accepted practise legislature on most votes, I guess that's it.

part of the campaign seems to be the foisting of the idea that anyone with "old fashioned" ideals, or religious reservations about redefining marriage is homophobic, haters and bigoted.
seems , it has to be all or nothing for some people here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 05:05 PM

Ed. What route would that be? Appeasement?

pete. If you have reservations about equality you are a wicked shit.

See Ed? Fucking simple
😎

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 05:33 PM

What do we think about Kansas not following the law?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 05:40 PM

No, appeasement from me or most other Mudcat posters, Musket, just because I (they) do not subscribe to your similar approach from thread to thread.

IMO, such approaches does little to change bigots-but, more likely encourages them to be firmer in their position. It more likely closes the doors of those who may learn something through civil discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 05:42 PM

Poopie poopie-that was just to turn Musket on:)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 06:38 PM

"Tortured soul," pete?

Where did you get that half-assed idea?

I am quite at peace with the entire universe as it is, and with God, as I perceive this entity to be. It's Bible-thumpers such as yourself who seem to be plagued by doubts, which is why you feel compelled to keep thumping away.

I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who wasn't fundamentally afraid of Life.

Interesting remark by Pastor Cindy of Central Lutheran Church: "His mind is so fixed on getting to heaven that he is of no earthly use to himself or anyone else!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 03:25 AM

If pete's bible says some people shouldn't have the same rights and access to services as others, his bible needs editing to bring it in line with the expectations of society. There is nothing "old fashioned" about making it illegal to exist and find happiness. There are no legitimate religious grounds to oppose how people are either.

Marriage is a legal contract. As I said before, churches have a licence from government to conduct marriages not the other way round. Governments, who are the highest authority, decide the terms of marriage. Churches have the same status as some hotels and the Big Dipper at Blackpool Pleasure Beach. Licenced premises.

(Sorry to our US contributors for the local touch, but you get my gist.)

Ed. It is of no significance to me whether they change their views or not. It is the propagation of them that offends, not the likelihood of repeats. As society strives to be just and fair, time will deal with bigotry in its own way. In the meantime, challenge and contempt will suffice.

If I was a Christian I'd possibly be rattling on about love thy neighbour and the one about not judging lest ye be judged etc. hypocrisy was never my strong point.

👹

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:01 AM

It's not every Christian who "Rattles on about love thy neighbour and the one about not judging lest ye be judged etc". Most of the ones I know don't. Christians are, in my experience, just as human as anyone else, of any religion and none, and suffer the same human failings.

The only people who seem to expect Christians to be 'perfect' are those who heap scorn on them. The Christians I know are as imperfect as everyone else.

I find it strange that the 'aetheists' (for want of a better term) who delight in Christian-Bashing are the very same ones who leap up instantly to rip out the throat of any poor soul who has the temerity to direct even the slightest criticism at Muslims.

'Live and let live' is a good guiding principle where peoples' beliefs or otherwise are concerned. And I include in that the religious who would impose their specific brand of beliefs on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:08 AM

And, of course, "Live and let live" is the best guiding principle where individuals' relationships are concerned - if two people want to make their relationship 'official' by means of a marriage ceremony, why should their gender be of concern to anyone else.

Alongside life, happiness is surely at the top of the list of human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:14 AM

Live and let live indeed.

Claiming membership of a church that doesn't exactly do that though isn't exactly in the spirit of it eh? Those who won't countenance a Muslim stance yet have a pop at christians are of course hypocrites. The Islamic stance, fairly widespread, that being gay is wrong puts that stance at odds with decency. Subjugation of women is abhorrent. Mediaeval judgement on others is wicked. I'm surprised you are jumping on the "you wouldn't say that to a Muslim eh?" bandwagon. Straight out of the training manual for door to door God bothering, that one.

However, it those on this thread and others who come out with claiming a "christian" objection to equality that gets my goat. if a Muslim came on with similar crap, they'd get both barrels too.

To be Christian is not to be perfect. But to sit in judgement of others seems to be a sanctimonious stance that makes them more irrelevant than their men in dresses in The House Of Lords claim otherwise. In case you hadn't noticed, we have a system where the Lords Spiritual can scrutinise Parliament, despite having a clause in law allowing them to discriminate on grounds of sexuality.

Live and let Live? I fucking wish..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:34 AM

That should read ANTI Muslim stance.. (second sentence, first paragraph.)




Whilst I'm at it...

Your question about marriage and gender John. Ask one of those you seem to be defending the same question. See if your pop at me for having a go at them is such a good idea once they have answered you. Alternatively, look at what they have put on this thread and others..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM

A "queer" intellectual's views on homosexual "marriage"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 01:16 PM

💨

👃

Can you smell that?

Can't be the dog. His smell awful but this has a festering smell.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 01:33 PM

I think there has only been one Christian, Pete, who has opposed SSM on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 01:37 PM

Read the link Ian, it's you he's talking about.....just as I've been saying. The killer line right at the end, about fighting the wrong battle, "equality in everything" is a myth.....the fight should be against "prejudice"

I agree 100% about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 01:54 PM

YOU, Ian, are a sack of prejudice.....and hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 02:18 PM

Yes. I hate bigotry. You have thrown in posts where you say that you preferred it when it was a criminal offence to be gay. You tell lies about marriage being irrelevant because of high promiscuity in gay people. You say it is against Christian teaching then claim you are not a Christian. You usually take two sentences to bring sex into the debate, and by the third sentence talk about the need to protect children.

Equality isn't a myth. It is fact. You don't need to put the word marriage in parantheses because it is every bit as legal, loving and relevant as yours or mine. The only obstacle is prejudice. YOUR fucking prejudice and hate.

you are a disgrace. There is no problem with hating hatred, none at all. Not necessarily you of course. You are a small man with a small mind and irrelevant. But there are still people who set themselves up as craving respectability and leadership who are just as bad. Shouting at you is merely proxy for shouting at people less unimportant.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 02:34 PM

Keith. Your posts would have more credibility if instead of pointing out only one claimed christian (pete) opposes same sex marriage, you would, as you occasionally point out your christian faith is a guide, tackle those such as Akenaton who stated on this thread that your church rejected it and that it is against what you believe in.

If I heard somebody say that Sheffield Wednesday fans were really Sheffield Utd fans, I doubt I'd gloss over it whilst picking somebody up on a pedantic point...

If you include Guest, that's three people saying you can't be a christian and support same sex marriage as legitimate. Don to date is the only one saying that same sex marriage is legitimate and in line with christian values.

Any idea why I dismiss religious perspectives as having any credibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: olddude
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 02:42 PM

I am always wary of people who run up any religious flag. I think my faith in God is quite strong and I don't know about others but Jesus was about all people. There is no place for bigotry or hatred. I think the supreme court is on a roll.. One right non decision. People are born the way they are what reason to discriminate

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 02:45 PM

Rock on Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: olddude
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 02:45 PM

Most who worry about gay people are unsure of their own sexuality I think. I am not gay and Iddon't care about those who are. God made all kinds of people I think

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 02:59 PM

Musket, it is fact that the churches do not accept SSM.
I have no objection to anyone stating that fact.
You were being dishonest in stating that Ake "preferred it when it was a criminal offence to be gay"
He has stated that he opposed that law.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM

A "queer" intellectual's views on homosexual "marriage""

Well, that's one opinion. He feels that 'civil unions' are sufficient. Many who are gay or lesbian feel that limiting them to just 'civil unions' perpetuates a clear UNequal status.... and in the US, it specifically does. Certain rights are NOT usually recognized without legal marriage.

Those who oppose gay marriage mostly do so out of some subjective 'feeling' that their own status is compromised by extending the right to all... but they are, *I* believe, just using the idea of 'definition' to feel in some way superior. NOTHING about your status changes just because some neighbor or relative.. or your local clergyman of woman.. 'marries' someone of the same sex. You don't have to do anything different, and no one asks you to be on familiar terms with anyone you don't feel comfortable with. But if you DID feel comfortable with them before... what has changed? Suppose they were married without your knowledge, then suddenly told you? Are you suddenly offended?

The guy in Ake's link throws in a lot of subjective religious concepts to explain his attitude, but it really just comes down to "I don't like it."

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 03:56 PM

"I hate bigotry" says Ian, but in reality he is the biggest bigot on the forum. What he hates, is everything and everybody who impedes his one issue agenda.

Mr Sewell is a homosexual, I admire him tremendously for his clear sightedness in understanding the myth of "equality" and in this particular society, that REAL equality is proscribed and inequality encouraged.
What Mr Sewell is saying is that Homosexual "marriage" and Heterosexual marriage are not "equal", in fact they are very different, for the reasons he has given. He also states that most homosexuals want nothing to do with "gay marriage" and that the issue is pressed by vociferous activists like you, who may or may not be homosexual, are backed by a devious political class and a media which demonises any opposition.

You are a confirmed liar Ian, I think most here have grasped that fact by now, so I will not waste space responding to your idiotic slurs. You have proved yourself to be a hate filled creature, demeaning women, elderly people, those born out of wedlock, decent civil Christian people, and personally insulting many members of this forum, of whom you know absolutely nothing.
You are a Fascist of the worst kind, one who hides behind the banner of liberalism......a stain on decent liberal people everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 03:58 PM

Bill....you are really struggling my friend    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 04:13 PM

"Whilst I'm at it...

Your question about marriage and gender John. Ask one of those you seem to be defending the same question. See if your pop at me for having a go at them is such a good idea once they have answered you. Alternatively, look at what they have put on this thread and others.."

I wasn't actually having a pop at you, Musket, just saying that my experience of those I know personally who claim to be Christians (as distinct from those who claim on here to be Christians and whom I don't know from Adam!), and that's quite a few, is that they don't generally preach about loving thy neighbour etc, and they're no more prone to being judgmental of others than anyone else. That's not saying that no Christian does those things, but it seems unfair to generalise.

And, although I try not to get involved in this kind of argument, I lurk and read a lot of this stuff and my perception is that Christians are regarded by certain posters as being 'fair game' in a way that Muslims aren't. Again, I have neighbours and acquaintances who are Muslims and I see no differences between them, and people of other faiths or none - they are all just people, with all of the usual human qualities, traits and failings.

And........errrmmmm.......my Christian friends (at least the ones I've discussed the subject with, which admittedly isn't every one of them) agree with me - that two human beings have every right to happiness, and that includes a relationship solemnised by marriage rites should they so wish, irrespective of gender. Not the 'Official Party Line' I guess, but their personal opinion, of which I wholeheartedly approve!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 04:21 PM

I get your last post BillD.

I suspect the concept you state is simplististic, as those who dislike and fear the impact of gays being increasingly accepted in western societies come at it from a variety of perspectives (some more understandable than others). However, except in remote and "clanish" societies (and, among some extreme religious groups), statistics show the fear is dinishing and acceptance is growing rapidly. This is likely frustrating for some folks, who grab at any odd argument to reinforce their backward and hateful beliefs, in an attempt to look less prejuduced among "those more enlightened" .

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 05:05 PM

Looks like Ian is going to be busy reporting criminals to the UK police.
Mr Sewell, Mr Starkey and Mr Peirce are three prominent UK homosexuals who are totally opposed to homosexual "marriage".....are they also bigots ED??....are they stupid, hate filled, Neanderthals?
There has been no studies done, but it has been muted that there is a majority of homosexuals who do not support homosexual "marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 05:44 PM

Why is marriage in "quotation marks" above?

Stop calling it gay marriage and start calling it marriage equality. The basic issue is, do human grownups have a right to enter a legal civil contract (such as marriage) without the goverment looking under their skirts or into their pants, and the answer is, Yes.

What religions do with the *sacrament* part of it is up to the individual churches/mosques/synaguogues/temples/oak groves/grottoes/whatevers, but they should not have a say in a legal contract between 2 adults.

Furthermore, what *y'all* think should have no bearing on *our* contract, and vice-versa. Even less so what you believe about deity, who isn't in the civil contract anyway, only in the sacrament.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:34 PM

There are a multitude of reasons for "belittling" attitudes towards accepting folks who do not fit society's "traditional" mold, Ake. I dont know the blokes you quote, nor the underlying reasons why they have such negative feelings towards people who merely have loving feelings towards each other and merely wish to join with traditional society? But, I admit, as it seems odd, and my gut tells me to suspect that there is more underneath this story than we know.

However, I have a greater understanding as to why you put these viewpoints forward as being notable. ;)

BTW, did you not indicate earlier that you were not posting to this thread anymore? A question: what woke the genie?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:50 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with Mrrzy's post just above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 06:58 PM

there is a majority of homosexuals who do not support homosexual "marriage.

Prove this BS statement or shut the frack up, Pharoah.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 07:03 PM

""Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and, the smallest minority on earth is the individual).""
Ayn Rand

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 07:13 PM

So because Akenaton found someone with a view that is not shared by most, bigotry must be acceptable eh?

Keith. He said he opposed the law that legalised marriage, not laws that outlawed it. Read his fucking post.

Marriage is marriage. We have equality. Celebrate and kick sand in the faces of worms who think they are better than you.

Halley fucking luwlya.

There is no legitimate view against equality as law is constructed on that premise in The UK. This thread is about a court having a similar outlook in The US.

Bigotry, apologists for bigotry and credibility on religious grounds are things of the past.

All we need now is for people to be able to go about their lives without being confronted by the lying shit and hate thst used to be acceptable and we can all enjoy the good life we have. In case nobody noticed, globally speaking we have all won the lottery so less argument about how to divvy up the winnings.

Oh, and less seedy puerile interest in the bedrooms of others eh Alex? We can club together and buy you some gay porn to satisfy your curiosity if it shuts you up.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 07:23 PM

There has been no studies done, but it has been muted that there is a majority of homosexuals who do not support homosexual "marriage.

Several things. First, there have been no studies done (really, I should stop there). Second, it has been mooted. I wish you could be bloody muted, bigot, and I'm not just mooting that. Third, "it has been muted/mooted" (jeez) is weasel words. Fourth, I don't give a damn who "supports" or who "doesn't support" gay marriage. The argument is whether it's right or wrong, not how many people support it or not. I know that gay marriage is a brilliant thing and I don't care whether I'm the only bloke in Christendom who thinks so when it comes to deciding whether it's right or wrong. On the day the UK abolished the death penalty, five people in six still supported hanging. They were all wrong, weren't they? When it comes to deciding whether a thing is right or wrong, the public view is the last resort. What you want and what is right are two entirely different things. Any Christian could tell you that. Think Jesus and Barabbas!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 07:29 PM

Oh, and fifth, I note your omission of the closing quotation marks after the word "marriage". Does that mean you are now half-persuaded that you can type "gay marriage" without throwing up, or are you, as I suspect, just an illiterate twat?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 07:48 PM

Ake:"There has been no studies done, but it has been muted that there is a majority of homosexuals who do not support homosexual "marriage."

You've posted a lot of ignorant horse shit on this subject but the sentence above takes the cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 08:00 PM

Ake: "There has [?] been no studies done, but it has been muted [?] that there is a majority of homosexuals who do not support homosexual 'marriage.'"

Not where I live, Ake.

What planet did you say you're on?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 08:37 PM

"(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for legal same-sex marriages in five more states.

The court refused to hear cases from the states -- Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana -- seeking to keep their same-sex marriage bans in place."
...

Meanwhile, back to "stupid":

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: olddude
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 10:31 PM

Besides doesn't everyone have the right to be as miserable as us heterosexual married people... :) kidding I am kidding don't tell my Mrs

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: olddude
Date: 12 Oct 14 - 10:39 PM

And the Christian folks who want to quote the bible even our Lord tossed out parts. How about the lady caught in adultery, bible said to stone her, what did jesus say.. Look it up
How about 'that which you do to the least of my brothers you do to me' perhaps judging other's is not the path. God made lots of different people.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 01:42 AM

But your gods should stay out of my civil contract of marriage. This is supposed to be the Land of Freedom from religious bigotry...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 02:45 AM

Today, Sunday, October 12, 2014, a Federal Judge in Alaska struck down the same-sex marriage ban that had been in place in Alaska since 1998.

Alaska Governor Parnell (Republican) says the state will appeal.

Funny that 100% of the gay and lesbian friends I have are overjoyed. Translation: They ain't agin' it.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:13 AM

Fascinating what you read.

The decent common sense approach by the vast majority of people on this thread is heartening. Mind you, if you read akenaton's posts, combining hatred towards millions of people who haven't had the unfortunate opportunity of meeting him and having reason to return the favour with some rambling stuff about me hating women, old people, people born outside wedlock and other scattergun nonsense, you can make your own mind up.

And most have.

It's the ones who seem to defend the idea of not having equal access to society's institutions and norms who I can't understand. I don't mean him. I am not qualified to comment on the basis for his personality disorder not indeed the similar attitude found amongst people of limited intelligence.

No. I genuinely cannot understand

A) Hiding behind a religious objection, when it is clear that this is pure interpretation in order to try to make odious views look respectable.

B) Genuinely enlightened people with a personal attitude not dissimilar to mine or many others on this thread who are comfortable all the same being associated with religious organisations who preach that gay people are second class and should not be afforded the same rights and access as others.

If I were a Christian or Muslim or took my (genuine) membership of The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously, I'd wonder what my association was being used for?

(Actually, we Pastafarians have no problem with having chicken both in the pasta and the sauce. The Noodly One has no interest in the bedroom of acolytes, but enjoys photos of them on Tumblr all the same.)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 04:30 AM

Sorry about the typos in my last post, but three in on line is, I agree a bit much :0), but do they deserve such an accolade?

We all make errors in our typing and I had a very busy and trying day.
Apologies, you sensitive little darlings.
How about addressing the issue of legal action against anyone who does not support the legislation to legalise homosexual "marriage"....just for a little light relief.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 04:43 AM

:0)....How can you be so sensitive about punctuation and grammar, but not etymology?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:28 AM

Keith. He said he opposed the law that legalised marriage, not laws that outlawed it. Read his fucking post.

I did, and you accused him of "Preferring it when it was a criminal offence to be gay"
A lie Musket.
Why do you do that?

Many people disagree with SSM, including as Ake has shown some intelligent and thoughtful gay folk.
Holding that view does not make someone a bigot.
As you know I favour SSM, but would discuss the issue not just abuse people like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 06:21 AM

Why bring race into it Ian?
Can you imagine any prominent black person trying to make a case for the disenfranchisement of their race?

You are being ridiculous, this is a serious issue for many people regarding the future of society.

I state again, I always opposed the criminalisation of homosexuals, just as I oppose this homosexual "marriage" legislation.

You are a "liberal" Fascist who wishes to punish all who disagree with you. Your slurs against women, old people, and various other groups are easily found on these pages....their crime? To have questioned your views.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 06:27 AM

I favour marriage to my wife myself, but that's the point isn't it. Nobody should care what somebody's view is of something that has no bearing on them, no effect on them and no, it is not respectable to oppose equal right to marriage.

Holding a bigoted view makes you a bigot so far as that view is concerned. If you can't understand the words you use Keith, do us all a favour and leave the debate to the grown ups. Opposing the rights of others is bigotry. Full stop Finis.

Let's see what he said, as you hope people won't bother seeing why you call me a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:12 PM

Final exception for Bill.
When I was married, male homosexual practice was a criminal offence.
I opposed this legislation.
Marriage was clearly defined by Church and State as between 1 man and 1 woman.
As the years passed, the State came under pressure from the homosexual lobby, chiefly in the media, to allow civil union then "marriage" between two people of the same gender.
Legislation to allow this redefinition has been adopted in a minority of countries and in a minority of States in some countries.
This is clearly a redefinition of formal marriage.

The established Church in the UK (Church of England) has not accepted this redefinition, nor has the Church of Scotland, or the Catholic Church.

I was not married in Church and as an atheist I oppose the legislation on the obvious health and societal grounds.

In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a lather large majority.




Twice there, he said he opposed "this legislation" The second time, he is fully unambiguous and gives reasons, (odd ones that do not have any basis in fact but whatever) as to why.

As you obviously read his disgusting diatribe, kindly stop calling a liar, and either deplore bigotry or say you support it.

Your choice.

Perhaps we need someone like that Keith A of Hertford who when reading someone say "my views are the views of a rather large majority" he would ask for proof. Or have you used your beloved google and found proof???

You are as bad as him. Perhaps worse, because he has no shame. You add hypocrisy to the charge sheet.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 07:00 AM

"When I was married, male homosexual practice was a criminal offence.
I opposed this legislation."

Looks pretty clear to me. Some may think it is simply lack of comprehension that makes you misrepresent what others say Ian, but I believe that you are a serial liar.
Keith has kindly pointed out the error of your comment, perhaps he knows you as well as I do after the torrent of lies HE has been subjected to on other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 08:05 AM

Here it is again:

Ake:"There has been no studies done, but it has been muted that there is a majority of homosexuals who do not support homosexual "marriage."

Do you really believe it's the lousy grammar, punctuation and embarrassing misuse of the English language that people object to in that sentence?

Guess again.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 08:45 AM

I don't understand why Ake thinks that permitting same-sex marriage would cause health problems.

Surely, if his proposal that gay men, in particular, carry a higher-than-normal risk of HIV and other STD infections because of a supposed 'promiscuous' lifestyle is to be believed, commitment to a single partner through marriage would cause a reduction of that risk?

In which case, on that basis alone, isn't single-sex-marriage a cause worth fighting for?

Of course, that isn't the only basis to be applied, fairness and equality are the most important drivers, but I find objections on the grounds of 'health and societal grounds' somewhat illogical.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:02 AM

Gilly......From Mr Sewells article.

"Thus the recent institution of civil partnerships seemed to be the final necessary reform, giving homosexuals the right to inherit each other's property, just as may a man and his wife; and if they want a family, there is now no barrier to their adopting children – in the case of homosexual men, so long in error bundled together with paedophiles and pederasts, an astonishing recognition of moral responsibility.

Why, then, do they and lesbians demand the right to marry? Indeed, how many of us have made that demand? One in 20? One in 10?   Most of us – and certainly the generations for whom, when they were young, any expression of homosexuality, no matter how trivial, was outside the law and "pretty policemen" (the Met's own term for them) were sent out to tempt and arrest the unwary – are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception.

It is this noisy nucleus that demanded gay marriage and, seeing a handful of votes in it, David Cameron announced his support. Nick Clegg is in favour because he is a Liberal Democrat. Even Tony Blair, a newly devout Roman Catholic, declared his "strong support". Have they between them one single logical, reasonable or theological argument? Did any one of them consult a quieter voice before they surrendered to the camp hysteria of clowns demanding the right to dress in funny old clothes and have another party?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:31 AM

Backwoodsman....Your hypothesis does not bear scrutiny. As discrimination and stigma against homosexuality has diminished and Civil Union / Homosexual "marriage have been adopted, in the last decade, male homosexual infection rates have rocketed in tandem.
They now stand unbelievably at over 70% of all new male sexual infections for HIV, Syphilis and most other STDs in the US.
In the UK, the health agencies have stopped releasing figures by demographic, simply stating that MSM are the largest "at risk" group and that HIV infections are falling.
This is concealment of the facts, and is un-beneficial to society AND homosexuals.

I do not think that homosexual "marriage would CAUSE health problems, the health problems are already there in epidemic proportions.

The problem with homosexual "marriage" is that the rule book has been torn up, marriage now often involves "open" relationships with two main partners and several sexual partners on each side.
That is the trouble with redefinition, where does it stop? what about monogamy, what about a secure foundation to raise children....who will now define what type of sexual arrangement is suitable for the rearing of children....and where do the children themselves fit in, do they not deserve the chance of a mother father and extended family?
These "open relationships are a real hazard as far as sexual infection is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:40 AM

How many partners did you and your wife share with?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:47 AM

Hey keith! You are better at asking questions than me. Any chance of using your eloquent wit and wisdom to ask him where he gets the idea about monogamy and children?

I can't ask because Keith might defend him


again

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:57 AM

Link for Backwoodsman

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:11 AM

""I don't understand why Ake thinks that permitting same-sex marriage would cause health problems. ""


It is really not that complex to figure out...it comes from flawed logic, quite common with those attempting to reinforce a prejudicial viewpoint. However, some folks are just better at it, "deceptively" attempting to promote and spread their logically flawed perspectives as factual.

Mainly, it involves starting with a perceived problem (aka prejudice, reinforced by a simikar community of thought) - then seeking out reasons to reinforce the premise (notably, cherry picking information from varying ources) and arriving at unreinforced conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:17 AM

Musket, it is ok to ask questions and challenge views.
What you do is misrepresent folk and call them bigot.
Why not just say what you disagree with and why without making shit up and name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:22 AM

Oh gosh!!   Is that right Ed?.....my you are clever :0)

Put this in your psychobabble book and stick it right up your rectum.

I am totally AGAINST prejudice and totally in favour of TRUTH.

Why don't you try to make some sort of positive contribution to the discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:29 AM

That is hold Popgun's MO, I fear, Keith. I have just made a similar point on the "New song...folksong?" thread.

But I don't expect he will take a blind bit of notice, but will just continue in his usual bullying, browbeating tone, with that infuriating but, as John Gross wrote of F R Leavis, "faintly comic air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been strenuously asserted".

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:30 AM

I meant "old Popgun", of course

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:43 AM

"That is the trouble with redefinition, where does it stop?"

"Slippery slope" logical fallacy. Then your examples of where it might go become silly excuses for allowing someone- government, church, relatives...??? to meddle in the private lives of people they consider too 'different' to be accepted or tolerated. There are laws about mistreatment of people... including, of course, children- but living in a 'different' family structure does not implicitly involve mistreatment or moral degradation.

and, Ake... stating that you "did not support" laws about criminalization of homosexuality belies former posts you have made.... when pressed... in the last couple of years, stating that you thought (paraphrasing) that 'something should be done' to control MSM relationships, to 'alleviate the health problems'.
   I can't remember whether you ever said specifically what MIGHT be done, but there is certainly an underlying implication that 'control' of health issues might involve laws.... otherwise, how would any serious control be possible? (I do wish I had the specific quotes at hand... perhaps you can clarify your exact position?)
I do remember that *I* posted links about educational & scientific efforts to deal with health risks-- to which you replied, I believe, that they were inadequate.
You also made remarks about ?advertising? in places like bus signs that "promoted" homosexuality.... but I never saw and details of what this "promotion" consisted of.

All this, taken as a whole, does suggest to those reading that your basic objections to gay marriage... and to male homosexuality specifically... is a bit more convoluted than even you might be willing to admit.

I have strong concerns about the basis of YOUR concerns.... I do not resort to name calling and insults, but there are just too many unanswered questions about exactly what you believe and think should "be done".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:48 AM

Ake, I scanned Sewell's article earlier and it made me realize once again that this is a big world (wide net) and if you turn over enough rocks you can find someone who is willing to sell out their own kind.
Joe McCarthy found his Roy Coen and conservatives found their Clarence Thomas.
I live in the real world and have a circle of gay friends and we rejoice every time a court decision is handed down that tells them that they are worthy of having the same rights as every other citizen. So much for your regurgitation of Sewell's idle conjectures and your citing of non-existent research ["There has been no studies done,"(sic)] to prove something that is nothing more than a flat out lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:49 AM

Sorry Ake, it is merely called logic and observation, try it-it may get you to a different place:)

You may try and persuade yourself, and others by saying and repeating you are open-minded and against prejudice, but your anti-gay posts paint a different picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 11:05 AM

Akes "positive" (note the contradiction) contribution on gay marriage.

Fear them because they spread HIV, and are a danger to our (so, called) community values, youth and health.

Is that is a "positive" and reasoned message versus "fear mongering" against a group of people in every community.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 12:24 PM

What's worse, I am the one getting posts removed, not the offensive shit I challenge...

Good job Akenaton is against prejudice. Now he knows what it means, perhaps he might read some of his own disgusting claims against people he has no knowledge of, or prejudice as it is called.

Truth seems to be a word he struggles with too.

Don't worry, you have Keith and Michael defending you. Keith because he can't help himself and Michael because he needs help getting dressed these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 12:30 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 12:40 PM

Many people disagree with SSM, including as Ake has shown some intelligent and thoughtful gay folk.
Holding that view does not make someone a bigot.

Oh yes it does. Absolutely. One hundred percent. If, on the basis of your personal beliefs (not facts), you oppose a measure that would not harm you in any way yet would obstruct the path to wellbeing and happiness of others, you're a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 12:41 PM

My apologies for not simply posting a link to this article, but I was unable to make the link work. So here is the whole thing.

Germaine, I believe, to the current discussion.

Vatican Document Challenges Church to Change Attitude to Gays
Monday, 13 Oct 2014 07:46 AM

In a dramatic shift in tone, a Vatican document said on Monday that homosexuals had "gifts and qualities to offer" and asked if Catholicism could accept gays and recognise positive aspects of same-sex couples.

The document, prepared after a week of discussions at an assembly of 200 bishops on the family, said the Church should challenge itself to find "a fraternal space" for homosexuals without compromising Catholic doctrine on family and matrimony.

While the text did not signal any change in the Church's condemnation of homosexual acts or its opposition to gay marriage, it used language that was less judgmental and more compassionate than past Vatican statements under previous popes.

The document will be the basis for discussion for the second and final week of the assembly, known as a synod, which was called by Pope Francis and focuses on the theme of the family.

It will also serve for further reflection among Catholics around the world ahead of another, definitive synod next year.

"Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a further space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home," said the document, known by its Latin name "relatio".

"Are our communities capable of proving that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?" it asked.

John Thavis, Vatican expert and author of the bestselling 2013 book "The Vatican Diaries", called the document "an earthquake" in the Church's attitude towards gays.

"The document clearly reflects Pope Francis' desire to adopt a more merciful pastoral approach on marriage and family issues," he said.

A number of participants at the closed-door synod have said the Church should tone down its condemnatory language when referring to gay couples and avoid phrases such as "intrinsically disordered" when speaking of homosexuals.

That was the phrase used by former Pope Benedict in a document written before his election, when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and head of the Vatican's doctrinal department.

EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE

The language and tone of Monday's document, read to the assembly in the presence of Pope Francis, appeared to show that the advocates of a more merciful tone toward homosexuals and Catholics in so-called "irregular situations" had prevailed.

It said that the 1.2 billion-member Church should see the development of its position on homosexuals as "an important educational challenge" for the global institution.

While the Church continued to affirm that gay unions "cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman", it should recognise that there could be positive aspects to relationships in same-sex couples.

"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners," the document said.

Pope Francis has said the Church must be more compassionate with homosexuals, saying last year: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge."

The Church teaches that while homosexual tendencies are not sinful, homosexual acts are.

The document also showed considerable opening to heterosexual couples who were married only in civil services or who were living together, mentioning "positive aspects" of such unions, especially if the couple saw them as a prelude to marriage in the Church.

While Church marriages clearly were "the ideal" for Catholics, it said, there were "constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal".

Catholics used to call such cohabitation arrangements "living in sin", another phrase that bishops at the synod were urged not to use when speaking about these couples.

© 2014 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 12:52 PM

Nonsense, Popgun. Nothing of the sort! Why, I have always had my valet to lay out my clothes, dontcha-no! But I have always contrived to put them on for myself, so long as he holds the sleeves at the right angle, & the trousers at just the right distance above the floor for me to step into. Tho what you imagine my admirable & inordinate skill at performing such esoteric manœuvres may have to do with the matter at ☝ I am quite at a loss to resolve.

As I might have remarked before, these vagrant and anfractuous thought-processes in which you constantly indulge really do give rise to the utmost concern amongst all of us who wish you nought but well; so I make no apology for asking again, are you seeing a good alienist about these worrying wandering thought processes which you make such a habit of indulging in? You really should not let them continue unchecked, my dear old fellow. They are clearly in need of the most urgent attention.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

Bill....I was against the criminalisation of homosexual acts, but that does not in any way conflict with me saying that something needs to be done regarding male homosexual health rates.
"Something" radical needs to be done, I am amazed that you do not concur with this view, as you must be aware of the steady rise in MSM infection rates, not only for HIV, but for all male STDs
MSM is the only demographic in which infection rate have steadily increased for over a decade.

The agencies are at this moment attempting to do so ....without saying so. That is how utterly idiotic the "liberal" ideology is.

They are saying that "at risk" groups must be targeted, when there is really only one group within which infection rates run at epidemic proportions.
"Slippery slope","logical fallicy","examples of where it might go", "silly excuses"?......Did you not read the link? Do you not realise that "open" relationships, union and "marriage" are already here and the health agencies are desperately trying to come to terms with the new homosexual culture.
Heterosexual marriage contains the braking system of procreation and raising of ones own children.
Homosexual relationships, unions and "marriage" do not, so sexually active men apparently make their own arrangements regarding sexual conduct, with the results reflected in the figures that the health agencies are battling.
They say certain city areas must be targeted, when they mean areas with a high homosexual population.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 01:26 PM

Gilly, Mr Sewell is not alone, there are a large number of prominent homosexuals who share his views you can find them on Google.
They are usually very well educated and intelligent.
Several are members of the UK parliament

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 01:52 PM

Nurse!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 02:07 PM

It is a ridiculous "notion" that HIV is in a "gay" disease linked in some way to governments acceptance of gay marriage - this is clearly anti-gay propaganda designed to instill fear against gays being increasingly provided with equal rights. HIV a global disease spread through unsafe sexual practices among ALL people, being much higher in number among heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 02:59 PM

Same sex marriage has been legal in Iowa now for 5 1/2 years. The world has continued to spin just like it has for the past 6,000 years.

Some time back I went round and round with Ake (and GfS) about this. Decided it was silly so stopped. Ake and those of his ilk are on the losing end of this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:06 PM

""Ake and those of his ilk are on the losing end of this one.""

Very true- It is hard to believe he is still at the same ilky-game, spreading his ""same old-same old"". Kinda reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

KB- "The world has continued to spin just like it has for the past 6,000 years." Good one. Coffee shot out my nose when I read that.

Of course it's silly and futile to argue with Ake but allowing him to crawl up on the dung heap of his prejudice and freely crow out his anti-gay propaganda doesn't sit well either.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:47 PM

Hi KB nice to hear from you again.

Just as a point of information, in those five years annual STD infection rates amongst male homosexuals have increased by over 40%
and you think I am on the losing end of this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:52 PM

"That is the trouble with redefinition, where does it stop?"

"Slippery slope" logical fallacy. Then your examples of where it might go become silly excuses for allowing someone- government, church, relatives...??? to meddle in the private lives of people they consider too 'different' to be accepted or tolerated. There are laws about mistreatment of people... including, of course, children- but living in a 'different' family structure does not implicitly involve mistreatment or moral degradation.

and, Ake... stating that you "did not support" laws about criminalization of homosexuality belies former posts you have made.... when pressed... in the last couple of years, stating that you thought (paraphrasing) that 'something should be done' to control MSM relationships, to 'alleviate the health problems'.
   I can't remember whether you ever said specifically what MIGHT be done, but there is certainly an underlying implication that 'control' of health issues might involve laws.... otherwise, how would any serious control be possible? (I do wish I had the specific quotes at hand... perhaps you can clarify your exact position?)
I do remember that *I* posted links about educational & scientific efforts to deal with health risks-- to which you replied, I believe, that they were inadequate.
You also made remarks about ?advertising? in places like bus signs that "promoted" homosexuality.... but I never saw and details of what this "promotion" consisted of.

All this, taken as a whole, does suggest to those reading that your basic objections to gay marriage... and to male homosexuality specifically... is a bit more convoluted than even you might be willing to admit.

I have strong concerns about the basis of YOUR concerns.... I do not resort to name calling and insults, but there are just too many unanswered questions about exactly what you believe and think should "be done".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:53 PM

Gilly, why is it futile to discuss a subject which divides our both nations?
I don't abuse you, am prepared to listen to reasonable arguments against my views, but so far you have advanced not one ....apart from the equality myth of course.

Equality is not an argument, it is a "faith position".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 03:58 PM

Another "senior moment" Bill :0)

Never mind Ian has already called for NURSE! She will be round when she's got him settled.




Only joking Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Let's Look at the Data
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 04:06 PM

Akenaton is full of shite.
In fact, gay marriage bans INCREASE the rate of STDS.
snip----
...Using micro-and state-level data, we find evidence that same-sex marriage bans reduced tolerance for gays and increased the syphilis rate, a rough proxy for risky homosexual behavior. However, we find no consistent evidence that same-sex marriage bans impacted risky heterosexual behavior,marriage, or divorce.
snip----
Full peer-reviewed paper here (no paywall):

http://www.academia.edu/446302/The_Effects_of_Same-Sex_Marriage_Laws_on_Public_Health_and_Welfare

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 04:14 PM

The mere fact that you consider equality a myth in this regard indicates you are not receptive to reasonable argument and from what I've read never have been. As I said I live in the real world and anytime I see some internet jackass try to portray my friends, who he has never met, as second class citizens he/she will hear from me. You apply a thin veneer of civilty to your homophobia which encourages some around here try and engage you with reason and logic but to me you are just another dime a dozen bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 04:35 PM

Just as a point of information, in those five years annual STD infection rates amongst male homosexuals have increased by over 40%
and you think I am on the losing end of this one?

Yes, I do.

What really prompted me to stop arguing the point was when you acknowledged (or as near as you could come without an explicit 'yes') that even if a cure was found for AIDS you would still be opposed to same sex marriage.


- thanks gillymor, I get lucky once in a while -

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 04:59 PM

Well your opinions of me are not worth a dime a dozen and not of much interest to the membership of this forum; how about some reasonable debate ...come on....do some joined up thinking, tell me why homosexual infection rates are so bad, is it intrinsic to the practice, is it simply that homosexuals are more promiscuous, is it both, or is it a conspiracy theory......for gods sake say something constructive.....I'm bored, have you nothing at all but the ability to shout bigot?

Even if I was a bigot....which I'm not, you are still left with the elephant in the room 70% amongst 1%

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:10 PM

Guest (Look at the data.)

Please pay attention, the paper I linked to for Backwoodsman highlighted the fact that male homosexuals who had sex with primary partners in open relationships were more likely to practice UAI.
This is a serious infection risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:15 PM

KB...I have ALWAYS said that I am against homosexual "marriage" on health AND societal grounds.
So why should you stop discussing infection rates?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: olddude
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:28 PM

Everyone is entitled to an opinion even If it is one I cannot agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:33 PM

'News Flash'-Buyer Beware

""And, in other news, a band of (one) bored alien 'phobes-trolls' attempted to hijack a Mudcat thread , through the back door, using olde worn-torn arguments"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:34 PM

""Everyone is entitled to an opinion even If it is one I cannot agree with.""

Opinion does from prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:35 PM

Well thank ee old dude.....very nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,murrbob
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 05:45 PM

Had to finally chime in. As a developmental biologist and teacher of human sexuality, I have found the conversations filled with "great thoughts" and pure idiocy.
   There has never been a "gay" gene found; to think that a single set of genes could regulated such complex behavior is beyond the pall. There is little question, however, the multiple genes are involved along with epigenetic factors, chemicals such as hormones that regulate brain development. Many such examples exist.
    So, is "gayness" a choice -- no! Is our sexual behavior a complex of early developmental factors -- extremely likely. Please -- no more choice dogma. No reputable social psychologist would argue for choice.
   Interesting thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:03 PM

"Everyone is entitled to an opinion..."

Not quite, Dan - everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion, but not an opinion based on bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:26 PM

Thank you, Greg F, I so heartily agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:53 PM

Ake, the way you keep quoting statistics--

First, I doubt the accuracy thereof--AND you make it sound as if you are claiming that 70% of gay men have HIV/AIDs.

That's like claiming that 100% of men have prostate cancer when, actually, 100% of those who have prostate cancer are men.

Well, DUH!!

Your blatant prejudice robs you of all credibility. I sometimes wonder if YOU believe what you are saying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 09:54 PM

I just found the solution: ake, if gay people are bound and determined to kill themselves off with STDs and other risky behavior, problem solved. After awhile they're all gone. Right?

It has been long known and accepted that paedophiles are generally heterosexuals so after the gays are all gone there will still be some abused children but we can take them up later.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:45 PM

It's only fair that Ake should be able to wait out the demise of gay people as they've been waiting out the demise of prejudiced mossbacks like him for some time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 10:54 PM

Hmmm... I thought my earlier post didn't take...so later that day, I found the 'back' button took me to it, and I re-posted.

"senior moment"? *shrug*

But answer your actual reply,.... you make my case, and continue to argue as if a supposed description of a problem automatically justifies the most draconian solutions- except that you never actually propose a specific one. Further, no matter what YOU think of the problem, denying marriage rights will do nothing to 'fix' the problem... and there is reason to suggest that it may contribute to it. Those who wish to be married are not the ones we need be most concerned over.

These 2 sentences are simply guesswork:
"Heterosexual marriage contains the braking system of procreation and raising of ones own children.
Homosexual relationships, unions and "marriage" do not, so sexually active men apparently make their own arrangements regarding sexual conduct, ..."

You are reading what you wish into culture and psychology......

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 11:08 PM

Oops that Guest above was me, agreeing that you aren't entitled to your ignorance.

Not you individually, but one, in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,look at the data
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 12:17 AM

Did not bother to read the paper didja?
Of course not. It blows holes in your argument.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:50 AM

The statement "It's my opinion so I'm entitled to it" is bullshit. Some opinions are better than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 03:13 AM

It's this "entitled to opinion" bullshit that's gets me. Gay people still have fear of non acceptance and to stumble upon posts by people such as Akenaton, spewing lies in order to prove a point of hating them, well.. Is that free speech? Vulnerable people have been known to sink into self harm and suicide through reading of hatred of them by people they don't even know. It's why we need moderation.

If this website was in The UK, the host ISP would require his posts to be deleted as incitement to hatred. As it is, he is culpable, hence my reporting to my ISP that UK originated published hatred is available. A little man with little views is not on their priority list but I still can't agree with the stance of the moderators.

I can't understand gay love. Most of my close friends are men, I certainly love my male close family, as the word "love" covers all aspects of caring, nurturing and support but I couldn't take a man as my lover any more than a gay man could take a woman into an intimate relationship.

But hate? Put forward the idea that gay men should be forcebly tested for disease against their will? Trying telling us that married gay people look for sex with others? Akenaton lives in an area with a higher proportion of women's refuge care for battered wives, but it would take his logic, not the Logic of rational people to make the mental leap that begs here.

The only people coming out of this debate looking foolish are the few who defend his stance, claim it is not borne of bigotry or try to take sentences out of context to dismiss counter arguments.

😢

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:43 AM

Having spent fifty years working with numbers, producing and analysing statistics and financial data, I suspect, as a matter of principle, all statistical reports put forward as 'proof' of an individual's dogmatic beliefs.

Before I accept pages of stats as 'proof' of anything, I need to know whom the pollsters are, who employed them to carry out the survey(s), what the aims were of their survey(s), in what terms their survey questions were couched, how their sample-membership was comprised and how the individuals polled were decided upon, where the survey took place, etc., etc.

The suggestion that Gay men, in particular, will commit themselves to marriage with the express intention of then 'spreading it around' is, frankly, illogical. And the implied suggestion that homosexuality renders an individual incapable of fidelity to one partner is simply ludicrous. And, of course, there are plenty of hetero men and women who engage in sex with partners other than their spouses.

If, as has been suggested, there are serious health issues amongst Gay men which result from their lifestyle-choices, surely the answer is not to deny all Gay men the right to the happiness and security of marriage with their partner, but to provide opportunities for education and health-care in order to reduce the risks faced by the at-risk demographic?

And anyway, why should any individual's rights be determined on the basis of his neighbour's behaviour?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 05:41 AM

"It's this "entitled to opinion" bullshit that's gets me."
!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 07:35 AM

Yes indeed --

So many people can't distinguish between

"I'm entitled to my opinion" -

(at least an arguable postulation)

and

"My opinion is as good as anyone else's" -

(which, without further qualification [in 2 senses], is obvious rubbish)

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 09:25 AM

I'm beginning to think that most of Ian's pals have multiple personas ...... like Mrrzy! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 09:34 AM

Backwoodsman, as you and Bill are about the only two who deserve a response, the figures come from The Centre for Disease Control, America's premier health agency. Look them up in google

HPA in the UK used to give similar returns, but their successors PHE no longer give results by demographic, which is a disgrace as only one demographic is severely affected, MSM.
They continue to maintain that HIV rates are falling which is true taking the whole UK population, but within the MSM demographic infection rates are very high and rising steadily.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 09:41 AM

MGM Lion
And, there is a big difference between opinion and propaganda, where folks cherry pick (aka, card stack) health information and over-extend it in an attempt to vilify a whole group of people. What I see that putstopinion into the propaganda dimension (disguided as discussion, or personal opinion) is where the same unreasonable case is repeated over and over on a number of threads, over many years, often (in what I see as) an attempt to hijack other remotely related OP discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 09:44 AM

 RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton - PM 
 09 Oct 14 - 04:39 AM 
""I will have nothing further to say on this matter""

LOL, ya right:)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 10:13 AM

Give the guy some credit, Ed. He basically hasn't said much more than "I hate fags".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 10:24 AM

A good one, gillymor.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 10:29 AM

sad to see how once again a thread has become a battleground of sorts.

one of the reasons that anti-gay fervor has become lower over the years is that more and more people are aware of good people who happen to not be heterosexual.
so why do the same here..

without naming names give personal accounts of friends/family who benefit from the equal treatment under the law. And instead of citing second or third hand "facts"... let the opposition give their personal accounts of those they feel do not deserve equal treatment.

might help, might not... but so far I see no progress either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 10:35 AM

Those who do not accept SSM would say that civil partnership is equal to marriage.
What does it lack?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

The differences between civil partnerships vary by country. Being treated equal to traight people is a major factor. Civil partnerships were established mainly for gay couples, perpetuating the notion that same-sex relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones - and in many locals the legal rights are still not exactly the same as those of marriage. In addition, while there is international recognition for marriage- but,   there is no universally-accepted recognition of civil partnerships, as it differs from one country to the next.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 10:58 AM

in the USA we had segregation... the so called "equal but separate" used against black folks in many parts of the country that was struck down as unconstitutional when I was a kid.

the same would apply to any other similar situation that is restricted to a certain group of individuals...

every year at tax time I see the refernces to single vs. married...   

if civil partnership was an option to be used by anyone who wished it and not limited to a selected group of folks, it might well be a reasonable option... with tax, insurance, inheritance and all other laws updated to account for the "new" category.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 11:03 AM

This may answer your question, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 11:28 AM

And that document bears out the point made by EdT, that marriage is a universally recognised arrangement, whereas civil partnerships are not, and mean different things in different parts, not only of the world, but of the same country.

If civil union is acceptable, Keith, why not marriage? How will two men marrying, or two women, affect you, your marriage, your life?

The answer is simple - it won't, and there is absolutely no logical reason why anyone should object.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 11:51 AM

Yeah Keith. They should be happy with civil partnerships. They are only poufs after all. Lets decide whats right for them eh?

It lacks the word marriage for starters. It was brought out as an interim measure because bigotry is hard wired and it takes time to let it die. Marriage is marriage and in every way there is, equal to yours and mine. This is why Akenaton spits on the word equality. It destroys his odious stance.

Michael. Ever thought your newsagent might have two nephews? One might be gay! (In a thread on terrorism, I pointed out his newsagent / whatever, a pillar perhaps of society may well be a Muslim. To which Michael stated that yes, but he may have a nephew who is radical. This is what we are dealing with here.)

"Those who do not accept..." What do you mean by that Keith? You can disagree with the law but everybody other than common criminals accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 11:57 AM

How about: There is absolutely no logical reason why any reasonable and intelligent person should object.

Then, there are the bigots and the nutters who don't fall into the above category

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 12:50 PM

How do you tell them apart?
😕

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 12:57 PM

And that document bears out the point made by EdT, that marriage is a universally recognised arrangement, .
And if you change it, it won't be.

Marriage has been exclusively for MF for millennia.
(Let those who deny that produce examples please)

In my lifetime, SS marriage was simply unthinkable.
I have come to accept it, but you can not expect everyone in the world to change their perspective on the same day!

It would be unthinkable to refuse female suffrage now, but it's acceptance was within living memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:01 PM

""if civil partnership was an option to be used by anyone who wished it and not limited to a selected group of folks""

That same reasoning would apply to legal marriage, would it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:04 PM

Rather brave of you. Coming to accept it. Gosh, was it to gain respect of others or was it some barbequed donkey on the road to Damascus?

By the way, did anybody manage to find out whether Caligula's horse was a stallion or mare?

Now stop defending non acceptance and trying to make it look respectable, because there are no circumstances under which it is.

None whatsoever.

Superstition isn't a valid excuse to hate before you come up with that one. Even The Pope has stuck two fingers up at his disgusting employees, I was heartened to read yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

""Marriage has been exclusively for MF for millennia.""

There are alot of unfortunate human actions and legal institutions that have existed for millenia-but, that alone is not a good reason to fail to update and make changes when needed. Tombstones ard carved in stone-but government statutes are not so.

While it seems odd to me, many folks stick with old religious practices and attitudes from "millenia", even after they free themselves of the religion itself. It is somewhat understandable why some religious groups do not wish to marry gay couples. But, marriage is now primarily a legal government entity in most western countries. This puts it in a different catagory- where equality for all its citizens should be expected. Even serial killers are allowed to marry, and even when convicted and incarcerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:21 PM

""...Caligula's horse was a stallion or mare""

Did anyone here stop to look? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:21 PM

Caligula did not marry his horse.
What has superstition got to do with any of this?
I do not feel at all "brave" about it.
why should I?
Most people on here feel the same and most people I know do.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:24 PM

"There are alot of unfortunate human actions and legal institutions that have existed for millenia-but, that alone is not a good reason to fail to update and make changes when needed. "

Agree.
But you can not expect everyone to accept the change on the same day.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 01:45 PM

Yes you can. You can't expect people to understand others, but you should in this day and age expect the rights of others to peacefully coexist.

Anyway, what's the difference between a man and woman marrying or living over the brush? Isn't that good enough for them too?

I think you will find that, and I say this with extreme happiness, most people on here do not feel the same as you, judging by their posts. If most people you know do, I hope they don't embarrass themselves as you do by spouting the right to object to the happiness of others. Go join a church or something. They talk about everybody's right to happiness.

Allegedly.

Oh, you already have.

Good job they are irrelevant to most people and their influence is dwindling in enlightened society. The good ones get it. See Don for details.

zzz

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 02:10 PM

People did not all accept female suffrage on the same day.
What day was it when everyone should have accepted SSM Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 02:16 PM

Musket.
"

Cultural issues are not a consideration. Saving lives is. If that makes health workers fascists, go write a song about it. "

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 02:24 PM

Cultural issues are not a consideration. Saving lives is.

the logic of that statement escapes me... the major source of AIDs in Africa is married men giving it to their wives and children...

And should I conclude that the spread of AIDS in the 1980s would have been prevented because gay men couldn't marry...

oh, wait... that's what they are fighting for NOW.. along with gay women.

being gay is not the cause of AIDS/HIV infection... unsafe practices that expose people to already contaminated body fluids... like blood transfusions or needle sticks or having sex withan infected person.

so are we to expect that uninfected gay people who marry and do not engage in unsafe activites will suddenly develop HIV infections???

WTF?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 02:39 PM

"But you can not expect everyone to accept the change on the same day."

Not one person mentioned an unreasonable goal of "every person" accepting gays, the issue is equal access to government services and institutions.

Equality for gays is hardly considered " in same day" for governments. Gays have been around for eons. Equality rights for government services have been in place for most other minority citizens, in most Western societies, for many years.

Can you give me a valid reason, beyond a religious one, why prejudices against gays should be accepted in government agencies for any longer? After all, there is no government ban against marriage for the worst people and groups in society -even child molesters and those with very unhealthy lifestyles. Why single out gays any longer with a marriage ban, merely because they choose to love another with a similar body structure? Tell me why you feel that this should be condoned or encouraged any longer?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 02:45 PM

""WTF?!?""

Wtf, indeed.


As if banning gay marriage in some way stops people from living together or having sex, or in any way encourages safe sex. Logically it should have "some" degree of impact in the other direction.

Completely illogical, and likely fueled by old religious beliefs or possibly underlying prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 02:45 PM

He copied it from the ebola thread where I pointed out that saving lives is prioritised over cultural sensitivities, after some of our patronising colleagues got it into the their head that people in Liberia all live in grass huts and get a 48 hour appointment to see the witch doctor..

Keith is confusing posts, the object of the exercise to make my stance look bad and bigotry look good. Rather pathetic really.

Just to add to science geek's post. A meta analysis (Cochran) of accident and emergency / colorectal data for England over 2002 / 2012 suggests that a higher number of women have anal sex than men.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 03:02 PM

Prostitutes, and drug users who shoot up, have unhealthy lifestyles. Yet, there is no government ban on these folks getting married. Again, WTF with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: olddude
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 03:21 PM

Gay people pay taxes like everyone else does yet their rights are denied how does that make sense to anyone

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:08 PM

HIV rates amongst sex workers and IDUs are falling.
The only demographic where rates are rising is the MSM demographic

"Equality before the law"....Last week in our local paper a youth who happens to be a drug addict....not a dealer, was jailed for possession of a few grammes of heroin( it was his fifth offence of this nature). On the same day I had news of an old customer of mine, who sold all his property and moved south a few months before the financial crash. He had been involved in constructing and selling financial products to people who were unable to repay....he had just been given a large bonus and promotion in the banking corporation in which he works.
This man and others like him committed criminal acts, like the rigging of bank rates, they have caused untold misery to the poorest in society, yet none have been prosecuted...they are above the law they are protected by the system, yet the poor young inadequate is jailed, when he should really be receiving psychiatric help.
"Equality" my arse!!

Regarding compulsion, people are being forced to undergo invasive treatment just for being African or arriving in this country from Africa......I agree with this testing, but it does show that compulsion is used against any group when circumstances demand.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:31 PM

"""This man and others like him committed criminal acts, like the rigging of bank rates, they have caused untold misery to the poorest in society"""

And, unlike gays, these folks are permitted to get married, unlike gays, who committed no such crimes. The result of misguided, prejudiced and illogical disgust and towards the gay community, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:35 PM

Ake- I have just spent over an hour trying to sort out exactly what statistics show. I began with your link for backwoodsman, which seems to have nothing to do directly with the CDC. (which, incidentally is spelled Center for Disease Control on its own site. It's easier to search that way.) Your link was to a study done just in San Francisco at this place:
"Center for Research and Education on Gender and Sexuality
San Francisco State University" It is interesting, but has little relevance to CDC statistics. The CDC site itself is a HUGE conglomerate of stats, mostly in PDF format and hard to sort thru for definitive statements about any specific claim. The closest I can come is =http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html, which talks about rates, ethnic groups...etc.

They say this:"HIV Incidence (new infections): The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year2. Within the overall estimates, however, some groups are affected more than others. MSM continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, and among races/ethnicities, African Americans continue to be disproportionately affected."

That says what we all know.. that unprotected MSM continues to be the greatest concern. It also says rates are not generally increasing except in certain categories.

All very interesting... and always a matter of concern- however- (you knew there would be a however, hmmm?)... this thread was a focus on RIGHTS, not gross statistics. Once you state the obvious, that HIV is a problem in certain groups, you go on to extract concepts that are NOT data about the implications and relevant societal attitudes. "Defining---or REdefining" marriage is a matter of subjective opinion, not a causal factor in HIV transmission. Allowing marriage 'might' be studied as relevant data to compare infection rates, but I am unable to find any studies on it.... and as I have said before, the logical conclusion is that a stable relationship which includes marriage seems likely to reduce infection odds, not increase them.

In an important issue like this, it is well to confine your concerns to how to reduce the overall danger thru education, medicine and prophylaxis, rather than insinuating that "dangerous people should have restrictions on basic rights that others have". You have said as much, while avoiding saying directly that they should be quarantined like lepers once were, tested involuntarily by 'someone', or .... have a red letter on their foreheads.

I still can't read minds, so I can't guess what you might do if you had legislative power.... but it worries me to imagine.

Bill D., testing a different browser

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:37 PM

"Just to add to science geek's post. A meta analysis (Cochran) of accident and emergency / colorectal data for England over 2002 / 2012 suggests that a higher number of women have anal sex than men."

What does that information signify, other than a number of women are being brutalised by their male partners. Anal sex is a form of male domination, whether heterosexual or homosexual

Hetero sexual men do not have receptive anal sex, therefore you are again comparing the male homosexual population with the female population, you devious little chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:40 PM

"Anal sex is a form of male domination, whether heterosexual or homosexual.."

Huh? And you have interviewed how many to determine this?

I think you have your head further up your butt than many of the things you fret over.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 04:48 PM

You are getting confused again guest...whoever you are.

The CDC figures I mentioned were directly from the CDC site, a different site from the one I linked for Backwoodsman which was a study on homosexual "open" relationships, unions and "marriage"

The HIV/STD rates for men who have sex with men are freely available on CDC



Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.



The Numbers

New HIV Infectionsb
•In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.
•Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
•Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.
•Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2010
This chart shows the populations most affected by HIV in 2010. In that year, there were 11,200 new HIV infections among white men who have sex with men (called MSM); 10,600 new HIV infections among black MSM; 6,700 new infections among Hispanic/Latino MSM; 5,300 new infections among black heterosexual women; 2,700 new infections among black heterosexual men; 1,300 new infections among white heterosexual women; 1,200 among Hispanic/Latino heterosexual women; and 1,100 among black male injection drug users.

Source: CDC. Estimated HIV incidence among adults and adolescents in the United States, 2007–2010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012;17(4). Subpopulations representing 2% or less of the overall US epidemic are not reflected in this chart. Abbreviations: MSM, men who have sex with men; IDU, injection drug user.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 05:28 PM

""Huh? And you have interviewed how many to determine this?""


I recall this repetitive stuff from Ake from other threads on the gay related hang-ups he seems unable to get over. My recollection is that the research he put forward on female attitudes towards anal sex comes to a few questions he asked a couple of women at work. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Calling Bullshit
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 05:51 PM

From the 2014 UNAIDS report:

"Most new infections are transmitted heterosexually, although risk factors vary. In some countries, men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers are at significant risk..."

"Women represent half (50%) of all adults living with HIV worldwide. HIV is the leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. Gender inequalities, differential access to service, and sexual violence increase women's vulnerability to HIV, and women, especially younger women, are biologically more susceptible to HIV."

"Young people, ages 15-24, account for approximately 33% of new HIV infections (among those 15 and over). In sub-Saharan Africa, young women are twice as likely to become infected with HIV than their male counterparts."

If Ake's concern is really about health, why the F is he always talking about MSM? How about directing some of that deep and abiding humanitarian concern for African females. Hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 06:17 PM

guest(bullshit).....HIV infection rates are falling dramatically all over Africa.


HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 07:03 PM

Regarding compulsion, people are being forced to undergo invasive treatment just for being African or arriving in this country from Africa......I agree with this testing...

They are not forced, they are not treated at all (let alone invasively) and, overwhelmingly, they are not "tested", save by having their temperatures taken. The word you're struggling to get to is "screened". When I was on my way to my holiday in Italy the big security scanning machine went bananas as I walked through on account of the zips on my shorts' pockets, and I was searched head to toe. That is a damn sight more "invasive" than any "ordeal" a person from west Africa has to endure, yet I wasn't bothered. By the way, it isn't "Africa", nor "being African", as you state. If you can't get a simple thing like this right it doesn't say much for all that chucking around of statistics you like to indulge in.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 07:04 PM

"I have lived a long time and have never heard any woman admit to enjoying this practice. "

You have lived in narrow circles... I will tell you (have mentioned this before) that I actually worked in an 'adult' bookstore for almost 3 years, and had access not only to literature, but to conversations with real people who requested various material. I learned much about many issues that are not commonly part of everyday discussions among acquaintances. I can assure you that many (as in MANY) people of both sexes do enjoy practices that would startle you.... I will not attempt to prove this, but I can also assure you that Google would settle the matter, should you care to explore.

wait... perhaps you'd rather not take chances looking up stuff like that? Fine... https://startpage.com/ or https://www.ixquick.com/ do not identify you.

It is best NOT to make wild assumptions, based on your own limited experience, about the varieties of human behavior!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 07:19 PM

To be clear- I am NOT advocating such activities. There are good reasons to NOT try certain things, even though many indulge regularly and happily. All I am saying is that guesswork is not a good criteria to make generalizations.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 14 - 08:14 PM

"If Ake's concern is really about health""

Of course it is not, it is just anti-gay rights propaganda. Who knows or cares why it is so.

All one has to do mention the word "gay" in any thread (such as banjonplaying) and he pops up, repeating mostly the same cherry picked, and over-extended anti-gay stuff. Of course he cares deeply about the health of gays, that' s why he against gay marriage. Of course gays don't want gay marriage rights, because Ake digs up material from a couple of folks who say that they are gay who feel differently than most gays do on the topic.And, of course, gays should not be allowed to raise children, like every other citizen, who are good or bad at parenting.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,what's your point?
Date: 15 Oct 14 - 12:41 AM

HIV rates are falling worldwide you fool.

Here back atcha:

http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/campaigns/2014/2014gapreport/factsheet/

So why the obsession with gays in particular, eh?

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:33 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: 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: 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 - 06:59 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

"These pastors worked to organize the repeal petition," Evans said.

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."

"I will work as hard to defend the freedom of speech from the pulpit for those with whom I disagree, as I will to defend the rights of the LGBT community. As long as a sermon is not inciting violence, the government has no business getting involved in the content of ministers' sermons," Gaddy said in a statement released to the Huffington Post.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 07:29 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 - 07:39 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: 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: 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 - 08:37 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:58 AM

Keith says:

"Society's mores are always but slowly changing.
They never have and never will change for everyone on the same day."

But embedded in that seems to be the idea that laws allowing those whose mores HAVE changed to live their lives as they wish should not change until the rest of the slow ones catch up!

"marriage is much older than Christianity, and it has always been between man and woman until now."

   No, it has NOT 'always' been any such thing. It has usually been controlled by churches... who put their stamp on it.... which served to fairly effectively keep gay & lesbian couples from attempting open marriage.
   Simple descriptions of unfair practices of the past are being used to justify them!
Countries, along with 'approved' churches, used to allow slavery, engage in wars of conquest, execute 'heretics', extort 'taxes' for the sole benefit of the rich, burn books that they did not like, refuse voting rights to women and other groups and imprison or execute people for minor offenses. These practices were wrong, even though they were common and 'slow to change'... and denying marriage rights has always been wrong, no matter who once controlled the process and pretended that 'control' constituted a 'definition'.
The word signifies, as Muskets notes, a bond... not a limitation.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 12:34 PM

""Sewell is just an example of a normal and intelligent person who does not yet accept SSM""

Maybe, there are a few other things that Brian Sewell does not get? Note his quote below:


".".. There has never been a first-rank woman artist.Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20s or 30s. Maybe it's something to do with bearing children.""

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 12:59 PM

"So what other behaviors should be allowed? Should the supreme court allow pedophilia?"

Of course not. This is about consenting ADULTS. Children, by definition, can't give consent. Stop parroting this idiotic false-analogy argument fomented by senile old tools like Pat Robertson.

"Skin color and gender are conditions of birth, but where you stick your wang isn't. It may be a compulsion, but so is binging on your favorite sweet. You control those things."

Sexual orientation is not a choice. If you think it is, then please - tell me when you "decided" you were heterosexual?

JeffK627

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 01:01 PM

"Marriage is a contract that can be transacted in church or by the government"

Well yes- but to be considered a legal marriage, government issues a licence at some point. Some churches do not recognize government issuedivorces but, this does not alter the legal status outside that church..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 02:26 PM

Bill, any examples of Historical SSM?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 03:09 PM

There is plenty information of the global history of marriage on the internet, for those seeking information.

Two examples below:

origin of marriage 


History of Same Sex Marriage 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 03:52 PM

Could you help us all by revealing these "facts", Greg F?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 05:32 PM

In the second of Ed T's links above, in the list of "famous same-sex couples," I note the following:

Akhenaten – formerly Amenhotep IV (pharaoh: 10th king, 18th dynasty)
Smenkhkare (co-ruler)

Coffee through my nose when I spotted that!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Go to the Library
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:19 PM

Keith asks for historical evidence of SSM:
Hope you have a library card Keith...


Dynes, Wayne R. and Stephen Donaldson. 1992. Homosexuality in the Ancient World. New York, NY: Garland.

Ishay, Micheline R. 2004. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rupp, Leila J. "Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality." Journal of the History of Sexuality. Vol 10.2 (April 2001): 287-302.

Vanita, Ruth. "'Wedding of Two Souls': Same-Sex Marriage and Hindu Traditions." Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Vol 20.2 (Fall 2004): 119-135.

Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000.

Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China.

Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32 (4): 343–370

Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7).


Please report back in a few months!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:20 PM

Are you saying Akenaton bowled from the pavillion end?

I wondered why Alex worshipped and admired the old Pharaoh....

😄😂😊☺️😅😆😎😸😹

💞💘👥

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Library
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:22 PM

No card?

Get the Boswell classic at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860[referrer|www.google.com[type|mod-title

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 08:33 PM

Ake and Smenkhkare,
Sittin' in a tree,
K-i-s-s-i-n-g

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:49 PM

Could you help us all by revealing these "facts", Greg F?

Mr/Ms Library beat me to it, Ed, but there's your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 05:19 AM

Thanks.
Is it just Cheyenne in the last thousand years?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 07:11 AM

well, I suppose we were given one specific example from ancient history, and if we want to get anymore, a lot of reading is required....or whether the data therein supports the argument.
maybe if , go to the library, [or greg], has read those books him/her self, a few more examples could be supplied, please .

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,not taking the bait
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:19 AM

Why don't you ask for an example of someone who puts their pants on one leg at a time?
I know this game...
I give you one, you Google up a response and feel you've won.
Nope. Boswell's book is thoroughly referenced to hundreds of original sources.
Read it, then refute it.
No easy targets from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:35 AM

The introduction is available from that Amazon page.
Much discussion of SS "unions" but nothing about "marriage" being available to SS couples for over a thousand years.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:53 AM

Did you mistakenly google "Amazon Women on the Moon", by chance?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:14 AM

if we want to get anymore, a lot of reading is required

Ain't life a bitch, pete? Yes, if you want to become educated, you're going to have to put sopme effort into it. Otherwise, you'll juat have to remain the ignorant fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Woohoo! You read the introduction. Congratul
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:38 AM

Read some more. You will find translations of sacred (Christian!) rites for uniting same sex partners in the early church. Literally *in* the early church.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:49 AM

""Native Americans have often held intersex, androgynous people, feminine males and masculine females in high respect. The most common term to define such persons today is to refer to them as "two-spirit" people, but in the past feminine males were sometimes referred to as "berdache" by early French explorers in North America, who adapted a Persian word "bardaj", meaning an intimate male friend. Because these androgynous males were commonly married to a masculine man, or had sex with men, and the masculine females had feminine women as wives, the term berdache had a clear homosexual connotation. Both the Spanish settlers in Latin America and the English colonists in North America condemned them as "sodomites".""





Gay marriage in the history of American First Nations 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 11:27 AM

Interesting stuff, but any actual marriage in the last thousand years?

My point in asking is to emphasise what remarkable progress has been made in a very short time.
Inevitably, a time of adjustment is required before everyone gets on board.
Do not dismiss people as bigots because you recognise it before they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 11:45 AM

.."" but any actual marriage in the last thousand years""

It seems like you are "stacking the deck" i this discussion by asking a question and then rejecting contributions because they do not meet some odd, unidentified personal standard for "actual marriage" you have set in your mind. This is a good example of skewed logic, IMO, not too cleverly put forward to reinforce a idea already held.

Of course, marriage in the far off past, that merged into todays versions (eons before Christianity) did not mirror todays civil and religious mrriages, regardless of the sexes of the persons involved I that early day marriage.

So, what is your real purpose in wasting other posters time and energy by doing so?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 12:53 PM

"Do not dismiss people as bigots because you recognise it before they do. "

so it "unfair" to label someone as a bigot because they are not yet "enlightened"? Yet by very definition they are engaged in bigotry... so how long do they get a free ride?

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Full Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

sorry... that smacks of double standard... actions/behavior must have appropriate consequences if you seek to alter negative behavior. or are you expecting divine revealation to "show them the light"?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM

I mean the same marriage as available to opposite sex couples at that time.
And in the last thousand years, not the ancient world.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:04 PM

Not divine revelation SG.
Mores change slowly.
New ideas require time to take hold.
It is crazy to imagine everyone's position changing on the same day.

There was very little opposition to allowing SS couples civil partnerships.
It was a new arrangement so no preconceptions of it.
In fact it is exactly the same as marriage.

Aa thousand years of preconceptions about what "marriage" constitutes takes time to overcome.
Intolerance cuts two ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:11 PM

"well, I suppose we were given one specific example from ancient history,"

Sorry pete, Don's conjecture is complete bullshit.
Ikhnaton, Akhenaton, Amenhotep 4th, was married to a daughter of his fathers brother,(Nefertiti) and within ten years she had produced to Ikhnaton six daughters. He, his wife and family are depicted on many ancient Egyptian reliefs. It is said that Ikhnaton was devoted to his wife and family ....it was unusual for Royal family groups to be produced at that time.

The deaths of Ikhnaton and Nefertiti are shrouded in mystery but it is known that one of his daughters became ruler after his death.
There was also another female ruler before the daughter who some scholars believe may have been Nefertiti herself, if she survived Ikhnaton
The daughter in turn married and ruled with Smenkhkare, a shadowy figure, of whom very little is known.

Ikhnaton, (Akhenaton), promoted the worship of nature and chiefly the sun, the ultimate life force, he forbade the worship of the numerous gods of the old kingdom and introduced the first monotheist religion.
Some Scholars believe that the 18th dynasty king was Moses...of the Old testament.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:27 PM

Keith..Ed T has nailed it-

If only a few gen-you-wine same sex 'marriages' have been recorded in hundreds of years prior to the last 50 or so, all that proves is that various jurisdictions... religious & secular.. have conspired to not grant or recognize them. It has no bearing on whether they SHOULD have. As I noted earlier, slaves, women, Jews, etc... were once denied various things- from basic freedoms to the very right to exist!
Enumerating statistics, then arguing that a long history of suppression of rights somehow justifies that very suppression, is a curious way to defend a narrow viewpoint.

You seemed to say up there ^ that 'only when some arbitrary percentage of society allows gays & lesbians to marry will it be allowed'.... right. "Force our hand, then we 'may' consent."

Best I can do to explicate your strange reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:34 PM

No.
We have had secular marriage available for about a hundred years here.People like divorcees could marry who could not have a church wedding.
You can not blame the church.
Society not just the church was not ready for SS marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:35 PM

Keith A of Hertford
""14 Oct 14 - 12:57 PM ...And that document bears out the point made by EdT, that marriage is a universally recognised arrangement.....Marriage has been exclusively for MF for millennia.
(Let those who deny that produce examples please)...""

Keith A of Hertford
""17 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM 
I mean the same marriage as available to opposite sex couples at that time.
And in the last thousand years, not the ancient world.""

Examples of attempts to "stack the deck" in a discussion, by making an initial statement and later changing the parameters- in attempts to prove the beliefs are correct, after requested examples are provided (though likely not read).

Why was the past 1000 years selected? Well, it is because, Christianity has had the major impact in defining what is the marriage institution is in in this period-which is exactly the problem gay marriage has faced.

Good try Keith A, you are a good student of Ake's "cherry picking" techniques. Ake is
Likely less smooth, and it is easier to see through his reasoning to get to the desired result.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:40 PM

My opposition to Homosexual "marriage", has nothing to do with "hatred" or "bigotry", it is based on reason and common sense.
Male homosexual union or "marriage" has been shown to be completely different from heterosexual marriage from a health viewpoint and from a societal viewpoint.
The huge rates of sexual infection which presently affect male homosexuals, indicates that the practice or the behaviour is unhealthy...UAI and high rates of promiscuity aligned with "open relationships should make society wary of accepting homosexuality into the mainstream.

Heterosexual marriage also contains the element of procreation and the nurture of ones natural children as a template for a successful and viable society. Most experts agree that Mother, Father and extended family is the best way to bring up children.

As I have said many times, I was strongly opposed to the criminalisation of homosexuality when it was the law and opposition to that law was sparse.....that is not bigotry.

We must view how society is constructed carefully, close family relatives are refused the right to marry and incest is still a criminal offence, for health and societal reasons, even if there can be no issue from the relationship.

The vast majority of people worldwide are opposed to homosexual "marriage" only a minority support it.

We have destroyed much of what was a well functioning society in the last few decades...time to develop a bit of responsibility to the future generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:42 PM

"Society not just the church was not ready for SS marriage." Ready?
They'd better durned well GET ready!

Southern slave holders were not 'ready' for the Emancipation Proclamation

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:53 PM

"Not divine revelation SG.
Mores change slowly.
New ideas require time to take hold.
It is crazy to imagine everyone's position changing on the same day."

So what!?! Just because bigotry was more common does not change what is was/is OR make it acceptable.   

Yes, change is not easy... but it is necessary or else you end up with unacceptable behavior continuing to persist. or has it escaped your notice that bigotry doesn't just disappear with passage of a law. It will only disappear when it is no longer tacityly condoned... stop being an enabler.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:04 PM

"The vast majority of people worldwide are opposed to homosexual "marriage" only a minority support it."

Example of making things up.

""My opposition to Homosexual "marriage", has nothing to do with "hatred" or "bigotry", it is based on reason and common sense. ""

No it is not!

IMO, it is clearly based on anti-gay prejudice, based on your Mudcat posts. Worse, as demonstrated on Mudcat, you are obsessed with intentionally and considtantly spreading such hurtful views towards gays.

Your so called , "common sense" is likely common among those with prejudiced hang-ups, but is based on illogical thinking and cherry picking and distorting information into anti-gay propaganda. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:28 PM

ED....you seem to equate "hatred" and truth?

Bill for someone who declares himself a "disciple of reason", you sure make some wild "leaps of faith"

"Southern slave holders were not 'ready' for the Emancipation Proclamation "....What the hell has that to do with the homosexual "marriage" debate.
There were no reasonable arguments for the retention of slavery, no health problems associated with being black, no societal reasons for accepting free black people........I think it is what you would call a "false equivalence"......you fraud. :0o

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:30 PM

"For NOT accepting free black people"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:41 PM

"There were no reasonable arguments for the retention of slavery, no health problems associated with being black, no societal reasons for accepting free black people"... absolutely correct!

YET... as little as 10% non-white "blood" was enough to relegate a person into "colored" category...

separate schools, separate drinking fountains, eating places, had to use the back door if they let you in at all... lynching by the KKK for uppity behavior (and it didn't much to rock the boat), church burnings, prevented from voting in elections.

and "mixed" race marriages were against the law...

sounds a lot like being made into a second class citizen deprived of basic rights afforded everyone else to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:42 PM

Ake

You would not even recognize truth, under your obvious posted hang-ups.

you once indicated you were witn thd majority on anti-gay hatred in your hamlet, then in Scotland-now you claim you are in a "Global Majority" ( Wow, what an impressive gathering of of global statistics, :)

Get a grip Ake, you are now showing early signs of a mental disorder. You are starting to look pitiful regarding gay phobia.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 04:25 PM

ED nobody in my village "hates" homosexuals, but many are against the "marriage" legislation.

Geek I agree that black people were treated shamefully, what is your point?   No one wants to lynch Homosexuals or deprive them of liberty.
The opposition to homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with race or colour, the arguments apply to BEHAVIOUR, something which none of us may conduct simply as we please.

Equating the opposition to homosexual "marriage" with the fight for civil rights for Black people in America is just dishonest.
In the UK homosexuals in civil union have all the civil rights afforded to heterosexuals, in fact, heterosexuals are discriminated against as THEY are not allowed to live under Civil Union.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 04:39 PM

"" nobody in my village "hates" homosexuals, but many are against the "marriage" legislation.""

If so, you must have been travelling when the polls were taken, to make it unanimous.

What was the weather like in India and China, when you gathered your "global statistics" on attitudes towards gays,   certifying that your "anti-gay views" were now firmly in a global majority?

BTW, did you ever notice that you often confuse your views as being the same as those of all others? (Kinda put your frequent assertions in the "sketchy" arena, where they aren't taken that seriously).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 05:06 PM

No one wants to lynch Homosexuals or deprive them of liberty.

Tell that to Matthew Shepard.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 05:47 PM

The source of much of the anti-gay prejudice comes from religion, even among those who claim that they are now not religious-even by some on Mudcat..

A couple of good Christian quote examples, from good old Christian family folks, below:

"We say God did not intend anyone to be this way – to be gay or lesbian." John Paulk, Focus on the Family

"AIDS comes from the devil, directly from Satan. He uses homosexuals as pawns and then he kills them." Anthony Falzarano, Founder, Parents and Friends Ministrie

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:30 PM

ED nobody in my village "hates" homosexuals, but many are against the "marriage" legislation.

So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:38 PM

Matthew Shepard.

Just who I've been thinking of, but KB in Iowa beat me to posting it.

Picked up in a bar by two guys and offered a ride home, but instead, driven out on a country road near Laramie, Wyoming, where he was robbed, brutally beaten, tied to a split-rail fence and pistol-whipped, then left hanging on the fence, unconscious.

Eighteen hours later, a by-passer on a bicycle found him--at first thinking he a scarecrow. The police took Matthew Shepard to a hospital. He had suffered multiple cuts, lacerations, and bruises on his face, multiple skull fractures, and severe damage to his brain-stem. He never regained consciousness and died a few days later.

Why?

Matthew Shepard, twenty-one years old, was gay.

Don Firth

P. S. Matthew Shepard's murderers are both serving life terms in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:47 PM

Not my conjecture, Ake. Historical fact.

Akhenaton was married to Nefertiti, but he had several concubines--of both sexes.

Just a fun-loving dude....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:21 PM

The point, Ake, is that many people back near the time of the Civil War, and in Southern schools and in registrars office, and at public lunch counters in the 20 Century, were of the opinion that change in the rights granted to blacks should be allowed 'gradually', if at all.

A metaphor is not a logical error.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 02:18 AM

I reckon it goes out and speaks to itself, on the basis normal people avoid it as it walks through the Scottish village it thinks is the world.

Not a single person in The UK has an opinion on same sex "marriage". Everybody has an opinion on marriage though. Rapists have an opinion on sex if you think on..

Keith seems to be taking his time googling his next attempt to get his views accepted by normal decent people. Need help Keith? Akenaton might be free to help out, and pete can write it down..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 04:09 AM

Bill, I do not subscribe to the "gradualist" view in either of these issues.
As far as I can see, there is absolutely no reasonable way that any decent person can support the murder and mass ill treatment of any race, based on colour. I protested vigorously over this issue in the sixties.
Black and white can behave in a perfectly normal way in regards to natural functions like procreation, bringing up a family etc, the template is still in place. I believe that the discrimination was instigated to keep a pool of cheap labour available to the ruling classes of the time...the blacks were made an underclass, to keep them in their social position.

The issue of homosexual "marriage" is quite different, there are reasonable arguments to be put in opposition. The procreation and family aspect is missing, except in a tiny minority of cases, but they will never provide any children with a natural mother and father.
The health situation within male homosexuality is sadly appalling.
The "rights" issue is also different in that homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexuals through civil union, they have in fact three status, single, civil union, and "marriage".
At present heterosexuals have only two.....married or single and are vet unlikely to be granted another for obvious reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 04:46 AM

Musket, which of my views are not accepted by ordinary, decent people, or are you just smearing again?
Ed, the last thousand years have rather more impact on people than what the ancients got up to.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 06:49 AM

Musket, which of my views are not accepted by ordinary, decent people, or are you just smearing again?

My views on this are the same as yours.
Also, I have not linked to any internet pages in this, so why the jibe about googling.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 07:33 AM

Millennium

Again KA of A, as stated, marriage over the last thousand years has been mostly influenced by Christianity, which has done a giod job of demonized gays and gay marrriage. While it was stated that marrriage has been exclusively between men and women "for the millennium" (to justify anti gay martiage) evidence was presented that this was not factually accurate, up to the point of the evolving influence of Christianity).

IMO, your contribution to this point in this discussion has been an attempt to justify the unequal treatment of gays related to marriage-mostly by saying it always existed, so it should continue. You pose questions to others, which were answered (which you then ignore) -but, you offer little new information.

Beyond that, and your what else do you have to contribute?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 08:09 AM

Defending the propagation of hate is hate. Saying you don't personally agree with it whilst bending over backwards to defend it is pathetic.

How thick do you think people are? If your views were anything like mine, I doubt you would portray bigotry and hatred as respectable opinion.
😕

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 11:30 AM

Ed and Musket, I am fully with you on SSM.
I think you are wrong to assume that anyone who has not accepted it is a hate driven bigot.

Marriage has been exclusively male to female for over a thousand years, and people need time to adjust.

SSM is gaining acceptance all the time, so there are people against it today who will accept it tomorrow, but a bigot is a bigot full stop.
Bigots probably do not care if gay folk marry each other or not.

Ed, are you saying that SSM a or being LGBT has been widely accepted these last thousand years in non Christian places?
Are you being a little bigoted against Christians?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:00 PM

31 statex and growing;)


31 USA states now allow Gay marriage 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:08 PM

""I think you are wrong to assume that anyone who has not accepted it is a hate driven bigot.""

You have a tendancy tonput words in folks mouths, not too kind, nor smart. No one has said that but you Keith.

The facts stand related to organized religion's negative attitudes and impact on gays, and its influence on government regulations until recently. Noone indicated any individual are bigots because they are Christians beyond your statement. You seem to have no idea if I am a Christian or not, do you Keith? So, making that suggestion shows your debating level is very low.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:26 PM

"The "rights" issue is also different in that homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexuals through civil union"

Not in the USA.... and it is in the USA that the issue recently came to the fore.

read this

and this

It seems some are more equal than others.

Ake... you are like Pete 7* in that you have a conclusion based on some subjective interpretation of certain cherry-picked objective data, and you will use any rationalization to cling to to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:32 PM

Keith-"Marriage has been exclusively male to female for over a thousand years, and people need time to adjust."

Well, fine.... we'll see to it that they have a lot more marriages to adjust to.

If we wait for them to adjust to the basic concept, it may be another 1000 years....at which point someone like you will say, "Oh, it's been the norm for 2000 years...people need more time to adjust."

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:06 PM

Ed, both Musket and Steve have made that accusation.
I am glad that you do not agree with it.
You have blamed Christianity for society's previous prejudice against gay folk, and you suggested I chose the last thousand years because of Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:09 PM

Bill, the battle is won.
Bring on the marriages.
Most people in the West accept SSM and acceptance is growing.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:18 PM

The battle is not quite over... the tide is turning, but resistance is pretty strong in certain quarters.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:35 PM

Acceptance is not something society seeks but demands.

Now.

Anyone can say they don't understand somebody else's sexuality or life choices, I doubt I understand the attraction of a gay relationship.

But to say the rights of others are wrong is not coming to terms with something you don't understand, it is bigotry by any definition. If christian churches and organisations oppose the rights of others on what they claim are christian grounds, then the christian grounds are bigoted and as odious as Akenaton's perverted stance. The cop out for CofE and the Bishop of Southwell blocking a gay married vicar from getting a job in an NHS trust makes it quite clear that christianity, same as any other superstition has a bigoted angle to it.

But that's what religions are all about of course, so no surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 02:20 PM

""You have blamed Christianity for society's previous prejudice against gay folk, and you suggested I chose the last thousand years because of Christianity""

I did not blame- I stated a case for its influence. This is based on ample historic evidence of the huge role that religion has played in sexual attitudes in governing in many countries over the past thousand years. Are you challenging this influence. If so, show us your contrary stuff. If not, what exactly your point, if you have one?

And, yes, that is why I suspect you changed your original stance- to boost your case by choosing the past thousand years versus evidence of gay marriage much farther back in history.

I don't recall ever using the word "society" in that context, as that is a broad group (though religion may have had strong influences in many social sectors). However, I did use the word government.

If you are going to refer to what I said, please try for a bit more accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:01 PM

"I am glad that you do not agree with it."

Unlike Isome you mention, I have no issue with any religion, including Christianity. Most have a good message. Thefmajority of followers I see as merely the innocents, unprepared to take a broader perspective or actions on the potential negative impacts of activities of thise in control of "their church".

Many organized religions, such as Christianity- and the people at the top, have used this good message (and, loyal followers) to do some very bad things in history under their brand. I do hold those people responsible for these actions andsee them in low regard. Christianity has only been around for a couple of thousand years, but the impact has been significant, some very good and some extremely bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:18 PM

The fact is, Christianity has had an influence on societal values over a thousand years. I doubt that keith denies that. But ,so what. It don't alter the argument that it may not be acceptable to a lot of people.    Since church became established, the concept of formal marriage is pretty much understood, even when non church weddings happened.in roman times it varied from high formal, to virtually shacking up of slaves at the masters decision. Either way the New Testament only promoted monogamous heterosexual marriage, so any idea that same sex marriage happened then, is certainly not from the bible.                Not sure I followed Ake,s argument , though, that ssm will make homosexual health worse, though I suppose that the normalising of Ssm to the level of normal marriage, as understood over more than a thousand years, might lead to greater acceptance of homosexual practise, and thereby more people choose it.   That is only a thought though, and not a definite prediction.    Apart from that,I don't see that ssm will accelerate std,s. If they get "married" from a multi partner background , I suspect they will continue that way. If it were ever, only the two of them, they obviously don't have the same health risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:25 PM

It's up to 35! Woo hoo!

Just don't try to vote in Texas!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:46 PM

""The fact is, Christianity has had an influence on societal values ....o
so what. It don't alter the argument that it may not be acceptable to a lot of people."

"So what" has the ring of a very angry and in compassionate person, versus a compassionate Christian one? Which one are you Pete 7 *? If the former, it may be time to take a step back and re-evaluate. ( I recall "so what" being used to justify some very bad crimes against people and groups in history. :(

Nor does it alter the argument that it denied acceptance, rights and a decent life to a significant segment of society and fueled alot of harmful results.

I am of the opinion that most "good Christian people" would not want that result, nor would see it as justified in a reasonable interpretation of tge "holy words in their good book".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 07:36 PM

pete, I didn't say that homosexual "marriage would make homosexuals health statistics worse, they can hardly get much worse than they are at present, and only a tiny minority of a tiny minority are even interested.
I was suggesting that homosexual "marriage" was likely to make society "worse", as I happen to think that retaining the traditional definition is of the utmost importance if the institution is to continue.
A high percentage of "open" "marriages" or unions as observed within male homosexuality coupled with the high rates of infection, certainly bodes ill for the future and I pity the children who will be brought up in such a situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,library
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:28 AM

Please shut up until you have actually read the well-documented history...

"Marriage has been exclusively male to female for over a thousand years..."

BS! Read!

Til then you are just being a highly public fool.

Substitute ~500 for 1000 and your fool quotient might drop significantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 03:41 AM

Why don't we vote Akenaton as King and round up people we don't like and stick them in gas chambers? Been tried already with two of his pet hates, gays and gypsies.

Look on the bright side. I haven't seen a single argument of his that isn't based on a tissue of lies. Not one. There is no statistical or hard evidence anywhere to support anything he is putting forward, so we are left with no argument against equality, or the law which he as a British subject is required to observe and accept. So we can drop the parentheses eh? No need for them.

Then we get the religious angle. pete may struggle rightly trying to reconcile Akenaton's stance but his own absurdity that religions have the right to preach inequality based on historical reflection of society in the past isn't impressive either. Or based on the evidence, judging by some of the assertions posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:18 AM

Why single out Christianity?
Religions were ubiquitous everywhere, as was LGBT persecution.
In the 20th Century we had atheist States like the Soviet Union.
No difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:22 AM

History DOES teach us that 'religions', whose morals and traditions parallel survival and reproduction, and who promote traditional families, tend to outlast 'trendy' ideologies....and the governments based on them.

No need to argue with me...check your history.

Those trends, that tend to undermine the basic fabric of any society, and that is of the basic traditional family unit, is thought to be a sign that that society is on the path of decay, along with corrupt governments and lawlessness......hetero or homo....
                     

...take a look around.

GfS


P.S. Don't bother with making excuses!....politics does that to ya'..
   
    I prefer REASONS!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:37 AM

Hi Goofus!

Come to sort out those goddam Limeys and faggots?

Praise be brother! It's all in the good book I tell y'all!

Yeeha! If marrying his Texas sweetheart was good enough for Jesus...



Sorry but if there is any hope of this discussion getting beyond irrational stupidity, the last thing it needs is Goofus and his claims that being gay can be cured. (Usually by his third post on any such related thread. Misinterpretation of history is only his opening number.)

Talking of history..

Keith. Every time I point out the awfulness of religions other than Christianity, you go on to say everybody picks on christians. I give up. Although it is only christians who rattle on about religious objection to equality on these threads. So when I dismiss superstition in its myriad forms, you see it as persecution of the old biddies arranging the flowers for this morning's service in your local church.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:57 AM

Musket, only Christianity has been referenced in this discussion, but thanks for supporting my assertion that it should not be the whipping boy in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:01 AM

Well that was some almost clever bullshit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:06 AM

Sorry Ian, but your posts don't make sense.
Do you read what other people write by way of explanation, or does it all just come pouring out? A pile of jibberish that simply doesn't make any sense, full of unfunny insults and misrepresentations.

Try to be specific just once and perhaps people MIGHT begin to take you seriously.
If you disagree with certain views try to show clearly why they are wrong
Saying that I or others tell lies is not enough to convince anyone.
Your tactics may work in social media like facebook etc, where mass hysteria can be whipped up by abuse, but this forum is filled with thoughtful intelligent people who require thoughtful intelligent responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:06 AM

.......and that atheist states were no better.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:31 AM

Don, I have a large number of literary works on Egyptology, I have never read the stuff that you mention regarding Ikhnaton's sexuality.

Would you please leave a link to any serious work which asserts that Ikhnaton(Akhenaton) had male sexual partners, for I believe that is what you are insinuating.

All the information gleaned from stone reliefs indicate that he was most definitely heterosexual. He seems to have had a thorough and (for someone of 3500 years ago), progressive view of nature, as can be defined by the "Great hymn of Ahkenaton" which has been attributed to the King.

Wiki Link

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:28 AM

Some further information Don.

Smenkhkare[edit]

Main article: Smenkhkare

Various uninscribed and damaged stelae depict Akhenaten with what appears to be a coregent wearing a king's crown, in familiar if not intimate settings (even naked). Since Smenkhkare was known to be a male, this led to the speculation that Akhenaten was homosexual. These notions were discarded once the coregent was identified as a female, most likely his wife.

In the 1970s, John Harris identified the figure pictured alongside Akhenaten as Nefertiti, arguing that she may have actually been elevated to co-regent and perhaps even succeeded temporarily as an independent ruler, changing her name to Smenkhkare.[60]

Nicholas Reeves and other Egyptologists contend that Smenkhkare was the same person as Neferneferuaten, who ruled together with Akhenaten as co-regent for the final one or two years of Akhenaten's reign. On several monuments, the two are shown seated side by side.[92] More recent research by James Allen[93] and Marc Gabolde[94] has led to a "a fair degree of consensus"[95] that Neferneferuaten was a female ruler apart from Smenkhkare.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:35 AM

""Why single out Christianity?""
Pay attention, Keith.:)

Actually, that has not been the case, if you actually read posts, (it has already been suggested you dont read attachments, even when they refer to a question you ask) you will see references to organized religions. Christianity is a major one, worldwide, having a major impact over the past thousand years, it can be expected to be very influential.

Because the OP and the discussion was primarily around the USA and western counrties, where Christianity followed colonization (influencing governments and cultures), Christianity has been a central factor. (You may wish to reread the OP to freshen up).

No person has said that there were not other influences on bans on gay martiage in the west or in other global locations, Keith- you were the only one who refered to that silly notion.

Welcome back GFS, I suspected the topic would bring back the old team.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 11:30 AM

I was suggesting that homosexual "marriage" was likely to make society "worse", as I happen to think that retaining the traditional definition is of the utmost importance if the institution is to continue.

Ake, it's time to get off of this theme you keep harping on. Expanding access to legally protected and sanctioned monogamous relationships to the LBGT community can only strengthen society. Your continued "disease" red herring has absolutely nothing to do with civil or religiously sanctioned marriage. Absolutely. Nothing. You are worried about a promiscuous lifestyle in the human population and perceive a health risk. Fine. Stop at that point and recognize that letting partners commit to each other and build from there is a good thing.

GtS came up with this whopper No need to argue with me...check your history.

Sorry, Bucko, but you can't win an argument with a global unsubstantiated remark that requires absolutely no work on your part, only on the part of whoever you are challenging. "I'm right, live with it" says the same thing - and is equally wrong.

Let's put some faces on this discussion:

Seattle marriages on first day of marriage equality.

New York marriages on first day of marriage equality.

An apology that spoke for many.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 11:48 AM

Christianity isn't a whipping boy. It is the only irrelevant superstitious nonsense that is used as an excuse by bigots and hypocrites on this thread. As I keep saying if I was superstitious I'd be more angry with those using my faith as a tool of bigotry than those questioning why I put up with it. The irrelevant Bishops in The Vatican yesterday being a case in point.

Regarding atheists. I suppose Akenaton claims to be one although his confusion in general means it isn't a factor to be taken into consideration. After all, not only can he not spell the name of his hero but didn't even know he bowled from the pavilion end.

Regarding marriage. Rejoice! By coincidence we booked our hotel for a wedding in Inveraray earlier. We have been to many civil partnership bashes, including our friends here, but are looking forward to seeing them as they wish to be. Husbands. Husbands in a country welcoming to all, whose political leaders (Scottish National Party) fought hard to destroy the hatred of little shits who oppose gay marriage, introducing the legislation to ignore bigots and hypocrites, making marriage a right for all loving couples. A gay couple's marriage being every bit as normal and respectable as a straight couple's. Importantly, every bit as legal in law. Every gay couple's marriage is equal in every single way to the marriage of those who oppose equality.

Isn't that a wonderful thought?

That the young man I met in London whose mental health suffered because of the actions and attitude of his father can now hold his head high and follow his happiness should he choose. Hopefully one day he might even tell his father how he feels..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:08 PM

Excellent post, SRS, and those photos were heartwarming.

Now for the lighter side of this struggle check out this slide show at the Huff Post,click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM

SRS...I disagree strongly that the homosexual health statistics are a "red herring", or that homosexual "marriage" equates to heterosexual marriage in any way. It is an entirely new definition, completely disregarding the family aspect, "open" relationships with multiple partner are becoming almost the norm among young male homosexuals and serves to weaken the definition and status of traditional marriage.

Out of respect for your wishes and yourself, I shall say no more on the subject...unless severely provoked   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:59 PM

"Because the OP and the discussion was primarily around the USA and western counrties, where Christianity followed colonization (influencing governments and cultures), Christianity has been a central factor. (You may wish to reread the OP to freshen up)."


Just to clarify: since I'm the person who wrote the "OP" I hope I'm allowed to interject that religion was never mentioned in the "OP". As is often the case it was brought up soon however.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:09 PM

""religion was never mentioned in the "OP""

Curious, did someone say it was so mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:17 PM

Akenaton: "It is an entirely new definition, completely disregarding the family aspect, "open" relationships with multiple partner are becoming almost the norm among young male homosexuals and serves to weaken the definition and status of traditional marriage."

What is damaging to the traditional marriage and family, weakens the nations that promote it....being as fully LIVING species, have within them the will to survive and reproduce. Homosexuality is a behavioral form which thrives on the reproductively impaired.

That's simple...and true....but then what does politics and political agendas have to do with truth??...they thrive on lies and disinformation!...just like the political agendas, ANY political agenda, that corrupts to get their way....just that ideologue propagandists have told their lies so often that they actually believe them,...it's called 'delusion'.

BTW,..."The new poll, released Wednesday, finds 58 percent of voters feel things in the world are "going to hell in a handbasket."

That includes 48% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 71% of Republicans."

Sound like things are getting better??....but then ideologues don't particularly give a rats ass about what the majorities say. They'll just make up their own rationalizations, and support them with very faulty propaganda's talking points.....just hoping some gullible saps will agree and vote for them!!

Take a look around.

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:30 PM

No one should ever accused you of not joining the dots, (closely related or otherwise), gfs.

Looks like you have been" recharged" in your absence.

:)

A good reading book for consideration :
Is god anti-gay 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:47 PM

Marriage is certainly a tradition Goofus. Now enjoyed by gay people too. Bigots can lick their wounds and move to the fringes of society until such time bigotry dies out.

I did notice it was those who express discriminatory dinosaur attitudes who linked religion and sex to falsely bolster their bigoted agenda. Akenaton has a fixation with anal sex and brings it up whenever these threads discuss marriage of gay people.

Goofus. The young man I refer to wasn't American, but Scottish, for the record. He became the subject of the song "Bruce's Song" which for a while was sung by quite a few people in the folk clubs hereabouts.

So your rather nasty dig at Don is quite irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:49 PM

Well, my absence was due to working on some very serious music projects, and due to the fact, that honest and intelligent dialogues on here were getting too rare. You've got facts versus ideological fiction, and the fictional crowd only just keeps repeating bogus talking points, or make equally as stupid assertions, based on emotionally entreating those same bogus, and stupid talking points...

...and I probably won't be engaging in the refutations of the same nonsensical, blathering, as being promoted by those same mentally blocked wannabes.

That being said, Don posted another one of his off-the-wall 'studies' yet claiming that some quasi-researcher, who wanting to promote her new book, found a new place to 'start looking' for the 'missing gene'...because it 'MAY SUGGEST' the 'POSSIBILITY' that it's yet 'another gene'.....because the last time they tried that horse-crap, it got found out to be terrifically in error!....or like the one before the last one posted by 'Dave the Gnome', it contained the finding, that 'OTHER FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLE' (of which I agree), in the 'determination' of 'sexual orientation'......but our local 'promoters of hogwash' seemed to disregard...only cherry picking phrases out of context, that appear to support their illiterate opinions!

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 03:18 PM

Did you remember to breathe when typing all that, gfs. If so, it was undetectable?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: pdq
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 03:30 PM

Folks might want to read about this...


                                                                      interesting House race

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:41 PM

Suffice it to say that Goofball is lying through his teeth, as usual.

But that's what to expect from him.

Don Firth (Never picked up a woman in a bar in my life! I leave that sort of thing to people like Goofus!)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:19 PM

despite don being a somewhat disagreeable poster [at least toward me] , I did think your remarks, gfs, were unkind, and if they were true , I hope you can substantiate them , and if not withdraw them.
apparently, in the UK, plans are in progress to increase sentences for convicted "trolls", which apparently are those who threaten online. there was , thankfully, no mention of prosecuting those with un-pc opinions. this lack will, I expect upset certain posters here.
ed - I am not sure if you accidentally misintepret, or deliberately read motive into a few words . either way you are wrong. my "so what" was meaning that , it would be expected that the dominant influence over a historical period would inform a societies values, but that is no reason to discount those values.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

Well, my absence was due to working on some very serious music projects

Yeah, sure, bullshitter. None of us here can friggin' WAIT till your stuff's released. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:30 PM

Well done Goofus. You can even disappoint those whose take on life you try clumsily to defend. pete has his God to justify his anti gay crusade without your help.

I'd get back to your important music projects if I were you. Judging by the last project you gave us a link to, you certainly need the practice, and Don needs to open Mudcat without reading hurtful lies by a trolling lunatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:00 PM

Yay music, Pete.

I am waiting for news of the first gay divorce. Then we'll know we have true marriage equality. And it will be news, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:21 PM

""ed - I am not sure if you accidentally misintepret, or deliberately read motive into a few words . either way you are wrong. my "so what" was meaning that , it would be expected that the dominant influence over a historical period would inform a societies values, but that is no reason to discount those values.""

I accept your explanation Pete, Yes, your "few words" did come across to me as uncaring and flippant, on a serious topic. I am surprised you do not see that liklihood.

I earlier noted the dominant influence of organized religion on governments, attitudes to wards gays. I see these as not in line with the original stated values towards others, common with most religions.Values that are damaging, uncaring, and fuel hate are nothing to be proud of, IMO.
Gay marriage under government institutions,   takes little or "nothing" away from marriages amongst religious folks, but obviously, are seen as very important to many gays-who love and care for their partners like religiuos folks do. Saying that this in some way discounts religious values is not reasonable, logical and exhibits an uncaring and "dog in the manger" type of perspective. I would be surprised if that is your intent and position.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:25 PM

Considering gay marriage has been around for awhile, I suspect the first gay divorce occured many years ago, with as little fanfare as the many straight divorces. It is all mostly "cut and dried" legally, with so much experience to draw from.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:41 PM

Already been done.

"The Gay Divorcée" (1934), with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

Er--well, maybe that was something different....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 09:34 PM

Pete, if our exchanges are disagreeable, they are disagreeable to both of us. As in the sense that we disagree in our view of God's handiwork because we come at it from different directions. You accept the Biblical texts as written, whereas I look at the handiwork itself.

You, I presume, see Adam and Eve as actual historical figures, whereas I see them as symbolic. A metaphor, as I see much of what's in the Bible, a compilation of ancient texts with much doctoring and editing along the way.

But then, that's a centuries—millenniums—old debate, and neither of us is going to resolve it, so let us simply agree to disagree, okay?

Thank you for your defense. What GfS is saying about me is simply not true, and he seems to believe that if he repeats that sort of thing often enough, people will believe him. It's his "debating" method. He believes in hitting below the belt—any way he can do it. If the facts don't support him, he tries to attack the character of any person who doesn't agree with him.

Don Firth