mudcat.org: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Ascending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: 'Gay marriage' question

GUEST,Musket sans Ian 26 Jun 13 - 11:22 AM
bobad 26 Jun 13 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Mar 13 - 11:27 AM
GUEST 01 Mar 13 - 10:02 AM
Wesley S 01 Mar 13 - 08:51 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Mar 13 - 03:02 AM
bobad 28 Feb 13 - 07:03 AM
Don Firth 27 Feb 13 - 09:18 PM
akenaton 27 Feb 13 - 06:03 PM
Bill D 27 Feb 13 - 02:57 PM
Don Firth 27 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM
akenaton 27 Feb 13 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 27 Feb 13 - 02:27 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Feb 13 - 12:00 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Feb 13 - 01:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Feb 13 - 01:06 PM
Wesley S 26 Feb 13 - 12:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Feb 13 - 12:26 PM
Wesley S 26 Feb 13 - 12:10 PM
KB in Iowa 26 Feb 13 - 10:50 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Feb 13 - 08:47 AM
akenaton 26 Feb 13 - 03:12 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Feb 13 - 09:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Feb 13 - 09:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Feb 13 - 06:33 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 13 - 03:53 PM
GUEST 25 Feb 13 - 03:36 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 13 - 02:53 PM
frogprince 25 Feb 13 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Feb 13 - 01:34 PM
Don Firth 24 Feb 13 - 08:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Feb 13 - 08:23 PM
Don Firth 23 Feb 13 - 10:59 PM
frogprince 23 Feb 13 - 08:20 PM
frogprince 23 Feb 13 - 08:15 PM
frogprince 23 Feb 13 - 08:10 PM
Don Firth 23 Feb 13 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Feb 13 - 12:32 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Feb 13 - 07:12 PM
frogprince 22 Feb 13 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Feb 13 - 03:42 PM
frogprince 22 Feb 13 - 03:21 PM
Don Firth 22 Feb 13 - 01:54 PM
frogprince 22 Feb 13 - 12:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Feb 13 - 12:10 PM
frogprince 22 Feb 13 - 11:10 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Feb 13 - 09:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Feb 13 - 09:05 AM
GUEST,Guest fron Sanity 22 Feb 13 - 03:12 AM
Don Firth 22 Feb 13 - 01:20 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Feb 13 - 01:10 AM
Don Firth 22 Feb 13 - 01:03 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Feb 13 - 10:56 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Feb 13 - 07:10 PM
Don Firth 21 Feb 13 - 06:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Feb 13 - 02:42 PM
akenaton 21 Feb 13 - 02:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Feb 13 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Feb 13 - 01:25 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Feb 13 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,Musket and where's that ruddy cookie? 21 Feb 13 - 10:21 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Feb 13 - 09:33 AM
akenaton 21 Feb 13 - 09:10 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Feb 13 - 07:47 AM
Don Firth 21 Feb 13 - 01:12 AM
Don Firth 21 Feb 13 - 12:01 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Feb 13 - 11:13 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 13 - 09:16 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Feb 13 - 08:37 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 13 - 08:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Feb 13 - 08:07 PM
frogprince 20 Feb 13 - 06:33 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 13 - 06:31 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 13 - 05:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Feb 13 - 05:07 PM
frogprince 20 Feb 13 - 03:50 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 20 Feb 13 - 03:48 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Feb 13 - 02:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Feb 13 - 02:26 PM
saulgoldie 19 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 19 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Feb 13 - 11:35 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Feb 13 - 06:08 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Feb 13 - 06:01 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Feb 13 - 04:41 AM
akenaton 19 Feb 13 - 03:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Feb 13 - 03:02 AM
akenaton 19 Feb 13 - 02:49 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Feb 13 - 02:19 AM
Don Firth 18 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM
frogprince 18 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM
GUEST,TIA 18 Feb 13 - 10:10 AM
saulgoldie 18 Feb 13 - 07:48 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Feb 13 - 06:19 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Feb 13 - 05:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 09:54 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 09:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 09:12 PM
gnu 17 Feb 13 - 09:05 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 08:50 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 08:44 PM
frogprince 17 Feb 13 - 08:26 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Feb 13 - 08:24 PM
Stilly River Sage 17 Feb 13 - 07:49 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 13 - 07:27 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 13 - 07:13 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 07:12 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 05:18 PM
frogprince 17 Feb 13 - 05:15 PM
frogprince 17 Feb 13 - 04:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 04:37 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 04:14 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 03:25 PM
saulgoldie 17 Feb 13 - 03:09 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 02:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 02:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM
frogprince 17 Feb 13 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 11:44 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Feb 13 - 08:47 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Feb 13 - 07:58 AM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 01:44 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 13 - 01:04 AM
Don Firth 17 Feb 13 - 12:27 AM
Don Firth 16 Feb 13 - 11:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Feb 13 - 11:30 PM
Don Firth 16 Feb 13 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Feb 13 - 10:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Feb 13 - 09:55 PM
Don Firth 16 Feb 13 - 02:48 PM
Bill D 16 Feb 13 - 02:31 PM
frogprince 16 Feb 13 - 11:47 AM
akenaton 16 Feb 13 - 10:11 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Feb 13 - 07:15 AM
frogprince 16 Feb 13 - 12:47 AM
Don Firth 16 Feb 13 - 12:21 AM
frogprince 15 Feb 13 - 11:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Feb 13 - 10:21 PM
gnu 15 Feb 13 - 09:26 PM
Don Firth 15 Feb 13 - 04:49 PM
frogprince 15 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Feb 13 - 03:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Feb 13 - 03:23 PM
KB in Iowa 15 Feb 13 - 01:54 PM
KB in Iowa 15 Feb 13 - 01:27 PM
KB in Iowa 15 Feb 13 - 01:26 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Feb 13 - 11:46 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Feb 13 - 11:42 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Feb 13 - 11:31 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Feb 13 - 07:33 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Feb 13 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Feb 13 - 02:35 AM
frogprince 14 Feb 13 - 09:10 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 13 - 08:33 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 13 - 08:20 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 13 - 08:15 PM
Don Firth 14 Feb 13 - 04:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 04:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 04:17 PM
frogprince 14 Feb 13 - 03:54 PM
Don Firth 14 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 14 Feb 13 - 02:31 PM
KB in Iowa 14 Feb 13 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 01:11 PM
Don Firth 14 Feb 13 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,TIA 14 Feb 13 - 09:53 AM
Penny S. 14 Feb 13 - 09:47 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 13 - 06:40 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 13 - 06:30 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Feb 13 - 02:08 AM
Don Firth 13 Feb 13 - 10:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Feb 13 - 10:33 PM
Don Firth 13 Feb 13 - 09:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Feb 13 - 09:17 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 Feb 13 - 08:59 PM
gnu 13 Feb 13 - 08:51 PM
Don Firth 13 Feb 13 - 08:47 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 Feb 13 - 08:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Feb 13 - 08:18 PM
Amos 13 Feb 13 - 06:22 PM
frogprince 13 Feb 13 - 06:09 PM
Kenny B (inactive) 13 Feb 13 - 05:59 PM
Don Firth 13 Feb 13 - 05:06 PM
frogprince 13 Feb 13 - 04:25 PM
Don Firth 13 Feb 13 - 04:03 PM
frogprince 13 Feb 13 - 03:37 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Feb 13 - 03:06 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Feb 13 - 01:59 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Feb 13 - 12:38 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Feb 13 - 12:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Feb 13 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 12 Feb 13 - 06:23 PM
Don Firth 12 Feb 13 - 02:57 PM
Don Firth 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 12 Feb 13 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Feb 13 - 11:52 AM
frogprince 12 Feb 13 - 11:29 AM
saulgoldie 12 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 12 Feb 13 - 05:51 AM
Musket 12 Feb 13 - 05:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Feb 13 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 12 Feb 13 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 AM
Don Firth 12 Feb 13 - 02:03 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Feb 13 - 01:31 AM
Don Firth 11 Feb 13 - 11:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Feb 13 - 10:29 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Feb 13 - 07:53 PM
gnu 11 Feb 13 - 07:30 PM
gnu 11 Feb 13 - 07:26 PM
frogprince 11 Feb 13 - 07:01 PM
Don Firth 11 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Feb 13 - 04:23 PM
Don Firth 11 Feb 13 - 02:10 PM
frogprince 11 Feb 13 - 01:53 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Feb 13 - 05:28 AM
PHJim 27 Jan 13 - 08:37 PM
Kenny B (inactive) 26 Jan 13 - 07:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM
Don Firth 26 Jan 13 - 05:41 PM
Kenny B (inactive) 26 Jan 13 - 07:21 AM
Kenny B (inactive) 26 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM
akenaton 26 Jan 13 - 06:25 AM
Don Firth 25 Jan 13 - 09:33 PM
akenaton 25 Jan 13 - 08:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Jan 13 - 07:18 PM
Kenny B (inactive) 25 Jan 13 - 04:54 PM
PHJim 25 Jan 13 - 04:29 PM
Don Firth 25 Jan 13 - 03:27 PM
Don Firth 25 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Jan 13 - 12:24 PM
GUEST,Lighter 25 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Jan 13 - 10:00 AM
Musket 25 Jan 13 - 04:36 AM
akenaton 25 Jan 13 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 25 Jan 13 - 02:50 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 13 - 01:51 AM
Don Firth 25 Jan 13 - 01:42 AM
PHJim 25 Jan 13 - 12:58 AM
akenaton 24 Jan 13 - 09:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 13 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,TIA 23 Jan 13 - 10:52 PM
frogprince 23 Jan 13 - 08:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 13 - 07:45 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 13 - 07:34 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Jan 13 - 07:20 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 13 - 07:07 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Jan 13 - 06:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 23 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 13 - 05:19 PM
Wesley S 23 Jan 13 - 05:09 PM
gnu 23 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 13 - 03:46 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 13 - 03:38 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Jan 13 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Jan 13 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,TIA 23 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM
GUEST,Lighter 23 Jan 13 - 08:34 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Jan 13 - 06:21 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Jan 13 - 06:13 AM
PHJim 23 Jan 13 - 03:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 13 - 02:21 AM
gnu 22 Jan 13 - 06:25 PM
GUEST,Lighter 22 Jan 13 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM
Jeri 22 Jan 13 - 01:22 PM
frogprince 22 Jan 13 - 01:13 PM
Jeri 22 Jan 13 - 12:47 PM
frogprince 22 Jan 13 - 12:07 PM
Musket 22 Jan 13 - 04:48 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Jan 13 - 03:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Jan 13 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 21 Jan 13 - 02:50 PM
akenaton 21 Jan 13 - 01:46 PM
akenaton 21 Jan 13 - 01:38 PM
bobad 21 Jan 13 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 11 Jan 13 - 02:34 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Jan 13 - 02:19 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 13 - 08:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jan 13 - 07:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 13 - 07:33 PM
Don Firth 10 Jan 13 - 04:24 PM
frogprince 10 Jan 13 - 03:57 PM
Don Firth 10 Jan 13 - 03:07 PM
Don Firth 10 Jan 13 - 03:00 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 13 - 02:53 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 13 - 01:09 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 10 Jan 13 - 11:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jan 13 - 08:36 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jan 13 - 08:24 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 13 - 01:19 AM
Don Firth 10 Jan 13 - 12:57 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 13 - 12:31 AM
Don Firth 09 Jan 13 - 11:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 13 - 09:58 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 13 - 08:03 PM
Don Firth 09 Jan 13 - 07:59 PM
akenaton 09 Jan 13 - 07:54 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 13 - 07:51 PM
akenaton 09 Jan 13 - 07:40 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 13 - 07:28 PM
akenaton 09 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM
akenaton 09 Jan 13 - 07:10 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 07:01 PM
GUEST 09 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 06:50 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 06:44 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM
akenaton 09 Jan 13 - 03:06 PM
Don Firth 09 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 13 - 02:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 13 - 01:59 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 12:09 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 09 Jan 13 - 12:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Jan 13 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 13 - 11:34 AM
frogprince 09 Jan 13 - 08:29 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 09 Jan 13 - 01:59 AM
Don Firth 09 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Jan 13 - 10:25 PM
Don Firth 08 Jan 13 - 05:23 PM
frogprince 08 Jan 13 - 04:37 PM
Don Firth 08 Jan 13 - 04:00 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM
GUEST,saulgoldie 08 Jan 13 - 02:55 PM
Don Firth 08 Jan 13 - 01:48 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Jan 13 - 08:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 13 - 07:13 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 13 - 06:01 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 13 - 05:32 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 13 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Jan 13 - 02:11 AM
Don Firth 07 Jan 13 - 08:13 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM
Don Firth 07 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 06:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 06:38 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 06:30 PM
Don Firth 07 Jan 13 - 06:24 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM
Don Firth 07 Jan 13 - 05:10 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Jan 13 - 05:02 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 04:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 03:58 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Jan 13 - 03:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 02:56 PM
Musket 07 Jan 13 - 02:24 PM
Don Firth 07 Jan 13 - 02:18 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 12:44 PM
Musket 07 Jan 13 - 12:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 11:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 11:41 AM
Musket 07 Jan 13 - 11:29 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 11:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM
Musket 07 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 09:52 AM
Musket 07 Jan 13 - 08:33 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Jan 13 - 05:12 AM
MGM·Lion 07 Jan 13 - 05:05 AM
akenaton 07 Jan 13 - 04:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 03:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 07 Jan 13 - 02:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 12:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM
Don Firth 06 Jan 13 - 06:11 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM
MGM·Lion 06 Jan 13 - 05:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Jan 13 - 05:29 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 13 - 05:20 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 13 - 05:13 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Jan 13 - 05:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Jan 13 - 04:59 PM
Don Firth 06 Jan 13 - 04:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Jan 13 - 04:39 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 13 - 04:34 PM
Don Firth 06 Jan 13 - 04:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 13 - 03:51 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 13 - 03:50 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 13 - 03:32 PM
Don Firth 06 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,grumpy 06 Jan 13 - 01:58 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 13 - 01:36 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Jan 13 - 01:15 PM
MGM·Lion 06 Jan 13 - 12:29 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 13 - 12:03 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Jan 13 - 10:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 13 - 09:41 AM
GUEST,TIA 06 Jan 13 - 08:37 AM
MGM·Lion 06 Jan 13 - 08:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 13 - 07:22 AM
MGM·Lion 06 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Jan 13 - 06:00 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 13 - 03:29 AM
Don Firth 05 Jan 13 - 08:17 PM
akenaton 05 Jan 13 - 07:46 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 13 - 06:41 PM
frogprince 05 Jan 13 - 06:32 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Jan 13 - 05:55 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Jan 13 - 05:50 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Jan 13 - 05:42 PM
Don Firth 05 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 13 - 04:53 PM
Don Firth 05 Jan 13 - 02:36 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 05 Jan 13 - 01:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM
GUEST,Jim Knowledge 05 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 13 - 09:47 AM
Musket 05 Jan 13 - 09:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 13 - 07:09 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Jan 13 - 06:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 13 - 02:14 AM
Don Firth 05 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM
GUEST,TIA 05 Jan 13 - 12:37 AM
GUEST,TIA 05 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM
Don Firth 04 Jan 13 - 11:03 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jan 13 - 10:07 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 13 - 09:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Jan 13 - 08:58 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jan 13 - 08:53 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Jan 13 - 08:47 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 13 - 08:05 PM
Bill D 04 Jan 13 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 06:06 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM
John P 04 Jan 13 - 06:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 05:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM
bobad 04 Jan 13 - 05:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 13 - 04:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Jan 13 - 04:07 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 04:05 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jan 13 - 04:00 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 13 - 03:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 03:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 13 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 03:38 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 13 - 03:34 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jan 13 - 03:13 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 02:53 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 13 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Jan 13 - 12:04 PM
John P 04 Jan 13 - 11:06 AM
Musket 04 Jan 13 - 10:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 13 - 09:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 13 - 07:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 13 - 06:12 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Jan 13 - 05:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 13 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 04 Jan 13 - 03:08 AM
gnu 03 Jan 13 - 10:33 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Jan 13 - 07:51 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 13 - 06:47 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM
gnu 03 Jan 13 - 05:59 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 13 - 05:51 PM
gnu 03 Jan 13 - 03:39 PM
Don Firth 03 Jan 13 - 03:22 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Jan 13 - 11:24 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Jan 13 - 11:18 AM
GUEST,saulgoldie 03 Jan 13 - 10:31 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 13 - 10:08 AM
akenaton 03 Jan 13 - 10:04 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 13 - 09:52 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 13 - 09:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 13 - 08:12 AM
akenaton 03 Jan 13 - 07:37 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Jan 13 - 07:01 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Jan 13 - 06:03 AM
gnu 02 Jan 13 - 10:40 PM
GUEST,999 31 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 05:51 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Dec 12 - 05:44 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Dec 12 - 05:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 01:20 PM
akenaton 31 Dec 12 - 12:44 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Dec 12 - 12:32 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM
akenaton 31 Dec 12 - 08:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 08:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 08:22 AM
akenaton 31 Dec 12 - 08:21 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 12 - 08:07 AM
akenaton 31 Dec 12 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 31 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 12 - 07:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 05:58 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 12 - 05:57 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 12 - 05:40 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Dec 12 - 04:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 04:36 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 31 Dec 12 - 04:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 12 - 02:56 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Dec 12 - 08:24 PM
Don Firth 30 Dec 12 - 08:14 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 12 - 08:10 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 12 - 07:45 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Dec 12 - 07:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Dec 12 - 02:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 12:17 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 11:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 11:17 AM
John P 30 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 08:11 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Dec 12 - 06:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 04:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 30 Dec 12 - 04:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 12 - 04:32 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 08:38 PM
akenaton 29 Dec 12 - 07:05 PM
akenaton 29 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 29 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM
GUEST,Futwick 29 Dec 12 - 03:46 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 02:46 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 01:54 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 01:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 12:02 PM
John P 29 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 29 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 11:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Dec 12 - 10:33 AM
Kenny B (inactive) 29 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM
Musket 29 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM
akenaton 29 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 12 - 05:26 AM
Musket 29 Dec 12 - 04:42 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 09:11 PM
GUEST,999 28 Dec 12 - 08:11 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM
Don Firth 28 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM
Don Firth 28 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM
GUEST,999 28 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 07:22 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 04:41 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 04:30 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 28 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM
dick greenhaus 28 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Dec 12 - 11:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM
GUEST,999 28 Dec 12 - 09:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 09:29 AM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 08:43 AM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 08:19 AM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 07:26 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 07:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 06:32 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 06:09 AM
akenaton 28 Dec 12 - 06:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 12 - 04:37 AM
Don Firth 27 Dec 12 - 11:06 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Dec 12 - 09:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Dec 12 - 07:55 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Dec 12 - 07:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 06:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 06:11 PM
Don Firth 27 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 03:11 PM
akenaton 27 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 12:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Dec 12 - 11:06 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Dec 12 - 10:26 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM
akenaton 27 Dec 12 - 04:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Dec 12 - 04:22 AM
gnu 26 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM
Don Firth 26 Dec 12 - 07:34 PM
akenaton 26 Dec 12 - 07:03 PM
Don Firth 26 Dec 12 - 05:13 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 26 Dec 12 - 04:10 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Dec 12 - 10:13 AM
akenaton 26 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Dec 12 - 07:24 AM
GUEST,999 26 Dec 12 - 04:39 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Dec 12 - 03:24 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Dec 12 - 04:52 PM
Don Firth 25 Dec 12 - 04:50 PM
akenaton 25 Dec 12 - 04:02 PM
Don Firth 25 Dec 12 - 03:11 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Dec 12 - 08:12 AM
akenaton 25 Dec 12 - 07:23 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,.gargoyle 24 Dec 12 - 11:54 PM
Don Firth 24 Dec 12 - 04:12 PM
akenaton 24 Dec 12 - 11:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM
Musket 24 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Dec 12 - 07:02 AM
akenaton 24 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 12 - 02:16 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Dec 12 - 01:41 AM
GUEST,.gargoyle 23 Dec 12 - 11:15 PM
Don Firth 23 Dec 12 - 08:58 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM
Don Firth 23 Dec 12 - 07:47 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 12 - 07:37 PM
gnu 23 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 06:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 06:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Dec 12 - 06:22 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 05:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Dec 12 - 04:37 PM
frogprince 23 Dec 12 - 04:35 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 12 - 04:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 02:38 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 02:31 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 02:26 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 02:22 PM
Don Firth 23 Dec 12 - 02:19 PM
Don Firth 23 Dec 12 - 01:52 PM
Don Firth 23 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Dec 12 - 01:29 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 12:57 PM
John P 23 Dec 12 - 12:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 11:07 AM
John P 23 Dec 12 - 10:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 08:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Dec 12 - 08:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 08:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 06:58 AM
akenaton 23 Dec 12 - 05:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 04:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 12 - 03:00 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 11:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 11:07 PM
GUEST,Guest from 22 Dec 12 - 10:41 PM
gnu 22 Dec 12 - 09:34 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 09:25 PM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 08:33 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 07:21 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 12 - 02:59 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 12 - 02:36 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 12 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 12:50 PM
MGM·Lion 22 Dec 12 - 12:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 12:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM
Musket 22 Dec 12 - 11:41 AM
Musket 22 Dec 12 - 11:04 AM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 09:25 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 04:55 AM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 22 Dec 12 - 03:23 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 02:54 AM
John P 21 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM
gnu 21 Dec 12 - 07:07 PM
akenaton 21 Dec 12 - 06:34 PM
Don Firth 21 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 04:51 PM
GUEST 21 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM
gnu 21 Dec 12 - 04:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 03:57 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 03:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 02:42 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:00 PM
saulgoldie 21 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 11:08 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 11:02 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 07:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 07:23 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM
Musket 21 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 06:22 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 06:17 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 06:09 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 06:04 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM
Megan L 21 Dec 12 - 05:37 AM
akenaton 21 Dec 12 - 04:05 AM
Musket 21 Dec 12 - 04:00 AM
akenaton 21 Dec 12 - 03:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 03:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 03:34 AM
GUEST 21 Dec 12 - 01:56 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:12 AM
GUEST,TIA 20 Dec 12 - 11:40 PM
Don Firth 20 Dec 12 - 09:46 PM
gnu 20 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 08:27 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 08:19 PM
Bill D 20 Dec 12 - 07:39 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Dec 12 - 07:26 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 12 - 07:12 PM
bobad 20 Dec 12 - 07:02 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 12 - 06:56 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 12 - 06:45 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 06:20 PM
gnu 20 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,Eliza 20 Dec 12 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 20 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM
frogprince 20 Dec 12 - 03:33 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 12 - 01:42 PM
Amos 20 Dec 12 - 11:25 AM
bubblyrat 20 Dec 12 - 08:38 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM
Musket 20 Dec 12 - 03:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 09:53 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 06:19 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Dec 12 - 05:40 PM
GUEST,999 19 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM
Don Firth 19 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM
Don Firth 19 Dec 12 - 04:38 PM
GUEST 19 Dec 12 - 04:25 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,Eliza 19 Dec 12 - 02:37 PM
Don Firth 19 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM
GUEST,999 19 Dec 12 - 10:50 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 02:14 AM
Don Firth 19 Dec 12 - 01:00 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 11:31 PM
Don Firth 18 Dec 12 - 05:54 PM
GUEST,Eliza 18 Dec 12 - 05:15 PM
Don Firth 18 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM
Don Firth 18 Dec 12 - 04:28 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 12 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Dec 12 - 08:26 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Dec 12 - 07:07 AM
GUEST,Eliza 18 Dec 12 - 06:59 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 12 - 06:54 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM
Musket 18 Dec 12 - 04:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Dec 12 - 02:40 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 02:18 AM
Don Firth 18 Dec 12 - 01:48 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Dec 12 - 01:23 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM
Don Firth 17 Dec 12 - 09:54 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM
MGM·Lion 17 Dec 12 - 05:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Dec 12 - 05:37 PM
Don Firth 17 Dec 12 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,TIA 17 Dec 12 - 02:39 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Dec 12 - 02:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Dec 12 - 01:04 PM
akenaton 17 Dec 12 - 12:09 PM
Raedwulf 17 Dec 12 - 11:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 12 - 09:44 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Dec 12 - 07:43 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Dec 12 - 01:16 AM
Don Firth 16 Dec 12 - 11:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Dec 12 - 10:47 PM
Allan Conn 16 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM
Musket 16 Dec 12 - 11:05 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Eliza 16 Dec 12 - 10:17 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Dec 12 - 09:24 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM
saulgoldie 16 Dec 12 - 08:16 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 08:14 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 08:02 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 07:54 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Dec 12 - 07:47 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Dec 12 - 07:36 AM
saulgoldie 16 Dec 12 - 07:32 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Dec 12 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,Eliza 16 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM
Musket 16 Dec 12 - 06:35 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 12 - 06:32 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 12 - 06:21 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 05:14 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 12 - 04:52 AM
gnu 15 Dec 12 - 09:18 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 08:43 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM
Allan Conn 15 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM
Allan Conn 15 Dec 12 - 05:57 PM
Don Firth 15 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM
John P 15 Dec 12 - 03:18 PM
gnu 15 Dec 12 - 03:10 PM
Don Firth 15 Dec 12 - 02:41 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Dec 12 - 01:02 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 12:34 PM
akenaton 15 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM
akenaton 15 Dec 12 - 10:54 AM
GUEST,Big Al Whittle 15 Dec 12 - 06:48 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 06:33 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Dec 12 - 05:48 AM
akenaton 15 Dec 12 - 05:32 AM
akenaton 15 Dec 12 - 05:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Dec 12 - 03:02 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Dec 12 - 11:51 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM
Don Firth 14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM
akenaton 14 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM
Smedley 14 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM
GUEST,Eliza 14 Dec 12 - 05:31 PM
gnu 14 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM
GUEST,Eliza 14 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM
Don Firth 14 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Dec 12 - 03:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM
saulgoldie 14 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM
GUEST,John from Kemsing 14 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM
GUEST,TIA 14 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 10:43 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 10:41 AM
akenaton 14 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,TIA 14 Dec 12 - 10:12 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 10:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 12 - 10:04 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 10:01 AM
akenaton 14 Dec 12 - 09:45 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Dec 12 - 09:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 12 - 09:31 AM
saulgoldie 14 Dec 12 - 09:10 AM
GUEST,TIA 14 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 08:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM
MGM·Lion 14 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM
MGM·Lion 14 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM
akenaton 14 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM
akenaton 14 Dec 12 - 04:23 AM
MGM·Lion 14 Dec 12 - 03:32 AM
Don Firth 14 Dec 12 - 02:52 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Dec 12 - 02:34 AM
Allan Conn 14 Dec 12 - 02:11 AM
Allan Conn 14 Dec 12 - 01:44 AM
GUEST,Big Al Whittle 14 Dec 12 - 01:22 AM
Stilly River Sage 14 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM
MGM·Lion 13 Dec 12 - 11:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 12 - 11:19 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 12 - 08:25 PM
Bill D 13 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM
akenaton 13 Dec 12 - 07:08 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 03:29 PM
Musket 13 Dec 12 - 09:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 03:34 AM
akenaton 13 Dec 12 - 03:29 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 03:07 AM
Don Firth 12 Dec 12 - 08:29 PM
akenaton 12 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM
gnu 12 Dec 12 - 07:40 PM
bobad 12 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM
akenaton 12 Dec 12 - 07:00 PM
Don Firth 12 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM
akenaton 12 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM
Don Firth 12 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM
Stilly River Sage 12 Dec 12 - 04:46 PM
GUEST,Eliza 12 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM
saulgoldie 12 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM
Bill D 12 Dec 12 - 01:46 PM
akenaton 12 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM
Stilly River Sage 12 Dec 12 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Jim Knowledge 12 Dec 12 - 11:36 AM
Musket 12 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM
bubblyrat 12 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM
Allan Conn 12 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 12 Dec 12 - 06:54 AM
akenaton 12 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM
Don Firth 11 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM
DMcG 11 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM
Don Firth 11 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM
Bill D 11 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM
Raedwulf 20 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM
Raedwulf 20 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM
Bill D 20 Oct 12 - 01:45 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM
saulgoldie 20 Oct 12 - 11:10 AM
Howard Jones 20 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM
Raedwulf 20 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM
Raedwulf 20 Oct 12 - 07:46 AM
Richard Bridge 19 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM
Richard Bridge 19 Oct 12 - 02:46 PM
John P 19 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,saulgoldie 19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM
John P 19 Oct 12 - 10:32 AM
John P 19 Oct 12 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,saulgoldie 19 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM
MGM·Lion 19 Oct 12 - 06:47 AM
Howard Jones 19 Oct 12 - 04:30 AM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 12 - 06:43 PM
Howard Jones 18 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM
Gda Music 18 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM
MGM·Lion 18 Oct 12 - 12:41 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 12 - 12:38 PM
MGM·Lion 18 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 12 - 11:14 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM
Musket 18 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 18 Oct 12 - 03:33 AM
MGM·Lion 18 Oct 12 - 12:21 AM
akenaton 17 Oct 12 - 06:07 PM
Jeri 17 Oct 12 - 05:47 PM
Raedwulf 17 Oct 12 - 05:35 PM
Musket 17 Oct 12 - 05:48 AM
Little Hawk 16 Oct 12 - 06:37 PM
Raedwulf 16 Oct 12 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Oct 12 - 08:43 AM
akenaton 16 Oct 12 - 04:59 AM
Raedwulf 15 Oct 12 - 05:46 PM
gnu 15 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM
Bill D 15 Oct 12 - 03:37 PM
akenaton 15 Oct 12 - 12:39 PM
akenaton 15 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM
akenaton 15 Oct 12 - 12:07 PM
Bill D 15 Oct 12 - 11:49 AM
Bill D 15 Oct 12 - 11:28 AM
Musket 15 Oct 12 - 11:22 AM
MGM·Lion 15 Oct 12 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,TIA 15 Oct 12 - 09:57 AM
Musket 15 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM
akenaton 15 Oct 12 - 03:22 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Oct 12 - 02:14 AM
frogprince 14 Oct 12 - 11:01 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 Oct 12 - 07:55 PM
Don Firth 14 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM
Bill D 14 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM
gnu 14 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM
akenaton 14 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM
akenaton 14 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM
Don Firth 14 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 14 Oct 12 - 12:15 PM
akenaton 14 Oct 12 - 05:29 AM
Little Hawk 13 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM
saulgoldie 13 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 13 Oct 12 - 02:57 AM
GUEST,TIA 12 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM
Bill D 11 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Oct 12 - 04:33 PM
GUEST 11 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 11 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM
akenaton 11 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM
Don Firth 11 Oct 12 - 12:37 AM
Bill D 10 Oct 12 - 06:34 PM
akenaton 10 Oct 12 - 04:16 PM
akenaton 10 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM
Don Firth 10 Oct 12 - 04:00 PM
akenaton 10 Oct 12 - 03:45 PM
akenaton 10 Oct 12 - 03:38 PM
Don Firth 10 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM
saulgoldie 10 Oct 12 - 01:12 PM
GUEST,TIA 10 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM
Bill D 10 Oct 12 - 10:41 AM
artbrooks 10 Oct 12 - 08:56 AM
MGM·Lion 10 Oct 12 - 08:05 AM
Musket 10 Oct 12 - 03:55 AM
akenaton 10 Oct 12 - 02:59 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 10 Oct 12 - 02:25 AM
akenaton 10 Oct 12 - 01:59 AM
Bill D 09 Oct 12 - 08:23 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM
Don Firth 09 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM
akenaton 09 Oct 12 - 04:13 PM
Don Firth 09 Oct 12 - 04:11 PM
akenaton 09 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM
Ebbie 09 Oct 12 - 03:56 PM
Don Firth 09 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM
akenaton 09 Oct 12 - 03:20 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 09 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM
akenaton 09 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM
Bill D 09 Oct 12 - 11:34 AM
MGM·Lion 09 Oct 12 - 08:23 AM
GUEST,TIA 09 Oct 12 - 08:11 AM
Jack the Sailor 09 Oct 12 - 07:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Oct 12 - 07:23 AM
Henry Krinkle 09 Oct 12 - 05:25 AM
Jack the Sailor 09 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM
akenaton 09 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM
GUEST,TIA 08 Oct 12 - 10:43 PM
Don Firth 08 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM
gnu 08 Oct 12 - 06:10 PM
akenaton 08 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM
akenaton 08 Oct 12 - 04:59 PM
Bill D 08 Oct 12 - 11:09 AM
John P 08 Oct 12 - 09:48 AM
gnu 07 Oct 12 - 10:14 PM
Bill D 07 Oct 12 - 09:53 PM
Don Firth 07 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM
Don Firth 07 Oct 12 - 05:03 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:45 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 07 Oct 12 - 04:29 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:09 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM
kendall 07 Oct 12 - 03:53 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM
Howard Jones 07 Oct 12 - 03:16 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Oct 12 - 03:01 PM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 07 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM
Howard Jones 07 Oct 12 - 12:01 PM
John P 07 Oct 12 - 11:31 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 10:36 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 09:49 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 09:41 AM
bobad 07 Oct 12 - 07:33 AM
Musket 07 Oct 12 - 06:26 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:56 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:51 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Oct 12 - 04:38 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 12 - 04:32 AM
Don Firth 06 Oct 12 - 05:16 PM
Bill D 06 Oct 12 - 02:42 PM
frogprince 06 Oct 12 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Oct 12 - 01:59 PM
saulgoldie 06 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Oct 12 - 11:52 AM
bobad 06 Oct 12 - 11:42 AM
akenaton 06 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM
GUEST,saulgoldie 06 Oct 12 - 09:19 AM
Jack the Sailor 06 Oct 12 - 08:36 AM
akenaton 06 Oct 12 - 08:10 AM
Jack the Sailor 06 Oct 12 - 08:07 AM
Howard Jones 06 Oct 12 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM
John P 05 Oct 12 - 11:08 PM
bobad 05 Oct 12 - 07:19 PM
akenaton 05 Oct 12 - 06:56 PM
Little Hawk 05 Oct 12 - 03:13 PM
saulgoldie 05 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM
Musket 05 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM
akenaton 05 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM
Musket 05 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM
Jack the Sailor 05 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 05 Oct 12 - 03:07 AM
Jack the Sailor 04 Oct 12 - 07:05 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 04 Oct 12 - 11:46 AM
gnu 03 Oct 12 - 07:06 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 12 - 05:50 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Oct 12 - 05:19 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM
Henry Krinkle 03 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM
Henry Krinkle 03 Oct 12 - 04:28 PM
Jeri 03 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Oct 12 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Oct 12 - 03:18 PM
kendall 03 Oct 12 - 02:28 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM
Howard Jones 03 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM
Musket 03 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM
akenaton 03 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM
GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 03 Oct 12 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 03 Oct 12 - 02:56 AM
gnu 02 Oct 12 - 09:15 PM
GUEST,TIA (wearing Akenaton's hat) 02 Oct 12 - 09:06 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM
gnu 02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM
Henry Krinkle 02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Oct 12 - 05:44 PM
Henry Krinkle 02 Oct 12 - 05:41 PM
gnu 02 Oct 12 - 04:57 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Oct 12 - 10:29 AM
Musket 02 Oct 12 - 05:06 AM
Henry Krinkle 02 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM
Henry Krinkle 02 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM
akenaton 02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM
John P 01 Oct 12 - 10:44 PM
Henry Krinkle 01 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM
Jack the Sailor 01 Oct 12 - 07:17 PM
bobad 01 Oct 12 - 07:15 PM
Little Hawk 01 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM
gnu 01 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM
akenaton 01 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM
akenaton 01 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 01 Oct 12 - 05:54 PM
Little Hawk 01 Oct 12 - 02:19 PM
akenaton 01 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM
akenaton 01 Oct 12 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 01 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM
Henry Krinkle 01 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 01 Oct 12 - 11:19 AM
John P 01 Oct 12 - 10:28 AM
gnu 30 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 30 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM
Henry Krinkle 30 Sep 12 - 06:48 PM
Henry Krinkle 30 Sep 12 - 04:19 PM
akenaton 30 Sep 12 - 03:54 PM
Don Firth 30 Sep 12 - 02:29 PM
John P 30 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM
akenaton 30 Sep 12 - 04:58 AM
Little Hawk 29 Sep 12 - 11:43 PM
Jack the Sailor 29 Sep 12 - 10:57 PM
Don Firth 29 Sep 12 - 09:55 PM
Henry Krinkle 29 Sep 12 - 09:01 PM
Don Firth 29 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM
Henry Krinkle 29 Sep 12 - 08:51 PM
gnu 29 Sep 12 - 08:29 PM
Jack the Sailor 29 Sep 12 - 08:28 PM
akenaton 29 Sep 12 - 07:59 PM
Henry Krinkle 29 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM
gnu 29 Sep 12 - 07:20 PM
Don Firth 29 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM
Henry Krinkle 29 Sep 12 - 06:06 PM
Little Hawk 29 Sep 12 - 04:29 PM
gnu 29 Sep 12 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,saulgoldie 29 Sep 12 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 29 Sep 12 - 03:27 AM
Henry Krinkle 28 Sep 12 - 10:16 PM
Don Firth 28 Sep 12 - 09:12 PM
Henry Krinkle 28 Sep 12 - 09:05 PM
Don Firth 28 Sep 12 - 08:42 PM
Henry Krinkle 28 Sep 12 - 08:35 PM
akenaton 28 Sep 12 - 06:37 PM
Don Firth 28 Sep 12 - 04:09 PM
Howard Jones 28 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM
akenaton 28 Sep 12 - 02:22 PM
Bill D 28 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM
akenaton 28 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM
Musket 28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM
akenaton 28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM
Henry Krinkle 28 Sep 12 - 07:25 AM
GUEST,TIA 28 Sep 12 - 06:44 AM
saulgoldie 28 Sep 12 - 06:04 AM
Musket 28 Sep 12 - 05:53 AM
akenaton 28 Sep 12 - 04:59 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 28 Sep 12 - 02:37 AM
Don Firth 27 Sep 12 - 09:45 PM
Don Firth 27 Sep 12 - 09:43 PM
John P 27 Sep 12 - 09:15 PM
frogprince 27 Sep 12 - 07:18 PM
gnu 27 Sep 12 - 07:09 PM
akenaton 27 Sep 12 - 05:48 PM
Smedley 27 Sep 12 - 05:12 PM
Don Firth 26 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM
artbrooks 26 Sep 12 - 11:41 AM
Musket 26 Sep 12 - 11:37 AM
artbrooks 26 Sep 12 - 11:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Sep 12 - 10:34 AM
John P 26 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM
Musket 26 Sep 12 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,TIA 26 Sep 12 - 09:57 AM
Jack the Sailor 26 Sep 12 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Sep 12 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 26 Sep 12 - 02:59 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Sep 12 - 02:56 AM
Don Firth 26 Sep 12 - 01:59 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Sep 12 - 12:52 AM
Jack the Sailor 25 Sep 12 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Sep 12 - 09:11 PM
Bill D 25 Sep 12 - 08:48 PM
Don Firth 25 Sep 12 - 07:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 07:32 PM
Jack the Sailor 25 Sep 12 - 07:08 PM
Don Firth 25 Sep 12 - 07:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 25 Sep 12 - 07:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 06:50 PM
Jack the Sailor 25 Sep 12 - 06:26 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 06:19 PM
Don Firth 25 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM
Jack the Sailor 25 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM
Bill D 25 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM
Howard Jones 25 Sep 12 - 03:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 03:05 PM
Howard Jones 25 Sep 12 - 02:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 25 Sep 12 - 01:03 PM
frogprince 25 Sep 12 - 12:33 PM
frogprince 25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM
Bill D 25 Sep 12 - 12:04 PM
Bill D 25 Sep 12 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 25 Sep 12 - 11:54 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Sep 12 - 11:27 AM
John P 25 Sep 12 - 09:17 AM
frogprince 25 Sep 12 - 08:36 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Sep 12 - 08:00 AM
Howard Jones 25 Sep 12 - 07:30 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 25 Sep 12 - 03:05 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Sep 12 - 11:30 PM
John P 24 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM
John P 24 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Sep 12 - 04:56 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 24 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM
Bill D 24 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Sep 12 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 24 Sep 12 - 12:46 PM
Howard Jones 24 Sep 12 - 12:34 PM
Bill D 24 Sep 12 - 11:51 AM
Bill D 24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM
akenaton 24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM
Bill D 24 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM
frogprince 24 Sep 12 - 09:07 AM
Jack the Sailor 24 Sep 12 - 03:11 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 24 Sep 12 - 03:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Sep 12 - 10:05 PM
frogprince 23 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM
gnu 23 Sep 12 - 06:01 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Sep 12 - 05:27 PM
Bill D 23 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 12 - 03:04 PM
akenaton 23 Sep 12 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Sep 12 - 02:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 12 - 02:01 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Sep 12 - 01:28 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 12 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 12 - 12:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Sep 12 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Sep 12 - 11:38 AM
Musket 23 Sep 12 - 10:52 AM
Jack the Sailor 22 Sep 12 - 01:47 PM
artbrooks 22 Sep 12 - 01:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Sep 12 - 01:41 PM
artbrooks 22 Sep 12 - 01:09 PM
Jack the Sailor 22 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM
Greg F. 22 Sep 12 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 22 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM
Henry Krinkle 22 Sep 12 - 04:16 AM
Smedley 22 Sep 12 - 02:03 AM
Jack the Sailor 22 Sep 12 - 12:54 AM
Melissa 22 Sep 12 - 12:11 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 08:16 PM
Bill D 21 Sep 12 - 08:01 PM
gnu 21 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 21 Sep 12 - 07:28 PM
kendall 21 Sep 12 - 07:21 PM
akenaton 21 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 06:28 PM
Bill D 21 Sep 12 - 06:00 PM
gnu 21 Sep 12 - 05:39 PM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM
akenaton 21 Sep 12 - 05:16 PM
Bill D 21 Sep 12 - 05:03 PM
gnu 21 Sep 12 - 04:52 PM
akenaton 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 PM
Charley Noble 21 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 21 Sep 12 - 03:13 PM
Don Firth 21 Sep 12 - 02:57 PM
gnu 21 Sep 12 - 02:43 PM
Smedley 21 Sep 12 - 02:25 PM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 01:36 PM
akenaton 21 Sep 12 - 12:53 PM
Ed T 21 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM
Charley Noble 21 Sep 12 - 12:05 PM
frogprince 21 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM
Smedley 21 Sep 12 - 11:10 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 11:01 AM
kendall 21 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM
Amos 21 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 08:19 AM
bobad 21 Sep 12 - 08:13 AM
kendall 21 Sep 12 - 07:41 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 06:19 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 06:06 AM
Jack the Sailor 21 Sep 12 - 05:43 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 05:34 AM
Musket 21 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM
MGM·Lion 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM
MGM·Lion 21 Sep 12 - 04:20 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 04:14 AM
Musket 21 Sep 12 - 04:12 AM
JohnInKansas 21 Sep 12 - 03:30 AM
Don Firth 21 Sep 12 - 02:41 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 02:33 AM
GUEST,olddude 21 Sep 12 - 01:57 AM
Jack the Sailor 21 Sep 12 - 01:56 AM
Amos 20 Sep 12 - 11:47 PM
GUEST,olddude 20 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM
GUEST,Frank 20 Sep 12 - 11:20 PM
John P 20 Sep 12 - 10:58 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 12 - 10:27 PM
Jack Campin 20 Sep 12 - 08:53 PM
GUEST,olddude 20 Sep 12 - 08:41 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 20 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM
artbrooks 20 Sep 12 - 05:58 PM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Sep 12 - 04:54 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 12 - 04:51 PM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket (for 'twas he) 20 Sep 12 - 04:43 PM
Don Firth 20 Sep 12 - 04:40 PM
Henry Krinkle 20 Sep 12 - 04:37 PM
Amos 20 Sep 12 - 04:34 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 12 - 04:32 PM
Jeri 20 Sep 12 - 04:28 PM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Sep 12 - 04:23 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 04:22 PM
Wesley S 20 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM
GUEST 20 Sep 12 - 04:17 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 04:10 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 12 - 04:06 PM
Ebbie 20 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 11:22 AM

Rapist. (See above, the usual disgraceful bigoted post)

Albeit a rapist who has left Scotland for a period of reflection. Perhaps it would have been better if his period of reflection was spent in Scotland.

I assume there are solitary confinement cells should he feel as afraid as his victims.

Looks like a French Mayor is in trouble for refusing to allow a wedding in his village. Still a long way to go for people to have equal access to rights and position.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:46 AM

"In a pair of rulings released this morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and dismissed the Prop. 8 appeal—leaving the door open for gay marriage in California."

Gawker


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 13 - 11:27 AM

"Is that even English?"

Did you reply in Spanish?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Mar 13 - 10:02 AM

"Well, sakes alive...and honest response.... "...I'd guess."
(So is everybody else!)"



Is that even English?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Mar 13 - 08:51 AM

Thank heavens this thread got over 1400 posts. Now we're getting somewhere.....

We're going to have this Gay Marriage question solved in no time and everyone will agree on the subject. I can't wait.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 13 - 03:02 AM

Here..have fun with this one!

Bill D: "Some of all those, I'd guess. Genetic in part perhaps-- that is hard to establish...but I knew at least two guys years ago who used bi-sexuality to ummm... enhance... life."

Well, sakes alive...and honest response.... "...I'd guess."
(So is everybody else!)

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 13 - 07:03 AM

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage May Improve Public Health
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Date: 27 February 2013 Time: 11:35 AM ET

Legal marriage may be a boon for the health of same-sex couples, according to new research that finds cohabitating doesn't provide the same health benefits for gay couples that marriage does for straights.

Live Science


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 09:18 PM

I know that, Ake. But those who enter the priesthood have presumable given that up for a "higher life."

When things like priests cavorting with either sex come out, it tends appears that the Church has been a bit remiss in policing its own ranks.

This is an entirely different issue.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 06:03 PM

Come on Don, priests are men first.... and men are naturally programmed to reproduce, or at least have sexual intercourse.

The Boston priest abuse scandal and the latest cases in the US, UK, and Ireland show "celibacy" as a downright lie...Joe says it is purely an expediant in cutting costs for the Catholic church!

The stats say that up to 30% of priests are homosexual and these figures seem to have been borne out by the high rates of homosexual abuse perpetrated against,largely young men and boys.

If this is a "sting", it has been well planned and executed to nullify the stance of O'Brien, who has been an outspoken opponent of homosexual "marriage" and the promotion of homosexuality in society.

Ian Mather is in dangerous territory in branding O'Brien as a "rapist", when we neither know what the allegations actually were or who made them.
I suspect he may wish to have his post removed.....if he has any modicum of sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 02:57 PM

"...Is bi-sexuality:..."

Some of all those, I'd guess. Genetic in part perhaps-- that is hard to establish...but I knew at least two guys years ago who used bi-sexuality to ummm... enhance... life. They were FAR different from those who were simply attracted to only men, as they could 'take it, or leave it alone'. Some men KNOW they are 'different' long before any societal influence or peer pressures.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM

I thought the "lifestyle" of priests was that they are requited by Ecclesiastical Law to be celibate. Being celibate does not mean just not having sex with women, it means not having sex of any kind.

How can this alleged "sting" derail the church's opposition to homosexual marriage?

It's a whole different issue.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 12:42 PM

Ian....As i said on the other thread, the priesthood is full of homosexuals.

If Cardinal O'Brien is guilty of "inappropriate conduct" I would not be surprised....just as I was not surprised by the abuse of mainly youths and young men in the recent "Priest abuse cases".
Extreme promiscuity appears to be part and parcel of the lifestyle, and the priethood seems a suitable niche for such people.
That being said, this looks like a classic sting, as the cardinal refutes the allegations and is "taking legal advice"....the timing would suggest that this sting has been carefully planned to derail the church's opposition to homosexual "marriage"

This has no effect on my stance on the issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 02:27 AM

I notice that one of the more vocal opponents of gay marriage, the Scottish head Catholic bloke, who only the other week spoke of gay sex being an abomination before his God yadda yadda, has stepped down, won't be at the Vatican gig and his title of bigot of the year given by Stonewall is now superceded by hypocrite and rapist of the year.

Abusing young priests using your position to intimidate them is rape isn't it?

Just makes you wonder how many more bigots have skeletons in their cupboard that would explain their illogical stance?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 12:00 AM

.....and as per instructed.........which matches the response!


...even though the results of bad science will probably pass...

Hi, Ake!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 01:32 PM

DonT: "Aww shut your face Goofie!..and,TIA: "Hey phony counselor..."

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 01:06 PM

Drink up!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 12:32 PM

.....and the pissing continues.........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 12:26 PM

KB in Iowa: "It is already happening. Nothing GfS or Ake can do or say will have any impact on that."

KB is obviously correct...however, this emotional hot button topic does not have to pull everybody into it...especially when its premise, is based on bad science with political activism to promote it.
There are a lot of 'accepted' ideas running around, out there in 'policy-land' that are based on fraudulent reasoning...drones, NDAA, Citizens United, homeland security, the Patriot Act, the banks holding onto the 'bailout' money...most of them promoted by the 'so-called' liberal left..but not all.
The gutting of our Constitution's amendments has, and is being, in full swing...but then, the 'activists'(?), use it to promote 'equality' to whatever cause they want to push...not realizing that if you gut it, you have nothing to stand on.
As far as a lot of you, you are just toting the 'party line'...but the same party has, and is, destroying the premise of what you also claim you have as a tool. This is absolute nonsense..in EVERY sense of the word!

AND...

Akenaton: "Well I think Sanity makes some salient points, but as you are unable to answer, you resort to ignorant and childish name calling. This does your cause no good at all.
This is a serious topic and should be discussed as such; how homosexuality is perceived in our society is going to make a huge difference to not only the societal template, but to the future health and life expectancy of hundreds of thousands of young human males."

While this is an indisputable FACT, the banal behavior of the asinine, tactics, only add more proof that the promoters have NOTHING valid to say...except if they say it loud enough, and gather a FEW, who scream and bitch enough, they mistakenly think they are making a false premise a true fact!
In the real world, this is called DELUSION!...but isn't that the point, goal and objective of an ongoing rolling propaganda machine??
Meanwhile, as the basis of societal structure is being attacked, and worn down, the phony agenda of the puppet masters at the top, is being implemented every day we live.

OH, and by the way, the FAILURE to even answer any of the questions, or even address the topic in them IS and SHOULD be ALL the proof anyone needs, to arrive at the conclusion, that a FEW on here, are just blowhards full of shit!....otherwise they wouldn't want to risk being held accountable for their deluded opinions.
So what about bi-sexuality??.....see the choices in the other post..or come up with your own.
...unless your rap is just that....a rap!

GfS

P.S...Akenaton: "Well I think Sanity makes some salient points, but as you are unable to answer, you resort to ignorant and childish name calling."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 12:10 PM

"This is a serious topic and should be discussed as such;"

I've learned over the years that once a topic at the Mudcat goes over 1,000 posts it has long since stopped being a serious topic of discussion. At this point it's just a pissing contest between some folks who don't like each other for a variety of reasons.

Carry on......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 10:50 AM

Gay marriage will happen, whatever you think about it, and the world will be a little fairer.

It is already happening. Nothing GfS or Ake can do or say will have any impact on that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM

Well I think Sanity makes some salient points, but as you are unable to answer, you resort to ignorant and childish name calling. this does your cause no good at all.

You've done your share of that too Ake, but the world's not quite ready for another Pharaoh directing the lives of others in his preferred course.

So we'll leave you and Insanitary to moan to each other about it, and go enjoy some beer and real music.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 08:47 AM

""other than SOME homosexuals (and political 'activists') might get their feelings hurt, by not being taken seriously???""

Aww shut your face Goofie!

You can stay in the closet if you like it in there.

Gay marriage will happen, whatever you think about it, and the world will be a little fairer.

I hope you choke on that thought.

Now I'll join Don F and Froggie for that beer.

Get a life!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 03:12 AM

Well I think Sanity makes some salient points, but as you are unable to answer, you resort to ignorant and childish name calling. this does your cause no good at all.

This is a serious topic and should be discussed as such; how homosexuality is perceived in our society is going to make a huge difference to not only the societal template, but to the future health and life expectancy of hundreds of thousands of young human males
One thing has already been proved,that self-regulation is no longer an option for the majority of young homosexuals.
If they have not been frightened into regulating their sexual behavior by now, they never will.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 09:43 PM

Hey phony counselor, why don't you go discuss it with your phony musician friends (Cecil and lansing?), or be a phony luminary musician and phony composer of songs and movie scores, and go play them for one of your phony audiences that always seems to have tears streaming down their faces.

Real people are sick to death of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 09:30 PM

Here's a question(that probably will not be answered)....

Is bi-sexuality:

1.___Homosexuality?

2.___Genetic?

3.___Behavioral?

4.___Immoral?

5.___Moral

6.___Results of promiscuity?

7.___All of the above?

8.___None of the above?

9.___Answerable, but...,,, ?

See ya' later.....

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 06:33 PM

More hilarious 'proof'.
Can't some of you just present either a 'legal' or medical, or scientific...or ANYTHING that backs up WHY homosexual marriage is such a urgent, Civil Rights necessity???...other than SOME homosexuals (and political 'activists') might get their feelings hurt, by not being taken seriously???

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 03:53 PM

Ageed! No more.

Froggy, Don T., let's go have a beer.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 03:36 PM

Don, I've been letting myself "bite" here again too. Let's face it: either there is no coherent mind there to actually communicate with at all, or gfs has absolutely no motive here except to keep yanking people's chains. The thread appeared to have died an overdue death a while back, until it (gfs, that is) couldn't take the lack of attention and started babbling again. Let's stop the whole futile business. It may be a little bit interesting to see how many time gfs tries to start it up again, or if he ever really gives up, but there just isn't any point in heaven or hell in bothering to reply to this crap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 02:53 PM

"...lame, preadolescence, with not ONE fact, to back up a 'position'...."

The "counsellor" is doing self-analysis?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 02:34 PM

That's remarkable, gfs. How did you find a whole group of people who all:

1. Believe that any opinion that any of them holds trumps anything that has been discovered by scientific inquiry?

2. Believe that the reason that they are all homosexual is that they all made conscious decisions to be that way?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 01:34 PM

Myself and a few of the regular musicians who come over have been laughing our asses off at the 'responses'. Lot's of drooling blather sounding so officious, but hilariously lame, preadolescence, with not ONE fact, to back up a 'position(?)...par for the course, considering this in depth, scientific, accumulation of input,I went to school and I knew a whole bunch of other kids who were going to school too. We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too. Kids DO talk to each other, you know."

Now the co-sponsors of lame jabbering, console each other, with platitudes amounting to, "Oh, that buckshot in the ass didn't really hurt that much, Goofus, (BTW that''s MISTER Goofus, to you) is so 'mean and nasty'..when in reality, it was a self inflicted shot in the ass!!

Just reading reading the 'conciliatory' remarks, we've been howling!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 08:54 PM

'Tis indeed a pity. But even if it had occurred to her, her gag reflex probably prevented it.

I guess I can understand that.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 08:23 PM

What a pity that course of action never occurred to Goofie's mother.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 10:59 PM

Well, simply, it just didn't happen.

Probably the reason we didn't have any children is because we are different species. Although we met here in Seattle, Barbara was born in Nebraska and I was born in Southern California.

But Goofball would probably like this explanation better:   Actually we did have children, at least in a sense. Barbara popped one out every year. We ate them.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:20 PM

..which, come to think of it, explains why they don't have children together....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:15 PM

None of which, of course, excludes the possibility that Don Firth's wife is a transgendered person whom Don has lived with since before the surgery...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:10 PM

"Hey, Don and I have discussed his wife, (though he didn't say they were married before, just living together"

Don Firth never discussed his wife here with anyone, at least on this thread. But he made incidental mention of her a minimum of seven times on the thread. A minimum of three times (Sept.12, Oct.12,Dec. 11) He made it explicit that they are long-married and still together.

Now, go spread out on a mud puddle like a good little blob of scum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 04:54 PM

Frogprince and Don T., Goofball and I have NOT discussed my wife. But I believe the first time I mentioned her on this website, I said, "my wife, Barbara, a woman of infinite resource and sagacity" (the "infinite resource and sagacity" line from one of Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories). I would never discuss my wife with someone like Goofball, nor would I ever discuss anything about my personal life with him, because I know he will twist it into some totally unrecognizable bit of pornographic fiction and try to use it to denigrate me.

He is perhaps unaware that through his IP address (every computer on the internet has one, and it is traceable in the same way that a telephone number is traceable) I could have an attorney get the necessary subpoenas, find his true identity, and then sue him for libel and slander until he has nothing left but a pair of dirty socks with a hole in one toe and a stupid smile on his face.

A few more smart remarks out of him and I'm going to give it some serious consideration.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:32 AM

DonT: """I've been called every hateful name in the book by him, every time he wants to avoid the kernel of the topic."

LIAR!"

Are you for real??? Go back to our first 'encounter'....even other people came in and were pointing it out to him...and it's been that way ever since....it's a standard 'so-called' liberal tactic..call someone a name with bad connotations of 'hate' and blah blah...problem is it just escalates...and the reason I stand out, they way I do, with the satirical insults, is..well...frankly, mine are a bit wittier!
Some others, on here, are just sorta frothier and more frantic...arm waving, running around in circles, like one shoe is nailed to the floor, flinging spittle, from uncontrollable jowl flapping.

frogprince, Hey, Don and I have discussed his wife, (though he didn't say they were married before, just living together), and went on to extoll her virtues. we've discussed other things, personal to him, as well. I'm not going to go into any further, than to say, our dialogue was on familiar territory,...take a big breath, and relax.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:12 PM

""I've been called every hateful name in the book by him, every time he wants to avoid the kernel of the topic.""

LIAR! You have deliberately targetted him, and twisted out of all recognition what he posted about his private life, completely altering what he said and using it in the filthiest attack on a member I can recall having seen on the Mudcat.

You are a disgrace to humanity and a perfect example of the fact that some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them.

In addition to your having thrown of the microscopic veneer of decency which disguised you true nature, you have lied repeatedly about the authorship of comments which came from your PC, and about your qualification to offer counselling.

You are in fact the individual most qualified to receive counselling of all who inhabit this forum.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:01 PM

Nothin' wrong with getting to the truth, gfs; it's just that imagining a bunch of sick crap about people and attempting to rub their noses in it, which is what you have been doing, has nothing whatever to do with getting at the truth.

Would you like to try "getting at some truth" concerning my wife? You just tried to drag Don Firth's wife into your garbage, not just on the basis of imagined facts but in disregard of facts which have been mentioned here any number of times.

If you actually think you've been "getting at truth" around here, you are seriously disconnected from reality. If you just think it's fun to accuse people of anything vile that you can make up, you have a personality disorder severe enough to make you contempable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:42 PM

Don Firth: "I will no longer engage this creature in discussion."

Promise??

frogprince: "If anyone has come to you, in an emotionally vulnerable state, for counselling, and you have supposedly "gotten to the bottom line truth" with them in anything remotely like the way you claim to think you have done here, there can be little doubt that you have done significant damage to some lives."

'Biased Assumptions', by their very nature, are false from the beginning.

Getting to the truth, and establishing a point of perception based on actual reality, is the foundation on which one may think and assimilate objectively. How one handles it, is one thing, how it's presented is another....what is necessary to get to the truth, is just necessary...the rest is just thinking it though..and welcoming the right and deeper questions.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:21 PM

"It was part of my 'tools of the trade' to get to the bottom line truth" gfs

"at least I'm not damaging people's lives who believe what I'm talking about!" gfs

If anyone has come to you, in an emotionally vulnerable state, for counselling, and you have supposedly "gotten to the bottom line truth" with them in anything remotely like the way you claim to think you have done here, there can be little doubt that you have done significant damage to some lives.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:54 PM

Yes, it's true that I know, as friends and acquaintances, a number of gay men, most of whom are in stable relationships with other men. At least three couples I know, who have been together for years, are taking advantage of Washington State's new same-sex marriage law.

Interestingly enough, most of them are attorneys. One is a State Legislator, and one is a music teacher and choir director in a nearby church. He plays the piano beautifully and could easily make a concert career for himself, but says that although he loves playing classical piano music, he doesn't want to "go on the road," which is what a concert career would require. And one of them is a talented published writer who is a member of the writers' group that meets for mutual critique in Barbara's and my apartment once a month.

Each and every one of these individual "gay" men is more of a man than Goofball will ever be.

Goofball says of me that "You didn't marry, are shacking up with another person you horns-waggled (sic), was the sperm donor for a child you didn't bother to be a father to, have a couple of homosexual buddies . . ." and blithers on and on in similar fashion.

I have been married—to the same woman—for thirty-six years. I am not and never have been "shacked up" with anyone. And as to the other circumstance he bloviates about, he would never understand the dynamics involved, and I will NOT try to explain it to him because he doesn't have the capacity to understand concepts like love and sacrificing oneself for the greater good, and all he does with anything I tell him about myself is turn it into an elaborate fiction for the purpose of denigrating me. All he wants to do is trash me.

I will no longer engage this creature in discussion. Trying to argue with him is is merely lowering myself by getting down to wrestle in filth with a swine.

Anything I have to say on the subject to same-sex marriage, I have already said, and those of knowledge and intelligence can judge for themselves. There is no point in endlessly repeating it, trying to drum it into the head of someone with a vested interest in avoiding the truth.

Let him stew in his own fetid juices.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:36 PM

Okay, gfs; since you've established what you consider to be an acceptable and "justifiable" level of discussion here...

Which came first; the time when your mother did the traveling evangelist hustle, or the period when she did the stage act with the pony in Tijuana?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:10 PM

What's a 'memberb'?

frogprince: ".."are shacking up with another person you horns-waggled,"

gfs, just a thought; if you are ever stupid enough to say things that filthy, low down, and unjustifiable"

I didn't say it was "filthy, low down, and unjustifiable"...you did.


(It was part of my 'tools of the trade' to get to the bottom line truth...Oh, and I did warn him!)...

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 07:12 PM

"........So let's not shit each other...(..and Don, keep your blindly ignorant opinions to yourself on this one...do yourself a favor..trust me!)"


I've been called every hateful name in the book by him, every time he wants to avoid the kernel of the topic. Sometimes the truth comes out 'pleasantly'...sometimes it's a baseball bat between the eyes...but the truth SHOULD come out........it did!

GfS

P.S. I think it would serve everyone well, to lay off on the baseless accusations of 'homophobia' and 'bigotry'..don't you?
Akenaton is LONG overdue for an apology, too!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 11:10 AM

"are shacking up with another person you horns-waggled,"

gfs, just a thought; if you are ever stupid enough to say things that filthy, low down, and unjustifiable to anyone who is actually within physical reach, you are f**kin' lucky to be alive.



















'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:15 AM

""I raised my kids..AND helped kids who, like yours, deal with self absorbed 'absent parents'!
YOU have NO RIGHT, due to your lack of concern about your own child, to even offer an opinion..let alone such a lame one as you puked out!
""

Wh the F**K do you think you are you supercilious arsehole. How dare , hiding behind a ridiculous, and certainly inaccurate Guest pseudonym, tell a memberb what and whether he has a right to post on this forum.

If you don't like what is posted here, there's always the door, and I hope it hits you in the arse on the way out and knocks you into the gutter, where you belong.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:05 AM

""Come on, I don't need another one of your uneducated, biased opinions, concocted out of thin air....try posting an answer to a question or at least SOMETHING based on PROVEN FACTS.....but you can't do that(and you never even question yourselves as to why?), instead of your silly idiot-logue indoctrinations.""

Oooh! We really got stuck into a nerve, didn't we music man?

So, come on, we don't need another one of your uneducated, biased opinions, concocted out of thin air....try posting an answer to a question or at least SOMETHING based on scientifically PROVEN FACTS.....but you can't do that (and you never even question yourself as to why?), instead of your silly idiot-logue pseudo intelligent, pseudo sciaentific crap.

As to answering your questions, if you ever manage to construct one which is comprehensible, pertinent and intelligent, it might be worth the bother.

Even two out of the three might warrant consideration.

Oh yes, you might try coherence when posting, and possibly something which is readable to those whose first language is English?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest fron Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:12 AM

I'm 'nasty'???
Naw..I raised my kids who have done VERY well...and what do you base your whole trip on??...Firth: "I went to school and I knew a whole bunch of other kids who were going to school too. We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too. Kids DO talk to each other, you know."

Not really interested in much of ANYTHING you have to say about marriage, or who should raise kids or your great experiences in life that have given you such great expertise in ANYTHING related.
Stick to Beethoven. The rest is just jabbering crap..and nasty??...at least I'm not damaging people's lives who believe what I'm talking about!
Can you say as much??..NO!!

Give it a rest. You've been flushed out.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:20 AM

Dig yourself deeper Goofus.

Like I said, you're incapable of understanding generosity and self-sacrifice in the face of impossible circumstances.

And you more than demonstrate what a really nasty person you are.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:10 AM

Firth: "I went to school and I knew a whole bunch of other kids who were going to school too. We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too. Kids DO talk to each other, you know."

Oh!!..No wonder how you became such an 'expert'!!
..BUT..You didn't marry, are shacking up with another person you horns-waggled, was the sperm donor for a child you didn't bother to be a father to, have a couple of homosexual buddies who..."We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too."....and now you've become an authority on raising children, expound on the virtues of homosexual 'marriage', and promote others to blindly accept your WORD that you even have the foggiest idea about ANY of it!!
Would you take guitar lessons from someone who never even picked up a guitar????????????????????????????????????????..!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:03 AM

Goofball, you know absolutely NOTHING about what you're blathering on about. And you know NOTHING about my life, so give it a rest before you make an even bigger ass of yourself than you already have.

Do you understand the concept of living in different parts of the country, Goofball? That was the situation that existed at the time, and there was nothing that could be done about it. There was no neglect or "lack of concern." Circumstances were such that it was impossible for us all to be together, so we had to make sacrifices for the good of all concerned, and there were very good reasons for the decisions that we made. But not only do YOU not understand, you are incapable of understanding anything like that. You're too selfish and ignorant to understand.

So just shut the hell up about something of which you are totally ignorant before you commit suicide with the same weapon that Samson used against the Philistines.

=======

I went to school and I knew a whole bunch of other kids who were going to school too. We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too. Kids DO talk to each other, you know.

At an early age, I had "the talk" with my father. But from what a lot of my school chums thought, their parents were not as well-informed as mine were. Both my father and my mother were health professionals. There was nothing about sex that the high school Health Ed teacher said that I didn't already know, but I knew that some kids were learning it for the first time.

Or maybe you don't know. Maybe other kids didn't talk to you. Judging from the way you carry on here, I can certainly understand why.

But then, maybe you didn't go to school at all. Maybe you were raised in a Dumpster by giant rats and never had a chance to go to school. That would certainly explain a lot.

Or perhaps you're living in a closet. Even to yourself.

Don Firth

P. S. The name "Firth," for those who haven't figured it out, is a Scottish place name.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 10:56 PM

Don the Froth: "Believe me, by the time kids get to school, they already know something about sex. What the sex part of health education classes teach is accurate knowledge and thoughtful responsibility."

Believe me??? YOU??..When did YOU EVER send your kid to school????? From What you've said, when he was growing up, the Ol'Lady wouldn't let you near him!

Don Froth: "Liberals don't care about children? You ARE a feckles, lying jackass, Goofball!"

Well, You're a 'so-called liberal'.....see my above comment!

If you knew what you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be acting like such a hypocritical, pedantic nut job.

I raised my kids..AND helped kids who, like yours, deal with self absorbed 'absent parents'!
YOU have NO RIGHT, due to your lack of concern about your own child, to even offer an opinion..let alone such a lame one as you puked out!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 07:10 PM

Well said, Don. If our resident homophobics (Guffo and akenaton) were to get their way, and "children were not 'taught homosexuality' in school", then children would be "taught homosexuality" anyway, probably in ways that these two dumbos would approve of far less. In fact, that's how it was always done, remember?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 06:53 PM

Goofball, if you ever got around to reading what people actually write (instead of dividing your already flawed attention by trying to figure out some snotty comeback while you're reading), you might have noticed that I singled out a couple of items on your list, then invited others to do their own survey so they could get an idea of where you seek support for your prejudices.

I am quite familiar with WND because, as I said, I get IT and a number of other Right Wing newsletters in my daily e-mail so I get more than just one viewpoint on the news.

I know that you get your basic opinions on this issue out of your fear of your own genes, and this powers your irrational hatred of homosexuals to the point where you can't see that they are human beings too and deserving of rights. Most normal heterosexuals don't really care one way or the other, as long as someone else's sexual choices don't impinge on them, and this Gay Marriage issue does NOT.

And as far as "teaching homosexuality in schools" is concerned, any good high school health class teaches all aspects of health education including a few weeks on sex education. With some kids, their parents are often so ignorant and so inhibited themselves that high school Health Ed is the ONLY sex education they get. And it should cover the matter of responsibility along with health issues. And that includes the fact that there is such a thing as same-sex orientation within a certain percentage of people.

This (contrary to the beliefs of some very ignorant people) does not "teach homosexuality" in the sense of urging them to become homosexual, which is what people like Goofball and Ake seem to be trying to imply.

Believe me, by the time kids get to school, they already know something about sex. What the sex part of health education classes teach is accurate knowledge and thoughtful responsibility.

At least that's what they should be teaching, assuming competent teachers and no interference from stiff-necked busybodies.

=======

Liberals don't care about children? You ARE a feckles, lying jackass, Goofball!

When it comes to biased opinions and blind stupidity, Goofball, YOU take the Gold Medal And when it comes to dealing with proven facts, you wouldn't know a proven fact if it bit you on the ass.

But with those genes you're so afraid of, in spite of yourself, you might just enjoy being bitten on the ass.

"Harlequin" indeed! You're the only clown around here.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:42 PM

Akenaton: "No, our children will be taugh about "equality", "discrimination" and "homophobia"

The so-called liberals' don't give a rat's ass about the children, on this or virtually any other matter...they just use them to argue that their idiotic agendas are about 'protecting them'..blah blah blah...any EVERY time you hear, "..It's for the children.." from ANY of them, you KNOW the subject is horse shit. From Hillary, to Obama to any of them who are looking to bilk the public for more wasteful, corrupt spending, that using that 'tug on the heart strings' argument, will work the emotional side...when logic and truthfulness would never work!!
True Story!!

GfS

P.S. Just look at the deficit and the cost of the bills left to the next generation....if there is one! Think they gave a shit about that??..BOTH PARTIES!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:25 PM

Children should be made aware of the risk factor associated with male to male sex (44 times more likely to be infected by hiv than heteros}
I have no doubt that this figure will never be mentioned, as the vast majority of the population are quite unaware, so well has it been concealed to date.

No, our children will be taugh about "equality", "discrimination" and "homophobia"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:22 PM

Well, the rebuttals came from those who said I was in error in saying homosexuality were being taught in our public schools, and that straight parents did not want that...to which Firth took exception to ONE website that ran the story..accusing 'World Net Daily' of being a 'Conservative website'...HE, as usual, did NOT address my statement that indicated that homosexuality being taught in the schools were an infringement of the rights of those who didn't agree with it...RIGHT?
That being said, amidst the 'denials'...maybe by re-phrasing the key words on the search engine, we can prove ONCE AGAIN, that Don IS in fact in error again....
Goofball lists more than amply demonstrates the type of people and organizations
Look closely, there are 'so-called liberal' sites saying what I am saying...not what you dizzily allege. What else is new???

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 01:25 PM

Don, and other harlequins, I posted an open long list of websites on the Yahoo search, and you singled out the ONE you don't like??..and that is an indictment on ALL of them, and the topic????..and you say that you are not spun out of control???

You guys are a parody of blind stupidity to try such a lame stunt as that!
Come on, I don't need another one of your uneducated, biased opinions, concocted out of thin air....try posting an answer to a question or at least SOMETHING based on PROVEN FACTS.....but you can't do that(and you never even question yourselves as to why?), instead of your silly idiot-logue indoctrinations.
As I said before...'persuade me'....but use FACTS, not stupid name-calling and phony thin blabber about 'bigotry' and 'homophobia', which is so far from the truth, the more you vomit it, the sillier you look!

Keep it based on SOMETHING BESIDES your fucked up opinions!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:23 PM

""I doubt if the "knowledge" they aquire will include the associated sexual health figures.
In this "liberal" democracy some things must be hidden from the children
""

You really don't have a clue what happens in the real world, do you Ake.

Kids are already comprehensively informed, at school, of the dangers inherent in sexual activity of all types.

You don't think their questions about the boy or girl with two dads or two mums are answered?

Of course they are!

Strangely enough, they are even told about the broad spectrum of infections attendant upon heterosexual, as well as homosexual activity, which you studiously ignore and refuse to acknowledge, in your drive to denigrate Gays.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket and where's that ruddy cookie?
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 10:21 AM

The only things that need hiding from children are disgraceful bigot such as yourself.

Either you are celebrating STI figures for some reason, (usually personality disorder) or you fail to see how committing your life to a partner reduces promiscuity. If it is the former, you need help and if it is the latter, you are beyond help.

What makes it worse is that decent people are forced to show you in the light you deserve and do you think people like doing that? No. It saddens me that every time you put poisoned keyboard to screen, yet more attempts are made to see if you are capable of getting it.

Clearly not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 09:33 AM

"homosexuality will be one of the gender orientations, about which they will acquire knowledge, without being directed or "converted", since gender orientation is an inherent quality born, not made."

I doubt if the "knowledge" they aquire will include the associated sexual health figures.
In this "liberal" democracy some things must be hidden from the children


So do you think that the undeniable fact that homosexuality exists should be hidden from the children then? In any good programme of personal and social education, sexual health will be dealt with in a balanced manner as well as the question of gender orientation. I was involved in sex education in secondary schools for 25 years (I'm admittedly a bit out of date these days, though I still just about know that it isn't just for pissing out of), and the one aspect I think we sometimes got right was safe sex and the health aspects of sex (the rest was often subject to a bit of interference from spinster year-heads, school nurses and men of the cloth...). Very patchy, of course, from school to school, and that is a big shame. You appear to want the statistics for STIs to make the case for your homophobia, when what you should be doing instead is arguing for much better education for sexual health for all. Knowledge is everything in sexual health matters, and it's knowledge, among both homosexuals and heterosexuals, which is often lacking to an alarming degree. Knowledge is more than just knowing how to stay safe - it's also about taking responsibility and staying in control.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 09:10 AM

"homosexuality will be one of the gender orientations, about which they will acquire knowledge, without being directed or "converted", since gender orientation is an inherent quality born, not made."

I doubt if the "knowledge" they aquire will include the associated sexual health figures.
In this "liberal" democracy some things must be hidden from the children


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 07:47 AM

Governments, not rabble rousing websites, decide what must, or must not, be taught in schools.

Just as UK schools have to reflect the multicultural nature of the UK by teaching comparative religion, without advocating adherence to any one of the religions about which the children acquire knowledge, homosexuality will be one of the gender orientations, about which they will acquire knowledge, without being directed or "converted", since gender orientation is an inherent quality born, not made.

People like Goofus will, no doubt, have done such a good job of instilling their own hatreds into their unfortunate childrens' psyches, that any such education will fail to prevent future generations of homophobic Gay bashers.

What a charming legacy!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 01:12 AM

I receive a number of "newsletters" in my e-mail every morning, some of which are worth reading, some of which are sheer propaganda—from both sides. One of those is WND or "World News Daily." Their main thrust is extremely conservative (think Rush Limbaugh), and along with trying to sell the Right Wing line, they also have a line of books they want to sell you, having to do with Barack Obama's secret plan to take over the nation, how Al Gore is trying to destroy American business with his talk of global warming, and—various secret cures for everything from cancer to toenail fungus (which the powers the be are keeping concealed from you).

I allow a few newsletters like this keep coming just so I know what these clowns are saying.

Remarkable how close Goofball toes their line on a lot of issues.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:01 AM

A random sampling of the websites Goofball lists more than amply demonstrates the type of people and organizations who are posting them.

WND = World News Daily – very conservative website.
massresistance.org
inqueery.com
(About here, my gag reflex kicked in. But if so moved, check the websites and see how they are framed. Most revealing!)

And on and on. If you want to wallow in bigotry, there it is. Goofball has presented a lot of material.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
                               —William Shakespeare

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 11:13 PM

homosexuality will be ""taught in schools"" is just so much arrant nonsense.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 09:16 PM

Don T. seems to have things well under control. He speaks true, even if it is over the heads of some people.

As to my current project, it's not a matter of learning a ballad in the sense of just memorizing the words and tune. I'm trying to learn Sir Patrick Spens, one of the oldest of the classic ballads.

I've shied away from it because, although I've heard it sung a number of times by various people, the melodies have all sounded vaguely inappropriate. I DID hear it once, sung at an end-of-school-year get-together and party of the students in Dr. David C. Fowler's "English and Scottish Popular Ballads" class at the University of Washington. It was sung by Dr. Fowler himself, and it was spellbinding! The ominous story was set to a rather eerie tune.

My big mistake was in not asking Dr. Fowler at the time where he learned that particular tune. So I'm on a quest.

I shall probably take this question "above the belt" where folks are talking about music, a more appropriate place than here.

Anyway, if one wants to do it right, there is more to learning a ballad than just memorizing the words and tune.

Don Firth

P. S. Now, back to our regular program of screaming and throwing things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:37 PM

""Homosexuals can and do about anything they want. When they start pushing churches and governments around, pressuring corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices, on the behalf of the very few (minority), who agree with them, it would be idiotic to even imagine that they would not receive resistance...Likewise, when those who have married and have conceived their own offspring, and are trying to raise them to be normal, it would not be surprising that they would object to homosexual practices to taught in the public school systems...""""

Homosexuals are, as you admit, a minority. They don't carry the weight to ""push churches and governments around, or pressure corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices,"".

The reason why they are being supported, is because it is the right thing for a civilised society to do.

No government is being, or even could be, pushed into anything. A free vote resulted, by a considerable margin, in approval of same sex marriages. That's democracy at work. You don't like it? Move to Zimbabwe!

No church will be forced to conduct Gay marriages, but there are plenty of enlightened churches more than ready to do so.

And your implication (again) that homosexuality will be ""taught in schools"" is just so much arrant nonsense. It's existence will be mentioned as a matter of fact, but it certainly is neither contagious, nor infectious.

""Worse off, is those who promote it on both bad science and bad political stance not based on truth.""

You wouldn't recognise real science if it bit you on the arse, you being perfectly capable of making it up as you go along. If there were qualifications for pseudo science with no basis in reality, you would hold a Master's Degree.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:18 PM

For Chrissake, Goofball, READ A BOOK!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:07 PM

Don Firth: "Obviously you are unaware, GfS, that when marriage became a legally recognized institution, it was not for the purposes you outlined, it was primarily a matter of property alliances."

CORRECTION!! The property end of it was originally a way to put up collateral, as to the promises one makes in the vows. True story!

Now go back and work on your ballad..AND do yourself a favor..all the angst you may feel toward me or the passion you feel about this matter, or both, put into your fingers! You will find that the music now becomes MORE than a technical exercise..and blossoms with feeling!
See..I really am rooting for you!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 06:33 PM

Good freakin' grief; the reason no one would disagree with the question is the same reason no one would disagree with saying that rowing a boat is different than being an ostrich; the question was, isn't doing an action different from having a physical characteristic; it's an idiotic question, and the answer is meaningless. Out of that you manage to wind yourself up and repeat your whole sermon for the 487th time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 06:31 PM

Obviously you are unaware, GfS, that when marriage became a legally recognized institution, it was not for the purposes you outlined, it was primarily a matter of property alliances. And thus it remained until very recently. Many marriages were arranged, and not by the "loving couple," who may not have even met each other until after the decisions were made by others, and had no say in the matter. Property and inheritance.

Marriages among the lower classes generally consisted of the couple simply moving in together and making an announcement to friends and family, possibly with a ceremony in the local church. No actual legal registration.

Same-sex couples are not so much trying to manipulate or force governments and churches, as you claim. No one is trying to get churches who don't want to perform marriage ceremonies to do so, because there are many churches who will preform such ceremonies. And rightfully, they want the civil authorities to recognize them and give them the same legal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have, which includes inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights as "next of kin"—the same rights that heterosexual married couples have.

Granting same-sex couples the same civil rights as heterosexual couples will not, in any way affect the marriages of heterosexual couples.

Thus, it IS a civil rights issue.

To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who will not understand, no explanation is possible.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 05:53 PM

Ake, the vast majority of abused children are to be found in households consisting of heterosexual couples. In all too many cases, one or more of the heterosexual parents regards the child, or children, as an inconvenience. Hence, the abuse.

This is not the case with same sex couples—who want children. And who will care for them. And who don't just happen, they are adopted into a family that wants them.

This is not just theoretical or something derived from one of your beloved pie charts, it is a matter of observation. One family of same-sex parents who adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage, and another same-sex family in which both men contributed to artificial insemination of a surrogate mother, insemination by one man producing a healthy boy and insemination of the same mother by the other producing triplets (big surprise!)!!

In both cases, the children are not lacking in feminine influence and companionship. Women friends and relatives dote on the children.

And ALL of the kids are thriving and happy.

So we don't always have to do things by nature's design. If Mother Nature had intended that we should play the piano, she would have given us eighty-eight fingers.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 05:07 PM

Frogprince. First, did you watch that video which mentions the (nicknamed) 'The God gene')??..I thought the video was pretty interesting.

Second, your re-phrasing of my post, "the decision to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have sex with them, is NOT the same as being born with as different color skin...now is it?"

Ummm...The decision to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex, has been around a lot longer than the 'push' for homosexuals to imitate marriage, as if it WAS the same as marrying a person of the opposite sex. Marriage was originally set forth to 'announce' to the community, at large, that this man and this woman were marrying and no longer 'available', to have a family, so to the community it was a 'hands off'...but that was in a day that marriage and family were not as demeaned as they are today...not just by the homosexuals, but to even those who enter into marriage. Today, even many of the participants in marriage seem a 'little weak' in that commitment...and then you have 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on 'marriages'.
So, as to your re-phasing, it is not even remotely applicable...except of argument's sake.

Homosexuals can and do about anything they want. When they start pushing churches and governments around, pressuring corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices, on the behalf of the very few (minority), who agree with them, it would be idiotic to even imagine that they would not receive resistance...Likewise, when those who have married and have conceived their own offspring, and are trying to raise them to be normal, it would not be surprising that they would object to homosexual practices to taught in the public school systems...

..and you are correct when you say, "One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world could ever disagree with that question...", but the Civil Rights Act, and the Constitution was worded and meant what it said concisely when it said 'Race, Creed or Color'. Maybe the interpretation of Race, Creed and Color was stretched by some people to include sexual practices and preferences....but you nailed it when you said, in that same sentence,..."One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world...". So, are you alluding to homosexuality as a mental or emotional issue? Worse off, is those who promote it on both bad science and bad political stance not based on truth.
You can't compare apples and oranges..then say they're turnips!

Respectfully Though,

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 03:50 PM

"having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?"

One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world could ever disagree with that question, just as it's worded. They might doubt the sanity of anyone who could string together that alleged "thought", but disagree with it, no way.

Perhaps the most frightening thing is that, in the context of a bunch of things you've said, it's possible to get a fair idea of what you thought you were saying.

gfs, the decision to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have sex with them, is NOT the same as being born with as different color skin...now is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 03:48 PM

Don. But what if the bastards manage to breed? Then we're all fucked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM

DonT: "The biggest single flaw in your argument is your fixed belief that long term Gay relationships are based purely on sexual attraction. That alone qualifies you for twit of the year."



".....Sure, we 'love' a lot of different people in our lifetimes..men and women...having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:45 PM

I would even support the rights of homophobes to marry each other. That way two people would be bloody miserable instead of four.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM

The biggest single flaw in your argument is your fixed belief that long term Gay relationships are based purely on sexual attraction. That alone qualifies you for twit of the year.

Then add in your complete abnegation of all scientific knowledge on the subject, in favour of your very own pseudo scientific theory based, not in what is the result of genuine scientific research, but in what you would like the facts to be. Now you are plumbing the depths of tinfoil hat stupidity.

Then add the fact that you think everybody is daft except you, a sure indication, we are told, of incipient madness.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS!

Now go sit in the corner and mumble to yourself, because the only person who is listening to you is Ake. You make a pretty pair of homophobes, and it's a pity that you can't come out of the closet and be who you are. You would feel so much better for it.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:26 PM

".....Sure, we 'love' a lot of different people in our lifetimes..men and women...having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM

Opposites/thread drift:

I wonder if the anonymous guest who calls him/herself "guest from sanity" believes that s/he lives in a universe where everyone is sane, and those of us who do not "live" there are NOT sane. Who else would populate said world? And who among us would not be allowed into that treehouse and considered INsane?

What values and viewpoints would we have to have to be given the secret handshake to the world of sanity from which guest thinks s/he is from? Who would we have to hate? Would we have to "believe in" science?" And if not, what would be our method of operation? Is this place anywhere near the Libertarian complex offshore of Washington state where only "sane?" Libertarians would be allowed to live?

Just wondering.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM

Goofus and AkeHATEon seem to be friendly enough. To each other that is.

Great minds obviously think alike. Wish I was clever enough to put facts and my prejudice on the same plate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 11:35 AM

Like all musicians, we are ALL at the limits of our education...however, the feedback that I have received by people who have attended my concerts, maybe even better than I would have thought!

Like all ideologues, they are at the limit of their education...and that's a drag, when the info they are getting is completely spun.

'Civil Rights' do not cover elective sexual practices for fun.

Sure, we 'love' a lot of different people in our lifetimes..men and women...having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:08 AM

Well Goofie, it's obvious to all that you have a very high opinion of your own musical ability.

I once had a lab assistant like that.

In the three months before we sacked him, he performed his duties entirely to HIS satisfaction.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the music. That way, there's every possibility that you may be as good as you think you are.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:01 AM

""DonT: "WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to."


There you go again..who are YOU talking to?

GfS
""

I'm talking to YOU Goofie, about the following extract from one of your posts, in which you address ""Don "the reporter" Firth"".

Don Firth had nothing whatever to do with that post, it was in fact mine.

Now do you get it?......WRONG DON!


""Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 04:14 PM

-snip- Aslo: Don 'The reporter' Firth:
"Discrimination of any kind whatever is a civil rights issue you fool.

Disabled
Mentally ill
Learning difficulties
Fat people
The aged
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Transexuals
Hippies
Punks
Goths
And many more

All of these have exactly the same civil rights to live their lives free from interference and discrimination from the likes of you and Ake, and all of them do in fact suffer discriminatory infringement of those civil rights at various times."

You forgot these 'genetic based' categories: -snip-
""

God, for a self styled genius you are dreadfiully slow on the uptake.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 04:41 AM

Yeah...been organizing some musical arrangements....been working on another monster piece.....the people who've heard it, have had their minds blown!!...so, time to fine tune it!

Warmest Regards to you and the family!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 03:19 AM

hi sanity!....you're up late!.....all the best


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 03:02 AM

Well said!
I DO have a true story I was going to post...but the glaze eyed, mono-toned, parrot zomboids can't get past their ideological chants of 'homophobe'..when in reality, those same droners know very little about homosexuality, nor the make up...other than if two people think it 'feels good' it must be made into a 'civil right'!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:49 AM

""What, precisely, is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child and making a caring and safe environment for it, and a homosexual couple (male or female) doing exactly the same thing?"

Of course there are differences.....between an infertile hetero couple...a fertile hetero couple...and a homosexual couple.

The first difference being a medical problem which stops the infertile couple performing their primary natural function, the second difference is that the homo couple are of the same gender and never designed by nature to produce children.
Almost all experts agree, that mother father children is the best template to bring up children.....simply because that is nature's design. Homosexual rearing is a dangerous, idiotic,social experiment, involving the wellbeing of young children, often with no say in whether they wish to participate or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:19 AM

"WRONG DON GOOFIE!"

Maybe he meant Don Juan.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM

He's talking to YOU, Goofball! Everybody knows that but YOU.

By the way, I'm Don Firth. The other gentleman is Don T. Granted, there might be room for confusion, but then—you are obviously easily confused.

Always glad to help. Especially those whose natural state seems to be one of chronic bewilderment.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM

"WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to."
There you go again..who are YOU talking to?
GfS

Hey, gfs; ever have one of those days when you can't seem to get it out of your pants, and eventually your pants get wet in front, and the other funny thing is that the crack of you butt keeps getting chilly?   I never have myself, but the way your mind works, I could easily see it happening to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM

DonT: "WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to."


There you go again..who are YOU talking to?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:10 AM

Shut up and listen to Macklemore


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 07:48 AM

Steve, you don't think banjoists and pipers also warrant our wrath?

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 06:19 AM

What a foul and disgusting mouth our self styled counsellor has, when challenged.

It covers his pathetic inability to answer a simple question like

""What, precisely, is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child and making a caring and safe environment for it, and a homosexual couple (male or female) doing exactly the same thing?

He can't answer, because his sick perverted mind cannot get past his disgust.

A true, dyed-in-the-wool homophobe, hiding behind a puerile facade of pseudo scientific claptrap, he hasn't the capacity for empathy of a brick.

When his application for entry to the human race comes before the governing body, he should be blackballed.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 05:58 AM

""Aslo: Don 'The reporter' Firth:
"Discrimination of any kind whatever is a civil rights issue you fool.

Disabled
Mentally ill
Learning difficulties
Fat people
The aged
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Transexuals
Hippies
Punks
Goths
And many more

All of these have exactly the same civil rights to live their lives free from interference and discrimination from the likes of you and Ake, and all of them do in fact suffer discriminatory infringement of those civil rights at various times.
""

WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to.

And I didn't forget any category of people who have the same civil rights.

It's simply a case of you not knowing the meaning of the phrase ""and many more"".

And I wasn't obsessive enough to waste bandwidth trying, AND FAILING, to cover every one that exists.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 09:54 PM

That works!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 09:17 PM

Troll? Well....

Sup'm sorta like that.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 09:12 PM

Oh, and how could I forget..my ball point sword....

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 09:05 PM

"... tilting, not against an intelligent adversary. but against a mere windmill which is creaking loudly, waving its arms, and showing no signs of intelligence whatsoever."

Ahhhhhh... do you mean a "troll"? Surprise, surprise, surprise!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 08:50 PM

True, Goofball. One can only cope with your level of pigheadded stupidity for so long before blowing a little clean, fresh air into the room.

Enjoy your favorite fetish....

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 08:44 PM

Frogprince, Well, they always have in the past....as for me, I either use a six stringed Axe, or an 88 key rapid fire keyboard.
There also used to be the 4th and 6th amendments..now we have the Patriot Act, NDAA and drones......and all with the same "hope and 'change'"..you tell me....

Oh, I thought of this after I got off...
In the video link they DO talk about something they call 'by nick-name 'the God gene'...it's really element that opens up the brain to...(and that is up for 'interpretation'..just watch the video..it's towaed the last third, I think.

Steve, you veered..as did SRS....but one thing, whatever people do as far as their sexual fantasies/preferences/fetishes are their own business, nor do I care....keep it out of everyone's face!..oh, and by the way, as pointed out, that list of sexual fetishes contained 'Gay' as one of them....it really IS about sex...but that's their business....and some gentlemen prefer blondes...

I'm glad Don is also studying a ballad....he needed to retreat and get some R&R.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 08:26 PM

Oh, and one more question, gfs:

Gun ownership is totally an elective choice; it has no connection to race, color, genetics, or ,so far as I know, any religious creed.

Do you believe that Americans have a civil right to own guns?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 08:24 PM

I have no idea (as a biologist, I might add) whether gayness is inherited, acquired, or a mixture of nature and nurture. What's more, I don't care. It's a red herring. The reason I don't care is that, as far as I'm concerned, your predilection for either a homosexual, heterosexual or any points-between lifestyle is simply not a moral issue. It's an entirely private matter (unless you try to force your lifestyle on unwilling people, of course - I feel, as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, exactly the same about religious belief, though the forcing of the latter on unwilling people, billions of children for example, is vastly more widespread, endemic even). I can't understand, robustly-heterosexual chap that I am, why it bothers anyone else what people want to do in private or how they wish to categorise their relationship. I don't get it, but they probably don't get me either, and I have no moral high ground from which to lecture them. We're equals. Different but equal. I wonder what sickness of mind (and I don't think that's putting it too strongly) leads to what people like Ake and Guffo are worrying about. If you want to worry about threats to the fabric of society there are plenty of far more threatening targets to aim for than gay people who simply want to get on with their lives, unencumbered by the sort of bigotry that has kept this thread going. You oppose gay marriage? You have no reason, no excuse. You are automatically a homophobic bigot. There is no kinder way of putting it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 07:49 PM

Simple, Bill D, he went to his favorite porn site and downloaded all of the options of viewing.

Gust and Ake have been reading reasonable people describe why "live and let live" concerning sexual preference is the modern paradigm and is the only fair way for a modern society to behave. They don't accept it. One day they'll die or be so infirm they can't use the Internet and then there will be two less bigots in the world.

Good thing Don is going to go away to learn a new ballad. I hate to see anyone banging his head up against such a stupid brick wall for so long.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 07:27 PM

"...Genetic disposition toward a belief.."

Nonsense! No one is claiming that. Genetic means certain traits are determined... thru hormonal balance, brain functions..etc.

There are many homosexuals whose 'beliefs' lead them to sadness and frustration and a lifetime of coping with orientation that they, their families and their church are not comfortable with.... yet they can't avoid the desires and attractions they discovered when 10-12.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 07:13 PM

GfS ..your stupid list is one gigantic category error. We are not talking about fetishes, but about basic DNA.

(Now, you wanta explain where you GOT the list?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 07:12 PM

(more elaborate, pedantic froo-froo...no substance of/or fact).

frogprince, I think I see what you are asking, so if it's not exactly 'on the head' let me know....The freedom of religion(creed) is a guarantee of our rights, under our Constitution..it doesn't have to be 'genetic'....the genetic thing is something that is in question, because as blacks are blacks(and so on) genetically, there is no reason to deny them the rights ENDOWED, at birth....(careful I don't say "Endowed by their Creator")....the bigger difference going on, is whether one is 'Endowed' from 'God' as opposed to 'granted those 'rights' by the 'state' and 'Corporation-State'.........I'm leery of that..because with it comes a LOT of other crap...the best crap money can buy! I think sticking to the simplest known 'facts of life' and two people loving each other, sharing genes and Love, and caring, and all that 'corny stuff'..even watching and caring for your offspring through the years, with all the struggles and victories, and sharing with those whole of the family, rejoicing as well as worrying....THAT experience is in itself a different mindset, than our two butt-buddies, whose main thing in common is each others...umm..ability to make the other one 'feel good'...because they both have something they both understand....that has NOTHING to do with the former example...TWO different mindsets...and you MIGHT think it 'not rude' to consider that the parenting mindset, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, may not 'appreciate' the homosexual agenda's and 'availability' being taught to their kids at an early age....and yet the homosexual ideologues pressure school boards to do just that.....AND the parents are in the majority!

Now, I know some of you THINK you know my views on all this...and the political stuff as well....we may not agree all the time...and of course I have my 'satirical fun' on here with you...(in attempted get get people to THINK beyond the facade)....but THIS THING I DO KNOW...and SO DOES EVERY person out there who have raised your own children to adulthood......THAT experience is in its own level of the human experience, unique to itself...(Way down deep in there)....So let's not shit each other...(..and Don, keep your blindly ignorant opinions to yourself on this one...do yourself a favor..trust me!)


Genetic disposition toward a belief....hmmm.....Good fucking question!!!.....I saw a video recently called 'Proving God'..and a similar question was posed..so they did brain scans on two groups of people....and found that certain people while meditating/praying etc etc...and on psychedelics, lit up the brain cells as opposed to the other group which was made up of sincere atheists, which lit up nothing in that area.....hold on.....
Here, I found the link....in the end it doesn't draw a conclusion...but questions and tests done are really great!

Don't let the beginning think it's going where you' thinks it woyld.

Enjoy!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 05:18 PM

With a few exceptions, I seem to be the only one who is jousting with this writhing, twisting nitwit. It occurs to me that I am playing "Don Quixote" here, tilting, not against an intelligent adversary. but against a mere windmill which is creaking loudly, waving its arms, and showing no signs of intelligence whatsoever.

It's obvious that I'm wasting my time. This is not a sentient being. Therefore, I will henceforth leave him to writhe, twist, and wave his arms—and emit creaking noises. I have better things to do with my time. Talk to real people, exchange messages here with intelligent, well-meaning individuals on various subjects, spend some much-needed time practicing my music, and get back to a couple of writing projects.

Now, Goofball will undoubtedly cackle and squeal that he has won the day because I choose to vacate the field of battle, but I think any intelligent, thinking individual can easily see that I quit the lists out of sheer disgust with the pig-headedness, lack of intelligence, and rampant bigotry I am foolish enough to waste my time on.

Watch for him to crow like a rooster who thinks it's HIS CROWING that makes the sun come up.

The more fool me for even thinking I was talking to a sentient being, and for wasting my time trying to get it to see reason when it has proven incapable of rational thought.

Ta ta!

Don Firth

P. S. I may or may not be back, but for now I grow weary of dealing with sheer, voluntary stupidity. I have to practice a bit this afternoon. There is a ballad I want to learn.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 05:15 PM

I can handle most of the things on that list you pasted, gfs, but...

Young...
Pretty...
Petite...
Massage...
Glasses...

Man oh man, that's some sick stuff; no wonder society is going down the tubes!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 04:44 PM

gfs, I'll try asking my intended question more clearly. Actually I'll put it two ways:


Religious belief is an elective choice, not genetically determined; do you believe the individual has a civil right to practice the religion of his or her choice?

Do you believe that it is acceptable under civil law to discriminate against a person because of the religious beliefs he or she is known to hold?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 04:37 PM

That's what I get for telling it like it is!...and that's the best you got!..NOTHING!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 04:21 PM

Simpleton!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 04:14 PM

I think I already said that...about 'religions'.
As so far as Frank is concerned, his real estate job with the government has been flooded with corruption charges..or didn't you read that?..Oh, never mind, you were an alleged 'news media' guy...the DO have a well known problem with discerning the truth and reporting it...as evident with your general spin on just about everything..except Beethoven!

Aslo: Don 'The reporter' Firth:
"Discrimination of any kind whatever is a civil rights issue you fool.

Disabled
Mentally ill
Learning difficulties
Fat people
The aged
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Transexuals
Hippies
Punks
Goths
And many more

All of these have exactly the same civil rights to live their lives free from interference and discrimination from the likes of you and Ake, and all of them do in fact suffer discriminatory infringement of those civil rights at various times."

You forgot these 'genetic based' categories:

18-19 yo (11712)
3D (1998)
69 (13026)
Abuse (2646)
African (1205)
Amateurs (269947)
Anal (332458)
Anime (6167)
Arab (6566)
Army (2367)
Asian (280890)
Asses (173953)
Babes (177276)
Babysitter (4739)
Bathing (29309)
BDSM (38557)
Beach (11689)
Bedroom (16420)
Big Ass (61796)
Bisexual (7277)
Bitch (28024)
Black and Ebony (91717)
Blondes (308480)
Blowjobs (531626)
Boots (15112)
Booty (26171)
Bottle (1863)
Bride (3330)
British (9504)
Brunettes (270577)
Brutal (2730)
Bukkake (9408)
Bus (2368)
Busty (259320)
Car (10502)
Cartoon (10659)
Casting (5055)
Celebrities (10001)
CFNM (5585)
Cheating (4983)
Chick (40161)
Chinese (6280)
Chubby (12457)
Classic (13117)
Clit (7058)
Close-ups (12792)
Clothed Sex (3256)
College (24401)
Compilation (18806)
Couple (140321)
Crazy (8434)
Creampie (62743)
Crossdressing (7560)
Cuckold (8128)
        Cum (199178)
Cumshot (379856)
Cunt (9985)
Dad and Girl (9123)
Deepthroat (79578)
Dildo (81970)
Dirty (13915)
Doctor (7980)
Doggy (90956)
Double (67680)
Drunk (5901)
Emo Girls (3754)
Euro (25616)
Extreme (16524)
Facesitting (5029)
Facial (153504)
Fantasy (5567)
Fat and BBW (47275)
Feet (21062)
Femdom (13055)
Fetish (62471)
Fingering (96086)
First Time (15418)
Fishnet (18988)
Flashing (22025)
French (17557)
Fucking (469227)
Funny (12097)
Gangbang (43273)
Gay (25977)
German (22248)
Girlfriends (25320)
Glasses (11207)
Granny (16849)
Greek (557)
Groupsex (110401)
Hairy (45193)
Handjob (59476)
Hardcore (367204)
Hentai (9835)
Hiddencams (15359)
Homemade (34467)
Hookers (3825)
Horny (54797)
Housewife (8857)
Huge Cock (84776)
Husband (10605)
Incest (simulated) (21177)
Indian (8366)
Insertion (7181)
Interracial (101834)
Italian (8663)
Japanese (44795)
Jerking (9061)
        Juicy (7017)
Kinky (7401)
Kissing (35778)
Kitchen (8550)
Korean (2914)
Lactating (7704)
Latex (13515)
Latina (81559)
Lesbians (142203)
Licking (182516)
Lingerie (58204)
Maid (9818)
Massage (17843)
Masturbation (196772)
Mature and Girl (19810)
Matures (124250)
Midget (1003)
MILF (127263)
Mistress (12886)
Mom and Boy (34411)
Monster (9080)
Natural (35946)
Naughty (13543)
Nextdoor (3481)
Nipples (15576)
Nudist (1429)
Nun (1030)
Nurse (15049)
Nylon (111784)
Office (23699)
Old and Young (38503)
Orgasm (23316)
Orgy (41595)
Outdoor (63900)
Pain (7875)
Panties (32850)
Pantyhose (8665)
Party (31635)
Petite (20207)
Pick Up (1572)
Pink (13036)
Pissing (8034)
Pleasure (6871)
Police (5406)
Polish (881)
Pool (20844)
Pornstars (176814)
Pounded (7723)
Pregnant (7686)
Pretty (12235)
Private (3511)
Public (48359)
Punish (3913)
Pussy (320978)
        Redhead (64168)
Retro (6317)
Riding (71245)
Russian (21553)
Schoolgirl (26544)
Secretary (24124)
Seducing (6372)
Sensual (2786)
Sextoys (79474)
Shaved (115253)
Shemale (44987)
Shower (35418)
Sisters (5422)
Skinny (19414)
Slave (14622)
Sleeping (4165)
Slut (73058)
Smoking (4171)
Solo (64487)
Spanish (2482)
Spanking (18392)
Sperm (169988)
Sport (11232)
Spy (18914)
Squirting (35684)
Stockings (105278)
Strapon (21899)
Stripping (40947)
Student (8954)
Sucking (105974)
Swallow (38348)
Swingers (7123)
Tattoo (68179)
Teacher (12547)
Teens (363230)
Thai (4777)
Threesome (112769)
Tiny Tits (47122)
Tits (341986)
Titsjob (31040)
Toilet (3341)
Tranny (47204)
Turkish (2390)
Twins (2807)
Upskirt (8550)
Vibrator (20248)
Vintage (31410)
Virgin (7638)
Voyeur (21420)
Webcams (29887)
Whore (26153)
Wife (38299)
Young (79250)

They just couldn't help themselves....it's genetic!

BTW...there is a 'Gay' category....but nothing on parenting! Is THAT discrimination or what!!???!!

'Your cup of tea' falls under the 'nothing on parenting' category...enjoy yourself...you always have!

GfS

P.S. When you're out for yourself, you end up with yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 03:43 PM

And what in your alleged mind makes him "corrupt," Goofball? You make it plain that you don't care about his religious affiliation or his handedness (interesting to note that you immediately went to matters of "jerking off!"), so what, exactly, makes him "corrupt?" There's only one thing left.

A same-sex oriented person is ipso facto corrupt?

======

Where I live, there is a Lutheran church about ten blocks north. It is Missouri Synod, very conservative. They are opposed to homosexuality, considering it a sin.

Nine blocks south of where I live, there is another Lutheran church. Their synod is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. For the past thirty years they have been willing to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples (whether state law recognizes it or not) AND welcome people with same-sex orientation into the church of they wish to join.

This is not a "gay church." It has a congregation of well over two hundred, only a small percentage of same-sex oriented members, but for obvious reasons, a larger percentage of openly gay or lesbian members than the conservative Lutheran church north of where I live.

By the way, there are some FIVE churches of various denominations within a radius of two miles of where I live who do not discriminate against those of same-sex orientation, welcome them into the church, and are willing to perform marriage ceremonies for them if they wish.

These churches have signed and adopted the "Statement of Welcome," which reads as follows:
We affirm with the apostle Paul that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). Christ has made us one.

As a community of God striving to be inclusive and open to diversity, we welcome all people to join us as we struggle to better understand the mysteries of God's teaching and purposes for us. Although our world can seem to be a place of alienation and brokenness, Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by Christ to care for, to love, to understand and to listen to each other, regardless of our race, age, gender, gender identity, marital status, physical and mental abilities, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin, or economic status. We celebrate the special gifts that each has to bring!

All people are welcome within the membership upon making the same affirmation of faith, and, as members of this church, we are all expected and encouraged to share in the sacramental and general life of this congregation. We celebrate together our unity as God's people.
Simple enough. If a gay or lesbian person is discriminated against or condemned as a "sinner" in their own church (assuming they go to church), there are other churches out there who are signatories to the "Affirmation of Welcome" quoted above. Change churches. Everybody's happy.

And when and where are all these "pro-homosexual groups" who are "putting pressure on corporations?"

Oh! On Mars. Well, then I'd say let the Martians deal with it..

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 03:25 PM

I personally don't care about Barney Frank's religion or what hand he jerks off with..but this is for sure..he is a corrupt piece of shit!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 03:09 PM

Well, in the course of this thread I went from hetero to homo and back to hetero. And it seems there was nary a ruffle in the time space continuum, never mind any suffering among the contributors to this thread. So I guess homo-ism is not dangerous.

No, all of this nonsense is about the fear that someone, somewhere is having fun or experiencing joy, just like the dopey laws against marijuana.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 02:56 PM

When you consider that approximately one person in six is left-handed, isn't the fact that almost all manufactured products are made for right-handers a matter of rank discrimination? Most southpaws don't raise a howl about it because they've had to spend their lives adapting.

I don't seriously believe that "handedness" is a decision that a person makes when he or she is just a toddler.

But then, maybe GfS does.

Of course, it could be genetic. (Oh, horrors! Not THAT!!) No, it must be the result of pre-natal stress. You know, forcing the mother-to-be to listen to music. We must, at all cost, prevent pregnant women from ever listening to music of any kind.

(But Mr. Counselor, might that not cause stress?)

"Race, creed, and color." Where does handedness fit into that?

When Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts was told that favoring a particular piece of legislation might make some people angry with him, he responded, "Look, I'm left-handed, I'm Jewish, and I'm gay. How bad can it get!??"

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 02:54 PM

frogprince: "..gfs, is is ok to discriminate on the basis of religious creed, because that is an elective choice?"

Well, if there is a 'religion' that does not believe that homosexuality is 'acceptable' or a sin or whatever, that is their prerogative. Whether or not they 'discriminate' might be a matter of perception, depending on what behavior they show toward homosexuals. Some 'religions' are more 'accepting' than others. This is a no-brainer. The very peculiar thing is some homosexuals rail against some of these 'religions'..but want them to accept their homosexual behavior. Seems to me, that if you don't like them, stay away from them....but instead, they wage a 'bickering war' with them....and try to pressure them to abandon their already established beliefs,...rather than abandoning theirs. You'd have to take that up with them..either side...but bottom lining it, if a religion thinks its 'forbidden'..let them think that...after all, it used to be a free country.

What really gets me, is that I posted a link, that pro-homosexual groups were putting pressure on corporations, in regards to supporting charitable organizations who don't adopt their philosophy...so now you may have corporate influence and pressure on the charities....and I rather hold suspect ANY political/corporate mergers...as in fascism, no matter what side is employing it. Look up ALEC...same thing, other side.
Oh, we love to rip them a new asshole..but only when THAT OTHER side is doing it...not 'our side'...then it's just OK..right?
Hypocrisy is just a lot of fun...depending on who's side its on!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM

""then we have no right to discriminate against mass murderers who cannibalize their victims.""

Or against bogus counsellors who profess to cure what does not require curing, using half baked eugenics theories.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 01:11 PM

gfs chose to ignore my previous reference to choice of religion. Tell me, gfs, is is ok to discriminate on the basis of religious creed, because that is an elective choice?

But of course gfs does have a valid point; if we say that we shouldn't discriminate against gay people, then we have no right to discriminate against mass murderers who cannibalize their victims.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 11:44 AM

Good point, Steve!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 08:47 AM

You forgot bodhran players, Don, only they deserve to be discriminated against, as we all know. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 07:58 AM

""GfS: "Oh yeah...was that race, creed or color???..!!"

Well if it's none of those...then it really ISN'T a 'civil rights' issue...as any of the 90%+ blacks who oppose homosexual 'marriage..who might know 'something' about civil rights and the REAL issues regarding the same.
""

Did you feel the pain when that bullet hit your foot Goofie? You should have done, especially as the foot was in your mouth at the time.

Discrimination of any kind whatever is a civil rights issue you fool.

Disabled
Mentally ill
Learning difficulties
Fat people
The aged
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Transexuals
Hippies
Punks
Goths
And many more

All of these have exactly the same civil rights to live their lives free from interference and discrimination from the likes of you and Ake, and all of them do in fact suffer discriminatory infringement of those civil rights at various times.

Such infringement is very much a civil rights issue, and if you don't see that you are not qualified to comment on the subject.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 01:44 AM

No, you idiot!!

Women, the aged, the disabled, and other disadvantaged people, with the possible exception of those who have been convicted of a crime. . . .

And fortunately for you, Goofball, the simple minded.

And that article is old stuff. Listening to music while pregnant does not ipso facto create stress.

You're getting right in there with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics and his theory of prenatal "engrams." That soon morphed into the "Church of Scientology." Is THAT the kind of "counselor" you are?

That would explain a lot!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 01:04 AM

ANY group discriminated against?????? Polygamists?? Pedophiles??
Bestiality?? Heroin users? Meth freaks?..ANY??????????????????


What questions??


Related...though you bitched about this as well! ........
and somehow, you think strss during pregnancy isn't related!

MORONS!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 12:27 AM

Oh! Well, Goofball, I think I may have unscrambled your convoluted "thinking," if that's what it can be called.

Civil rights issues are not limited to "race, creed, and color." That's 1) a cliché, and 2) a misunderstanding of what constitutes matters of civil rights.

Civil rights is relevant to any matter in which ANY particular group of people is discriminated against. When they are denied the rights and privileges that others have. When they are treated unequally before the law.

You mean, Goofball, you didn't know that? You're twisting and writhing again!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 11:55 PM

"...race creed or color???,,!!"

And what exactly does that question refer to in this context? Pure diversionary tactics, I suspect. It makes no sense.

How about YOU answering some of the questions that have been put to YOU all along and that you have been just ignoring?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 11:30 PM

....race creed or color???..!!"

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 10:30 PM

See? Just like I said.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 10:10 PM

GfS: "Oh yeah...was that race, creed or color???..!!"

Well if it's none of those...then it really ISN'T a 'civil rights' issue...as any of the 90%+ blacks who oppose homosexual 'marriage..who might know 'something' about civil rights and the REAL issues regarding the same.

Maybe the homosexual crowd is just racial bigotry in disguise.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 09:55 PM

THIS coming from YOU?????.."GfS and Ake can twist and writhe all they want.."

You have made yourself completely dizzy, along with some of your fellow ideologues.

Oh yeah...was that race, creed or color???..!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 02:48 PM

Ake, Guest from Sanity is the master of childish insults and the most prolific user thereof, or has you prejudice blinded you to what's actually there?

Also—there is PLENTY of evidence that homosexuality is either directly genetic or, at the very least, has a very strong genetic component, whether YOU and GfS like it or not. Again, your own prejudices are blinding you.

Calling us "mad," or things like "brainwashed liberals" in lieu of rational argument is no less childish than what you are accusing others of.

Open your eyes!

======

GfS and Ake can twist and writhe all they want, but that isn't going to alter the fact that the world is moving on without them. Once again, several states in the United States have legalized same-sex marriage, the Veteran's Administration has ruled that they will give full benefits to the same-sex partners (spouses) of military members, and both France and England are in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Where all else in the world this sort of thing is happening, I don't know. But I do know that the Indonesian government attempted to encourage same-sex relationships in an attempt to stem Indonesia's burgeoning population. This attempt failed, because—much to the point—one simply does not decide arbitrarily to be "gay." One either IS or IS NOT.

These two homophobes and all those who share their delusion will eventually vanish in the mists of antiquity like other life forms who couldn't adapt to new circumstances or keep up as the world becomes more civilized.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 02:31 PM

Thank you frogprince... saves me the trouble of posting similar quotes.

There are many studies linking genetics to sexual preference. What GfS and Ake seem to be demanding is something like "visible, direct causality", which is very seldom available in these issues.
Think about this: we KNOW that dogs can be bred for traits like aggressiveness and docility, without knowing the precise chromosomes where the relevant changes are located. We know that many, many traits in both humans and 'lower' animals are determined genetically... so why not sexuality? You don't accept this because it doesn't jibe with your pre-digested opinion(s).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 11:47 AM

"
There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic...
They have nothing, not a sausage "

From the scientific article, cited above, which gfs was actually the first to refer to specifically:

"Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome. The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality."

Can't be true, because I don't want to believe it.Can't be true, because I don't want to believe it.Can't be true, because I don't want to believe it.Can't be true, because I don't want to believe it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 10:11 AM

I think you are all mad.
Every post full of childish name calling with no attempt to answer Sanity's points
There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If there was it would have been trumpeted from every media outlet.
They have nothing, not a sausage and given the capabilities of genetic reseach today, the evidence should be blindingly obvious. If it existed!!

However, it seems that this question is going to be left to nature to answer...male to male sex and the promiscuous lifestyle associated, will produce infection rates that even the blind fools on these pages will be unable to justify.

That is a pity...but is always the case when agenda overules sense and reason.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 07:15 AM

""Ah, don..I forgot to mention that your scientific monitoring of the mother's emotional impulses during pregnancy, was just brilliant and astute!""

You are a total dickhead. This lass was a school friend, with whome I have been in continuous friendly contact ever since, and it doesn't require scientific monitoring to know that she is one of the least stressed members of the whole human race.

As for choice, if you cannot tell us the exact point in your life when you made the conscious choice to prefer the opposite sex (whatever that is in your case), then your choice theory is also shot down in flames.

You can be amusing, much as a chimp can be amusing, without having the intelligence to make a career of it.

But your claims to be a counsellor are far from amusing, and your pretensions to any kind of scientific knowledge are simply absurd.

You really should concentrate on your music and leave the heavy stuff, like thinking, to the grown ups.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 12:47 AM

So, gfs, is this a fair summary of some of your understanding?

There are genetic markers that correlate to same-sex orientation. Those markers are created by stress during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester. But sexual behaviour is strictly a choice, independent of orientation.

You explained that genetic markers are changeable. Do you believe that in successful re-orientation therapy the genetic pattern is changed back to "straight" ?

Going back to a video that you linked quite some time ago: do you believe that being hugged and pounding on upholstered furniture can correct flaws in a person's genetic makeup?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 12:21 AM

"Persuasive" in the scientific sense. Which is to say "all indications are that it is the case, and it merits further study to confirm."

But then, Goofball, it is obvious that you that you are not familiar with the rigorousness with which scientists work. They can be sure, but they want to make certain that they've dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's before they issue an absolute statement.

And absolute statements in the world of science are actually rarer that many people think. For example, all indications are that the universe is at least 12.5 billion years old, and perhaps older, but whether it actually IS older than that is, as yet, not determined.

But—the evidence is very "persuasive."

Capiche?

No, Goofball, of course you don't.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 11:47 PM

"Do civil rights cover elective behavior?"

Of course not, gfs.; for instance, no one has a civil right to practice the religion of their choice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 10:21 PM

Frothmeister: "The fact that Goofball doesn't like it and won't even accept the possibility (probability) does not alter the fact the evidence has so far been highly persuasive."

Persuasive??...hmmm..as is talking someone into something?...does it matter if what the person being 'persuaded into' is actually being enlightened by fact...or just persuaded into...umm..whatever?

As far as it being a 'civil right' issue...how many times are you going to ignore giving a premise??..So here's your chance, AGAIN...is it a race, color, or creed?

'Persuade' me.
(You don't have to worry about the puppet/parrots.)

Do civil rights cover elective behavior?

'Persuade' me.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 09:26 PM

"Stupidity and bigotry know no bounds."

We calls it "stunned as me arse" here aboutst. Imagine... a grown hairy arsed man what don't got two fuckin clues about yer sex, eh? Supporting laws that discriminate and not laws that educate and advocate tolerance and intelligence?

Stunned as me arse??? Yees b'y!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 04:49 PM

"…..guess Don's perpetuated myth and genetic theory didn't prove out here, either……"

Not myth. Theory, yes, but with substantial evidence. Enough to convince geneticists that they are looking in the right direction.

The fact that Goofball doesn't like it and won't even accept the possibility (probability) does not alter the fact the evidence has so far been highly persuasive.

And that attempts to treat same-sex orientation as if it were a psychological abnormality have proven to be psychologically harmful to the "patient" (ineffective, often leading to depression and suicide), despite quack headshrinkers to the contrary.

If this were the age of Galileo, who revealed that the sun is not the center of the universe, Goofball is the kind of person who would have demanded that he either recant or be burned at the stake as a heretic.

Stupidity and bigotry know no bounds.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM

Once again, gfs proves that, given the total absence of logic, absolutely any fact or anecdote can be interpreted as evidence of absolutely anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 03:29 PM

Typo..I forgot to paste:.....


DonT: "That's the way science works old chum, one exception and it's back to the old drawing board."

You can sure say that again!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 03:23 PM

Ah, don..I forgot to mention that your scientific monitoring of the mother's emotional impulses during pregnancy, was just brilliant and astute!
I come from a family of five boys one girl....nobody turned out homosexual....(guess Don's perpetuated myth and genetic theory didn't prove out here, either)...so back to your point...so, you are agreeing then, that it is a preferential behavioral choice?...it sounds like it to me. That's their choice..as I've mentioned before. Firth won't be happy. Boy, from the frantic size of his 'froth and font'..he got pretty excited there.

...because if it was their free choice to satisfy whatever impulse/inclinations/desire/fantasy they may have had.....it might just not be 'genetic'

Have a great day!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:54 PM

I googled 'Gay Marraige Iowa' to get the correct date for when it became legal (then wiffed on it anyway) and it seems to have had a side effect.

The ad at the top of the main page here on Mudcat is 'Meet Singles in Iowa City'

Ads like that pop up from time to time but the fact that the photos today are guys is a bit different. None of them really look like my type.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:27 PM

Oops, four years, not three. April 3, 2009 is when it was legalized.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:26 PM

On April 3rd it will be three years since same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa.

The world has yet to crumble around us. Except for the friends and families of those who have entered into a same-sex marriage, along with the couples themselves, I daresay things have not really changed at all.

One small exception perhaps. An Iowa City jewelry store has been running TV ads for some new software they have. Seems it allows you to customize your engaement ring on the spot. One of the two versions I have seen shows a woman purchasing the ring and then at the end has a picture of her and her partner. I like it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 11:46 AM

Woof! Woof!
Ok boy, I shall interpret for Goofus. Have a gravy bone and go and lick your balls.

Goofus.   How many women do you want to monitor till you prove your point? The good professor says there are a few billion to choose from so eventually you may find enough to confuse idiots with but you'll still be wrong.

Mainly, it appears, because your comments are subjective and pander to bigotry.   The other odious creatures have recognised they are on a hiding to nothing and have done the decent thing and stopped posting.

The good professor is fed up of reading your crap too. Which, being a greyhound with nothing better to do all day is saying something.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 11:42 AM

As it happens, I have a very good friend a lady in her late sixties, who popped out five little'uns in seven years with hardly a hiccup, and is so placid and calm that "Pot" takes her for relaxation.

She happens to have:-
One Gay daughter
Three straight sons
One gay son

And a nicer bunch you couldn't hope to meet.

D'ye hear that thump and a dull roar in the background?

It's the sound of a hypothesis, which was presented as fact, crashing and burning.

That's the way science works old chum, one exception and it's back to the old drawing board.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 11:31 AM

DonT: "Your pseudo scientific analysis falls flat on its face if even one happy, placid woman goes through a non stressful pregnancy and birth, and her child is Gay"

Well, of course you have monitored such a woman??..or are you speaking hypothetically?...or do you even know who or what you're talking about?

Firth is still doing 'research'...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 07:33 AM

Your pseudo scientific analysis falls flat on its face if even one happy, placid woman goes through a non stressful pregnancy and birth, and her child is Gay.

Only the most arrogant, up-his-own-arse charlatan would have the Hutzpah to advance that as a fact.

And just to prove I tried, and for the third time.

Apart from your well known distaste for their existence, please explain what you see as the essential difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child and rearing it in a safe and caring environment, and a homosexual couple doing the exact same thing?

We know you object! So tell us why.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 07:19 AM

""There Does seem to be a correlation as to stresses, anxieties, depression, resentments etc. etc, on the genes..or more accurately, the 'markers', and quite probably properties.""

And you base your argued certainly about Gays and consequently your attitude to allowing them to be what they are on that "probably"?

Do you sell snake oil as well, or turn lead into gold?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 02:35 AM

frogprince: "He discounts findings of a much higher correlation with identified genetic markers."

Not at all...genetic markers can be subject to alterations, caused by the aforementioned things in the article. A more apt study would be to somehow 'monitor' the stress levels,(or other influences to genes in general, such as drugs or alcohol, et al)...There Does seem to be a correlation as to stresses, anxieties, depression, resentments etc. etc, on the genes..or more accurately, the 'markers', and quite probably properties. Remember, the mother and child are processing the SAME fluctuations, of the SAME 'energy'(if you will), chemical balances or imbalances(if you will)...and the cells set up the receptors, to 'crave' whatever 'substance' or 'gratification' it has been 'accustomed' to.

The is a good segment on 'receptors' in the video "What the bleep Do We Know?" (I posted the link for TIA a while back..I could re-post it, if you may be interested). It's easy to understand, in the video.

Don, Once again, you're 'off the track'...and hopefully not trying to drag people with you....You are missing, ENTIRELY the bigger point....but more on that, later....so the more serious stuff related to the thread doesn't get high-jacked, AGAIN....OK?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 09:10 PM

The article does allege that a substantial study found a "modest but significant" correlation between first trimester stress and orientation. Saying for consideration that it is a valid finding:

That finding would not even begin to support gfs. He discounts findings of a much higher correlation with identified genetic markers.
To take a theoretical stab in the dark, there could be those who would be at a balancing point because of genetic factors (or other biological factors not yet understood) who are tipped on over to homosexual orientation by the stress factor.

But gfs never backs away from "choice, choice, choice"; so all the stress factor, or any other biological factor, could do, would be to produce an individual who is prone to make the bad choice of a homosexual lifestyle . I won't hold my breath waiting for evidence for that to come together.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 08:33 PM

""....AND....

GfS
""

So a minority of Gays don't like arseholes like you patronising them, which means what exactly, in the overall framework.

If just one Gay couple wish to make the genuine lifelong commitment of getting properly married, what the hell do you think gives you and other bigots the right to deny them?

And I'm still waiting for an answer (a sensible one might be beyond your capabilities) to the question you, claiming to have missed it, requested that I repeat for your benefit.

(See my post of 14th Feb 06.30 AM), which you also seem to have missed, avoided, ignored or otherwise failed to answer.

Quelle surprise!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 08:20 PM

""Oh, and as per aforementioned, in the 'prop 8' thread...
why you are being misinformed!!!..........

Now guess what 'results' they come up with...and for why!
""

Relevance to causes of gender oriaentation if any, WITH EVIDENCE if you have any??

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 08:15 PM

""In "Magical Beginnings, Enchanted Lives," Dr. Deepak Chopra clearly explains what pregnancy research is showing, "When a pregnant mother is anxious, stressed, or in a fearful state, the stress hormones released into her bloodstream cross through the placenta to the baby. Hundreds of studies have confirmed that chemicals released by the pregnant mother's body are transported into the womb and affect the unborn baby."

Negative thoughts are often the root cause of a fear-based stress response. Deepak Chopra states, "Stress activates the unborn child's endocrine system and influences fetal brain development. Children born to mothers who had intensely stressful pregnancies are more likely to have behavioral problems later in life." Thomas Verny says, "Studies show that mothers under extreme and constant stress are more likely to have babies who are premature, lower than average in weight, hyperactive, irritable, and colicky." Cell biologist and neuroscientist Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. writes, "When passing through the placenta, the hormones of a mother experiencing chronic stress will profoundly alter the distribution of blood flow in her fetus and change the character of her developing child's physiology.
""

SO? That article makes one single reference to a comment by Lipton that the mother's stress levels can affect the genetic make up of her child, without presenting any evidence for such, and you extrapolate the one thing the article fails to mention at any point,...HOMOSEXUALITY.

Brilliant!! Except, where's the smoking gun????

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 04:47 PM

It's not about bureaucrats trying to gain control of the health system, or "political diagnoses!"

It's a human rights issue, and that transcends politics.

Goofball, why does this issue get so far up your nose? The world is changing and becoming a more civilized place. More and more states all the time are legalizing same-sex marriage, and it is in the process of being passed in both France and England. When people see that, as a result, civilization does not collapse and the world is NOT destroyed, it will become an accepted thing. In the same way as interracial marriage.

There will, of course, be those such as yourself who will weep, wail, and gnash their teeth, but they will go the way of the Neanderthal.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I know it's locked in concrete. But I'm just warning you of what's to come.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 04:44 PM

....AND....

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 04:40 PM

Oh, and as per aforementioned, in the 'prop 8' thread...
why you are being misinformed!!!..........

Now guess what 'results' they come up with...and for why!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 04:17 PM

Not just rats, Bucko....

as to Musket's, do you think that damage could be sustained to the gene?

To KB, not exactly predetermined in all cases...but not genetic as the misplaced ideologues would want it to be, to equate it with the civil rights issues of the 60's.. That's why I posted, that those who WANT help should be able to get it...The ideologues have determined that it can't be given help, so they want to deny them. Just read any number of Firth's post regarding it. That''s what you get when wannabe bureaucrats try to gain control of the health system...political diagnoses!!..WRONG!!!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 03:54 PM

I could hardly imagine anyone denying that major stress during pregnancy is unhealthy for the development of the child. And a signiicant prenatal influence on sexual orientation is by all means worth considering as part of the entire picture. But identifying a modest but significant factor is no where near the same thing as finding a primary factor in a majority of cases. gfs has personally admitted knowing the identified genetic markers which have been shown to correlate much more significantly with orientation. It's good to know that gfs would never let an agenda bias his interpretation of evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

Pregnant rats under stress.

And this is supposed to be a great solace to those same-sex oriented folks currently extant? What do you do for them (even if this bit of research on rats has any relevance whatsoever)? Blame their mother for being uptight? What woman ISN'T a bit uptight when she's pregnant?

Goofball, you are still making the short-sighted blunder of thinking that romantic relationships, which logically lead to marriage, are all about the crotch, and have nothing to do with the thoughts, shared personal values, and the emotions of the parties involved.

B. F. Skinner, eminent research psychologist and behaviorist, use to derive his theories about human behavior by watching and documenting pigeons pecking different colored buttons in hopes that a peanut would slide down the chute.

I'm inspired!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 02:31 PM

Hey Goofus!

The good professor wants to pick you up on another point. Don't you boy?

Woof! Woof!

Sorry, everybody else. I've given up trying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 01:53 PM

The article you just posted seems to indicate that sexual orientation is not a choice but is instead predetermined. Is that what you meant to do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 01:23 PM

I put this link up...but you'd have to log in to get to it, so I cut and pasted the article....Interested??????????????...not that our resident 'ideologue/activists' give a shit!:

The effects of prenatal stress, and of prenatal alcohol and nicotine exposure, on human sexual orientation.
Physiol Behav. 2001; 74(1-2):213-26 (ISSN: 0031-9384)

Ellis L; Cole-Harding S
Minot State University, 58707, Minot, ND, USA. ellis@minotstateu.edu

BACKGROUND: Studies of rats have shown that mothers who are subjected to stress during pregnancy are more likely than mothers who are not stressed during pregnancy to have male offspring who exhibit female-typical sexual receptivity postures (lordosis) in the presence of other males following the onset of puberty. More recent animal experiments have indicated that prenatal exposure to alcohol affects the sexual preferences of male offspring in ways that are similar to the effects of prenatal stress. Research with human subjects have thus far yielded inconsistent findings regarding the effects of prenatal stress on male sexual orientation, and no research has yet addressed the possible involvement of prenatal exposure to alcohol or other widely used recreational drugs, such as nicotine. PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to determine if prenatal stress could be one of the causes of variations in sexual orientation in humans, both singularly and in conjunction with prenatal exposure to alcohol and nicotine. METHODS: Over 7500 offspring and their mothers provided information regarding the offspring's sexual orientation and the mother's stressful experiences and use of alcohol and nicotine during pregnancy. RESULTS: Findings indicate that prenatal stress has a modest but significant effect on the sexual orientation of male offspring, particularly when the stress occurred during the first trimester of pregnancy. Regarding prenatal exposure to alcohol, no evidence was found to suggest that it impacted offspring sexual orientation of either males or females. Prenatal nicotine exposure, however, appears to significantly increase the probability of lesbianism among female offspring, especially if the exposure occurred in the first trimester along with prenatal stress in the second trimester. CONCLUSION: The present study is consistent with animal models suggesting that prenatal stress disrupts the typical sex hormonal milieu within which male fetal brains are sexed, thereby feminizing/demasculinizing the male's sexual orientation. However, little support was found for similar effects of prenatal alcohol exposure. In the case of prenatal nicotine, this study is the first to suggest that this drug has masculinizing/defeminizing effects on the sexual orientation of female offspring.

Now, TIA, as I posted before, some empathy and compassion MAY cause you to understand the situation you described earlier. You WILL NOT get accurate info from the ideologues...just how to exploit a MEDICAL/psychological disorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 01:11 PM

Here, I've posted about this before...the other stuff is just wishful thinking for the ideologues!

Try this!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 12:43 PM

Exactly so, Penny!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 11:23 AM

It was????

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 09:53 AM

Thanks Penny. Well put.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 09:47 AM

I see that the idea of survival has reared its head, as if we survive in couples with offspring, all by ourselves. This very morning I was hearing it explained that humanity developed (though this will not convince the anti-Steve arguers) when the climate pressure of a developing glacial made it imperative for groups to come together and cooperate. We survive as groups.

And even the survivalist types with their bunkers and long term storage depend on others to produce the materials for those bunkers and stores. Most modern people would have no chance of survival, even with those stores and guns once the raw materials run out.

Who knows where to find useful and accessible minerals that have not been worked out? Who can deliver a baby trapped in the birth canal? Who knows where to find safe natural medicines? If society collapsed, you'd have a better chance with the Yanomami than in Oregon.

The point of this tangent being, that because we survive as groups, with division of labour, having couples not open to procreation does not make a group less likely to survive. Having non-fertile uncles and aunties may even improve the chances. It works with naked mole rats, meerkats, wolves, and other social beasties. They tend to go in for group hugging more than we allow, so the necessity for some sort of physical contact which same sex marriage enables doesn't arise.

I cannot understand why so many people of the hetero persuasion somehow think that their own marriages are diminished if other people call their bonding by the same name. It's as if it were a quantum phenomenon, with an electron here influencing the spin of another over there. Without the maths behind it.

By the way, if anyone were to keep the word wedlock, it should be the traditionalists. They're the ones with the locked up concepts.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:40 AM

""Why are you bringing homosexuals into it...?""....from GfS

Duhh! You claim to be able to read and comprehend, and you have to ask why homosexuals feature in a thread on Gay Marriage??

Stunning!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:30 AM

""Tell me what is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child, and a Gay couple (male or female) doing the same, other than your distaste for the latter?""

That's the question!

Your answer?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 02:08 AM

Oh, you just want me to tap dance on your face in high heels!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 10:53 PM

You can't even follow your own argument, Goofball!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 10:33 PM

Is there a point, somewhere in there??

Everything I posted was true....unlike yourself...the rest were just questions...that you all went into a tailspin over.

Moral of the story: Maybe political posturing has nothing to do with the truth...just politics.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 09:25 PM

Jeez!! Even Fred Astaire couldn't tap dance like that!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 09:17 PM

Why are you bringing homosexuals into it...?I was talking about survival, the OTHER natural instinct of healthy living beings...human or not...you guys are already making up excuses.
Amos was on it....!

TIA: "How's that drive for survival workin' out for ya?."

Actually fantastic........not only did the cardiologist remark that my recovery was 'miraculous', he is using my music in his practice in healing therapy....and has spread 5 hospitals in Colorado, Idaho, Texas, not to mention therapists, and another group of masseuse.(True story).

So I guess OK....

Don T, What question was that? I only saw one, but I thought it was more than adequately answered...unless it was another one.

So did you all enjoy the 'True or False'....and It was posted WITHOUT 'commentary!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:59 PM

If individual survival and procreation is such an important drive, perhaps GfS, the learned Counselor, can explain to us the origin of altruism.

Wait, I got it... It is a perfect syllogism:

Gays have more important goals than procreation.
Altruistic heroes, when sacrificing for the good of the group, value certain goals above procreation.
Therefore Gays are heroes.

Checkmate :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:51 PM

Don... he has to ignore your question because he cannot answer it with an intelligent response that makes any sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:47 PM

I see no difference.

The howl usually raised by the anti-gays is their claim that gays only want to adopt children so they can molest them. But among the gay couples I know who have adopted children this is simply not the case. The children are certainly well cared for and cherished. And I know of at least two children, adopted from a Chinese orphanage, who are having and will continue to have a far better life than they would have had if they had not been adopted.

With many heterosexual married couples, children just happen, and, in far too many cases, are not necessarily wanted, or come along at inconvenient times.   This can lead to all kinds of domestic difficulties.

But with a same-sex couple, obviously the child is wanted.

That, despite its unconventionality, is far preferable to being an unwanted or inconvenient child.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:40 PM

My kids are so much more accomplished musically, academically, socially, morally, ecumenically (Jack Sparrow joke), and in all other ways than GfS, that all of the blather means nothing. Nothing.

And they and their friends and lovers are the future. GfS is the sad, doomed past. Sorry about that. How's that drive for survival workin' out for ya?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:18 PM

I a couple of questions for the posters to this thread.

Does anyone other than GfS believe that it will benefit a child more to live with neglectful, irresponsible heterosexual parents, who are resentful of the burden, than with a Gay couple who actually want the child, and offer a loving and caring home?

Does anyone else care to answer the question I asked GfS in my last post, which he chose to ignore?

""Tell me what is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child, and a Gay couple (male or female) doing the same, other than your distaste for the latter?""

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:22 PM

First of all, there is some merit to the question about the urge for survival. It does certainly seem to inform what most organisms and most species are trying to do. They spend an awful lot of time "getting and spending" in order to be able to wake up the next day. But there are many instances (some described above) where survival does not mean the individual, but emphasizes the future existence of the species or the family. So the calculation has to be broadened to include wide-spectrum survival (meaning individuals, families, groups, and species, interalia). I think it goes without saying that in any given situation, and for any given viewpoint, the importance of the different facets of survival will vary. If a man sacrifices himself by throwing himself over a grenade, and thereby saves the lives of four of his fellows, he has committed a survival act in the broad sense, even at severe personal cost.

Secondly, it is pretty clear that when confusion, oppression, trauma, and loss mount up beyond the ability of the individual to cope, (at least in humans) he or she can be pushed into an inverted state of mind whereby destruction makes sense and survival becomes an ugly illusion used to fool the weak-minded. This state of mind generates all kinds of colorful crimes and clever acts which add up to destructiveness on the facets of survival. THis doesn't change (in my opinion) the fact that survival is a core drive.

Gay people, however, or usually not exercising a choice about gayness. It could be argued they should reproduce anyway, but that doesn't work very well. The fact that they do not does not mean they are contra-survival in general; it merely means they are focusing on other facets of survival. Fabric, for example! Or building networks. Or organizations which add aesthetics to the culture. One of the reasons we sing, after all, is because of a sense that it improves things in some way.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:09 PM

Hmmm...I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this myself, but I'm going to mess around with it...I could care less if this is "drift" from where this thread has been going.

gfs constantly comes back to the concept that it is going against nature (I think he might also say against the will of God) to not. have a priority to reproduce.

Musket has just suggested that compassion and equality have a secular basis. There are suggestions that compassion, at least, may have roots down to the biological, tied to the survival of the species aspect.

But there is little or no evident impulse to equality in nature, unless in such terms as equality of worker bees among themselves, under the dominance of their superiors. No such thing as equality in a wolf pack or herd of mustangs.

So: is it going against nature, and nature's God, to promote equality of all mankind? Are we wrong, perhaps, to discount the validity of the divine right of kings?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:59 PM

How about " Im my own Granpa" by two very nice chappies Homer and Jethro
I apologise in advance about introducing MUSIC into this controversial subject but we've had eveything else so far, so why not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:06 PM

"Question: is there any evidence whatever to suggest that any other animals are aware of any connection between sexual activity and pregnancy?"

No evidence that I am aware of. I tend to doubt that any animals really make the connection. Since such a relatively long period of time takes place between mating and birth, I doubt that it occurs to an animal that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

Anecdote:

The heavily pregnant Mrs. Yeokum makes her annual eight mile trek down the mountain to the settlement infirmary to deliver her nineteenth child. The nineteenth time she has made this journey since she was married at the age of fourteen.

It was an easy delivery as usual, she being a healthy, robust, and still relatively young woman. As the doctor wrapped her newborn baby in a blanket and gently handed him to her, he said, "Well, Mrs. Yeokum, I guess we'll be seeing you again next year, eh?"

She responded, "Nope!"

"Oh?" said the doctor, "Aren't you planning to have any more children?"

"Nope!" she said. "We found out what was doin' it!"

Don Firth

P. S. There might be a folk song in there somewhere.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 04:25 PM

Question: is there any evidence whatever to suggest that any other animals are aware of any connection between sexual activity and pregnancy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 04:03 PM

No normal person wants to die. But there are situations in which most, if not all, living creatures are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of others or for the good of the species.

The male black widow spider fertilizes the female, and then she eats him (hence "black widow"). And there are a number of insect species where this kind of thing is part of the mating ritual. This perpetuates the species.

The whole of history—and today's newspapers—carry stories of people who have died to save another person, or who have been willing to die for a principle, be it patriotism, a religious belief, or what they consider to be some higher good.

But then, you can't really expect a person who has no principles to understand that.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 03:37 PM

It's a terrible thing to contemplate: people who have no real will to reproduce, passing that on to their children, generation after generation, until they outnumber those who have the will to reproduce, and the human population ages and dies....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 03:06 PM

Look it up.
....(not to be confused with 'the ability')....

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 02:39 PM

The "will" to survive, huh?

"Will"???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 01:59 PM

Don T,: "A false premise, and from a false premise anything follows.

The will to survive is an innate part of all animal life..true or false?

FALSE!"

BZZZZZZZZZZ

Don...someone should have taught you about the birds and the bees...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:38 PM

""True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.""

A false premise, and from a false premise anything follows.

The will to survive is an innate part of all animal life..true or false?

FALSE!

Most animals have that innate and overriding urge, but not all. Particularly, but not solely, in the insect world there are groups whose job it is to give their lives when it is appropriate to do so, and even among humans a mother may willingly give her life in defence of her child.

The will to reproduce is an innate part of all animal life..true or false?

FALSE!

Mammals which live in groups very often live their whole lives focussed on the survival and rearing of one alpha pair's offspring. They give up their chance of reproduction, perhaps not willingly, but without too much concern, and there are many heterosexual human couples who decide against reproduction for a multitude of reasons other than inability.

The rest of your post is arrant nonsense, given that your basic premise is fatally flawed.

Tell me what is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child, and a Gay couple (male or female) doing the same, other than your distaste for the latter?

BTW, I can apparently read and comprehend well enough to take you on, and what I write is at least comprehensible to others who can read.

And the fact that you deny something carries no weight unless we trust you. Ask around and see whether that is the case.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:18 PM

""It appears that compassion and equality are secular traits after all. Funny that. .""

Which is absolutely obvious really, if you look at it without the unidirectional filters of all the religions which have claimed and still do claim ownership of morals and ethics.

IMHO, knowledge of right and wrong preceded all religions and possibly preceded Homo Sapiens.

After all, morals and ethics are largely an expession of the need for an individual to moderate his behaviour for the benefit of the community, and even apes have a rudimentary concept of acceptable and unacceptable actions.

Early hominids must have co-operated to hunt for food and it's not to much of a jump to suspect that family and tribal groups had some vague, maybe even subconscious, golden rule which predisposed them toward empathy, if not love, for their immediate kin.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:08 PM

DonT: "Of course you know where it came from. It has been confirmed a number of times that it originated from your computer."

Duhhh....That has already been established. If you could read and comprehend, you would have also read, repeatedly that I DID NOT author the post..get over it!

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......If a living being gives up the will to survive, that entity becomes headed down a road to not surviving.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......You would either hang around that person for a healthier mental disposition, and would encourage your children, or friends to do the same.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Because it is the 'will to survive', you think that the will to reproduce no longer part of fully, healthy living beings.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Anyone who does not subscribe to those who do NOT wish to survive, or agree with giving up the will to survive, must mean that those same (non-subscribers), must automatically hate them.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who wish to maintain their 'will to survive', might see those who do not, as less than 'on the ball' as the rest of society, that is trying their best to survive, and who want their children and friends, to not only survive, but to prosper, not only financially, but mentally and emotionally.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who promote others to give up the will to survive, might be seen as being anti-survival, and could be looked upon as a negative factor, and detriment in a society trying to survive.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who use lies and bad science to 'prove their worth or validity, to promote other to give up their will to survive, should be considered 'heroes to the cause'.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who root on their families and or friends to survive, and work actively, might find the promotion of the legitimizing of others to give up the will to survive as a destructive
element.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those who subscribed to not wishing to survive, and who have a change of heart, should be given help, if so requested, should not be denied help.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......Those same 'activists' who promote those who are locked into not surviving, AND who would deny help to those who now wish to survive, because of the 'activist's' personal views, might be considered as having a hidden agenda, and would lie, and spin as not to be seen as what they really are about.

A simple 'yes or no' is all that is needed.

True or false......All living things on the planet share two common instincts..the will to survive and reproduce.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:23 PM

The British parliament voted it through last week. Due to how bills work, it will have a couple more debates including the Lords vote but this is to clarify points and amendments not vote down the bill.

The Tory MPs showed huge division and showed the country they are not fit to form a government on their own yet as some of the homophobic rants were frankly disgusting.

Still, the reform moves on. Once we have a more equal society I wonder what other institutions will lose state protection? Many people see how irrelevant the old guard are and are beginning to ask society to stop giving them state privilege. It appears that compassion and equality are secular traits after all. Funny that. .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:57 PM

Hey, just for the strangeness and rarity of the thing, how about a post on the subject of this thread!??

I heard this on the news this morning and checked it on the web:
France's National Assembly has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. After days of intense debate, the bill was passed by 329 votes to 229. It must now win final approval in the Senate.
Not a fait accompli yet, but it's over the major hurdle and well ahead.

By the way, with Washington State's new same-sex marriage law now in effect, a member of the writers' group that meets once a month at Barbara's and my apartment, and his partner of several years, are getting married in about a month. They are already in a "domestic partnership," but in a month, they'll be officially, legally married.

Congratulations, guys!!

Don Firth

P. S. Bit by bit, in certain areas, the world becomes more civilized.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 PM

The questions that Goofball wants me to answer have to do with what he imagines to be my love life, so he can take it and twist it into something lurid, crude, and shameful. He has that kind of mind, and IF he is, indeed, any kind of family counselor, I suspect that he gets off on the sort of thing he may hear from his clients/patients. Anything and everything I have alluded to in the past, he has done this with.

So if I DON'T answer his persistent, probing questions, I'm sure decent-minded people here will understand why.

I have NOTHING to be ashamed of.

Goofball is a disgusting and contemptible person. Not to mention SICK.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:16 PM

"" ..Then again, I really don't know, for sure, where that post came from.""

Of course you know where it came from. It has been confirmed a number of times that it originated from your computer.

So, which of the musicians here (mentioned above) has access, in your absence, to your computer?

And which of the musicians here ""have told you that you shouldn't be wasting your time debating idiots"".

As far as can be seen in past threads, most of the musicians here are much more likely to be telling us we shouldn't be wasting our time debating an idiot.

As for the post in question, conclusions have been drawn as to the likely veracity of your explanation.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:52 AM

..as I said before, and posted, it may have been posted by some of the musicians here, who wanted to get back to the studio, and have told me that I shouldn't be wasting my time debating idiots.
..Then again, I really don't know, for sure, where that post came from.

As to the other posters, there are some questions posed to Don Firth, which he seems unable to answer consistently with his 'political' masquerade...anyone is open to take a stab at it. Maybe it may cause you to think...................for once in your life!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:29 AM

Gfs may, in a sense, be quite honest in saying he never posted that his father was gay. That post may have been written by a separate personality of which the "gfs" personality structure is unaware.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM

In light of the wisened comments and insights, I regret (sort of) that I must choose to revert back to being heterosexual. It was fun while it lasted--oooh all the boys, those pretty, pretty boys! But I still prefer to have the love of the religious and other heteros, rather than be reviled, bullied, and spat upon.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 05:51 AM

"" I genuinely reckon you need help. ""

A terrible thought! Anybody who tries to sort out that mind will need an anti radiation suit self contained breathing apparatus.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 05:19 AM

If I had anything constructive to say, I doubt it would have any bearing on your awful so called contributions. I genuinely reckon you need help.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:44 AM

So what???...If you have anything constructive to say, head on...if not, you can meow like a pussy.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:58 AM

Hey Goofus!

The good professor wishes to debate a couple of points with you, don't you boy?

Woof! Woof! Woof!

What's that boy?

Woof!

Actually I think you are both barking....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 AM

You're making things up, again.....I guess you resort to that when you can't answer a question, or otherwise have anything to say.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:03 AM

I'm really amazed at how much verbiage you can crank out when you have no idea of what you're talking about.

No family life? I have a very good family life. Yours, from what you said before, wasn't so nice. Too bad.

You won't improve things for yourself by being envious of me.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:31 AM

Trying to resurrect a bogus claim, that I never made??..just to try to justify your permissive behavior???
Look, the bottom line is how can anyone take seriously your rap on who should or could be a great parent..when you have NEVER done it??..and then promote people whose lifestyle is based around sexual immorality to raise children??..Do you really think that is acceptable?? Would you 'advise' your child to follow in your footsteps??
Why would you promote a lifestyle choice, yes choice, of those who have blotted out half of the natural instinct of self preservation and reproduction??..and then banter about like it is a noble thing??
Permissiveness has weakened this country beyond belief, and threatens its very will to self preservation as a society..just for a sexual fantasy??? Get off it..this country is in deep shit, and you just think its swell to add more fuel to the fire! You have NO parenting experience...but then want to promote legislation about something you know NOTHING about!..just your off the wall opinions, that would affect segments of the next generation(s).
At this point, maybe a little self examination on your motives may foment some 'new' questions...and that goes to others who read this stuff, as well. It's about as rational as assigning a Catholic priest to oversee a boy's group!..(But then most people are already of politics and 'religion'!...Just a bunch of manipulating weasels, trying to control masses of people for their own personal gain...and you have NOTHING to gain...except to hide from your own reality, and appear 'useful'...a 'political activist' who has no idea what he is yapping about.
Haven't we, as a nation, and community of nations have suffered and had enough of that crap, to call it like it is and ignore the son of bitches?
The 'free love' novelty of the '60's has caused immense damage, broken enough homes, left children with one parent, fucked up the economy(along with other factors), given rise to street gangs to replace the need to belong to a 'family', increased drug abuse, violence and many other societal ills, because a loving family, and a loving, natural family structure has been assaulted, belittled and politicized to be a 'thing of the past'. This is insane!..and you are promoting it.
Why not promote the BEST for a family....instead of promoting sex acts, by your life's example and political 'activism'?..and you think you're helping?????
Now before you come back with another one of you flurry of 'assaults', try answering a question or two..just so we can understand you(as if there was any question), and put forth the 'wonderful benefits'....other than your 'acceptance' of your homosexual friends.......because your non-existent 'family' doesn't have any....your self-absorbed lifestyle has cut you off from that!
So much for 'unity'...oh, and by the way, the family structure IS the nucleus of all societies.....maybe your political orientation includes destroying that, too, as a means of achieving their goals, and you are an 'unwitted'..as in unwitting participant. Blind leading the blind...but look at you..you're at the head of the parade!
You should be ashamed of yourself!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 11:19 PM

I am not going to discuss the details of my youthful romantic life with someone who has the mind of a rutting swine and apparently thinks that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is just a story about two teenagers who want to fuck each other. I would not subject my love life to the scrutiny of someone whose mind is nothing but a septic tank.

The fact that Goofball resurrected this moribund thread to attack people who disagree with him, especially me, more than amply demonstrates that something really bothers him about the same-sex marriage issue and the roots of same-sex orientation.

His admissions about his father in the Prop 8 thread tell why he is so dead set against the idea of homosexuality being genetic.

He's terrified of his own genes. And his own dark urges.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 10:29 PM

Don Froth: "You know nothing of the people or the circumstances, so just take a long walk off a short pier."

...only what you posted....
...and it doesn't sound like you were anything less than the 'imbecile'...or was this a product of your articulate wisdom?? Come to think of it, as long as you try to justify it, and clean it up, you still sound like the same old 'imbecile'!

We often wish to ennoble those faults that we don't want to correct!

As to the others, stuff it..bad behavior is bad behavior....trying to launder it by adopting smokescreen political 'activism', is just another smokescreen....and nothing justifies half-witted promiscuous antics, which produces children, that gets raised by someone else who actually might care....and Don, that's you! Like it or lump it...but for God's sakes, keep deflecting responsibility, and promote other behaviors that promote promiscuity, and lack of parenting...your cup of tea!...What else ya' got??

And to those who defend such behavior...get fucking real!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:53 PM

He certainly lacks anity, that's for sure! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:30 PM

The extra "s" is to pay tribute to that guy who lacks S anity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:26 PM

NEW WORD!

Assstroll!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:01 PM

Obviously, gfs, the only way in your life you could ever get fucked was to find an ugly, unwanted, desperate woman and marry her.

And no, I have no reason to think that is actually true; but it's no less a construction from sick imagination than what you, the almighty counsellor and fount of compassion and virtue are quite willing to spew in someone else's face in all seriousness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM

I was not "picking up chicks in bars," you imbecile. Don't judge me by YOUR slimy standards of behavior.

You know nothing of the people or the circumstances, so just take a long walk off a short pier.

Over and out!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 04:23 PM

Now that I brought up empathy and compassion look who's trying to interject in in their postings!...How come you never thought of it before??..but this time you twist it around..as if you even related to it!

Don, Remember when you posted this?: And your question regarding my son, "Any regrets, or wishes that something might have been done or handled differently, back then???" On the one hand, I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place. On the other, considering the fine man that is the product of this union back then, I am most glad that it did happen. And although I would have liked to have participated in his growing up, his mother (and eventually, step-father) did a more than fine job, and I doubt that I could have done any better. He, his partner, Barbara, and I have a very loving family relationship."

Why were you picking up chicks in a bar to fuck then?...as long as someone else, who might have actually loved her, raised the child that you knocked her up with! (Do I have to refresh your memory?)
"I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place."???..and then you want to lecture us on the wonderful benefits of parenting??..and how to do it??...and ennoble people procreating, and walking away??...as long as someone else will pick up YOUR slack???

Then you post: "Barbara was married before, briefly when she was in her early twenties, but it didn't work out. No children. I, on the other hand had not been married before, but I do have a son. From a relationship that took place in the 1960s. Due to various circumstances, marriage with my son's mother was impossible."

"..marriage with my son's mother was impossible."???????

But fucking her was OK??????!!!???
Methinks you think with your 'smaller brain'...too bad you see NO correlation with the two acts.....and then you CANNOT see that parenting your own child and loving him/her from conception is the same...and part of the same. Did you EVER even think of what emotional wheels were initiated in the "woman that you never wanted to be involved with" ..and care about that????...So much for YOUR compassion and empathy!!!

You stated that you wanted to go to college instead..for your 'career'....what for???..for providing for your child?????..or just for YOUR self-centered...'new conquests'??

You also stated that, the "I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place", would not even allow you to be around...and in fact moved away from you....are we supposed to applaud you and your kind, caring, sensitive, responsible ways?????

You've been bullshitting people long enough, just to get your way..problem is, some adults (even on here) aren't as gullible as the easy women you preyed on...and ain't buyin' your line of crap!...and then you get all pissed off and act so indignant...and can't fathom 'why?'..and call us/them 'bigots and homophobes'...what a line of covering your own stupid ass!...or was picking her up and knocking her up an act of 'wisdom'???

So don't even begin to tell me squat, about the wonders of sexual acts over the gift of being a loving, responsible parent..you don't know what the fuck it is!!..NO EXPERIENCE!!!!....just quasi-theoretical excuse making!

Ironic that you also posted this tidbit, "For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex."

So true..but you've given NO indication that you know what it is!!

....and you posted; "..Frankly, your posts are so convoluted that I find I can't divine what the hell it is that you are trying to imply about me. Are you still rattling on about my allegedly being guilt-ridden over the fact that my son was raised by another man? Well, first of all, I had no choice in the matter. And second, there is nothing to be guilty about."

No wonder he turned out alright....he was raised by a man, and a woman that were capable of loving him!!!..makes a difference!

...and Don posts: "Don: Firth: "My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one,..."

...ever occur to you that it was a 'real family' because you were not around?



Note this one, from 'Don T'....: "From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM

"(GfS)I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!""

(Don T)Quite right Goofie!

As the father of two much loved children and the five grandchildren with which they have brightened my existence, I too have a complete lack of respect for that type of worthless human."

Amazing how politics don not reflect the BEST humans can do...just accommodations for the decadent!....and then they mask it with 'civil rights'(?)

Don T...I applaud you for loving your kids, the way you came across.
Would you trade it for any other experience?....If not, explain it to all the other promiscuous destructive morons who think otherwise...either hetero or homo!
Firth wouldn't grasp it at all.....no point of reference!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 02:10 PM

"Don (Firth) seemingly takes great pride in the alleged fact that his son turned out so 'normal'...pretty good, considering the woman that raised him wanted nothing to do with Don, nor him around the kid!...Ya' must have done something..or represented something pretty fucked up to warrant that!"

LIAR!!

Goofball has no way of knowing the circumstances. He's making it up, and I'm certainly not going to try to explain anything to him because, first, it's none of his business, and second, he'll only try to twist it into something tawdry, which it was NOT.

And the fact that he's resurrected this thread, which has been beaten to death, is a clear indication of how stupidly desparate he is for attention.

Ignore the village idiot and let this asinine thread die.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 01:53 PM

Once again, gfs, you have managed to string together a grammatical garble such that anyone can only make a best guess as to your actual intention. My best guess is that you are again holding forth that gay men can be cured of their orientation, so that they can marry and father children. My second-best guess is that you are suggesting that, despite their orientation, it would be best for all concerned for them to marry women and father children.

You continually discount a genetic basis for homosexulity as an unscientific notion promoted because of an agenda. But instead you postulate changed or confused orientation caused by stresses experienced by the mother during gestation. Granted this much, that serious emotional stress during pregnancy can't be healthy or the developing child. But why would the mother's stressful relationship with a male dispose the child to avoid relationships with women and seek relationships with males instead. Frankly, it all sounds about as "scientific" as saying "mom was frightened by a snake so I'm afraid of the garden hose". That's not quite right either. It's more like saying "mom was frightened by a snake, so I'm afraid of gopher holes".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM

Another deep steaming pile of Far from Sanity horseshit.

It appals me to think that you call yourself a counsellor and yet are devoid of the smallest vestige of empathy.

You don't see human beings different than yourself, you see ""reproductively impaired"" cases to be converted by you into whole humans who fit your self generated and unsupported suppositions about what their sexual orientation ought to be.

I see human beings who establish relationships in a different way than I do, but are just as loving and caring as myself or anyone I know, and a damn sight more so than you.

I see other human beings of the same orientation as myself, who are careless, thoughtless, irresponsible and as incapable of empathetic interaction with others as yourself.

I have no problem in recognising that children need a caring, loving background in which to grow, or that both hetero and homosexual couples can and will supply that.

I have no problem in recognising either, that in both hetero and homosexual couples, there are those who not only cannot supply such a background, but should be actively prevented from nurturing children.

You babble on about making neglectful and abusive parents "live up to their responsibilities".

I pray God that nobody takes any notice of your inane suggestions, because you are a danger to children.

Think very carefully before you again ascribe to me the smallest measure of agreement with your so called ideals, because I assure there is none, zip, zero, zilch. Got it?

The proof of the pudding will come when Gay couples end up with exactly the same proportion of heterosexual to Gay kids as do Straight couples.

IMO that is exactly what will happen.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 05:28 AM

Well I hope enough time has gone by, for all the phony wannabe pretenders of giving a shit about anything but how their stupid misinformed opinions are playing to the audience, and 'platituding' each other on the back, for agreeing to delusions based on no science whatsoever, but political horseshit, to set a few things straight!

Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..what great names!...but before I tell ya' how they came into being, I gotta' say that the only TRUE indignation, disappointment, and honest response came from TIA...but not for the reasons some of those described in paragraph one, would want to believe!!

TIA's reasons were/are personal..your others are bullshit. TIA has real concerns..as opposed to some of you, who seem to cringe and want completely out of the subject..AND responsibility of being the natural parents of your own children!...and it is those hypocrites who type the LOUDEST..and are the most vociferous!

Don (Firth) seemingly takes great pride in the alleged fact that his son turned out so 'normal'...pretty good, considering the woman that raised him wanted nothing to do with Don, nor him around the kid!...Ya' must have done something..or represented something pretty fucked up to warrant that!

Don T...mentions...Wait..here it is....:

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 08:36 AM

"(GfS)"...and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!""

Don T: "And on that we are in total agreement, so why would you suggest that such useless trash be coerced or persuaded to live up to their responsibilities and bring up the kids they obviously don't want."

So..we are in agreement with that...Let me ask you something, Don, with no underlying 'barbs' attached....after I read your post about how you felt about your kids, and you look back on it..what has brought you greater joy, happiness and satisfaction...seeing your kids grow up and fly straight, (as you indicated), or having the best sex you ever(really) had??.......
...thing is, you were able to have them both!...and THAT separates your experience from fantasizing about experiencing either one!..Ya' think that that MIGHT affect SOMETHING about your life's experience, from those who pretend?....or choose sex over having their own???...and value that more???........Maybe YOU can explain the difference to them...perhaps in a sensitive way to let them know what a sacred thing that that is to you....as it is with most honorable men!

...and to TIA....as you have read, in some of my previous posts, I've maintained that I've talked about receptors setting up the response mechanisms of nervous and emotional systems of the fetus, during pregnancy....that the child's sharing of those systems, with the mother affects how they are set up....and you posted several things about the father, who seemed to be 'less than wonderful' to the mother....ya' think how the mother felt about the father MAY have had just a 'little something' to do with the orientation of how that baby was programmed with...being as the nervous and emotional systems are one with, and being developed in the formative stages of gestation????? Think of the mental and emotional 'climate' the child was in...especially in light of the fact of what the mother was going through!!!..Ya' think that may have had just a 'little' bearing on the matter??

....as far as 'Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole....those are genderless, (but with sexual innuendo) names that was used by a homosexual writer friend of ours, who was describing another homosexual couple that he was telling us about!
We howled.

A. I don't 'hate' homosexuals
B. Have had working relationships with some who were brilliantly
   talented.
C. They ARE reproductively impaired..I know it..they know it...and
   it a place in them of 'sadness', when they honestly confront that..
D. ....but they are NOT hopelessly stuck there.

MANY (most) have deep seeded resentments and emotional hurts, some justified, some they just held on to....and with those hurt sensitivities, one might think that to correct that, to the next generation...and to KNOW how important that it is, because how it impacted their own lives...well, there's the clue.....perhaps resolving to pass that to their own, and loving them in a way, as not to hurt..and to correct (not over compensating)...and still bear or father their own....only one way to do that!....unless they adopt..and teach their kids to 'overlook' that they have two mommies or two daddies....without the real impact of life coming through the filter of a real male and a real female...with all their differences and polarizations..........................it's not unhealthy.

I find that understanding the mother's mindset of her pregnancy...including resentments, disappointments, frustrations with the man who impregnated her, and the amount of focus and 'UN-forgiveness' should open up an opportunity for empathy and compassion to that woman.....as long as she could admit it.....just like her offspring...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 27 Jan 13 - 08:37 PM

Even if it were true that very few same sex couples are interested in long term, committed relationships, why should that prevent those who ARE interested in such a relationship from getting married? Granted, some will stray and become untrue to their partners, kinda like some straight couples, some will fall out of love, kinda like some straight couples, but some will remain faithful to the end, kinda like some straight couples.
If the high risk of failure is a reason for preventing marriage, then let's say that divorcees should not be able to marry. They've already proven that they aren't a good risk for a successful marriage.

Ake, I didn't mean to imply that anyone had said that same sex marriages would increase the divorce rate among opposite sex marriages, but many people have said that allowing same sex marriages would ruin the institution of marriage itself. I said that since it became legal for same sex couples to marry in Canada it has had no negative effect on my marriage nor on any marriage that I know of, therefore how can it be ruining the institution of marriage.

It still baffles me why you or anyone else objects to same sex marriage. How does it affect you? The only way it has affected me is to get me an extra couple of wedding gigs that wouldn't have otherwise had.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 07:03 PM

I wonder who will carry the banner of Toqemada here .... no prizes for guessing

As far as i am concerned we are what is called in Scotland as "a' Jock Tamsons bairns" and should be treated as such.
To misquote stats out of context as Musket says shows a lack of analytical skills. Guess who?
If you have a look at the "Scotland for Marriage Campaign" and have read or listened to the learned churchmen involved one of the tenets of their 10 points of argument is understandable they, dont want to marry people who dont conform to their interpretation of marriage, and dont want to be sued for not complying and involved in legal/damages costs.
The whole issue is very political, they are walking a tightrope between the liberals and hardliners and want to come out smelling of roses no matter the outcome.
The object of local polititions in all states and countries involved IN MY OPINION is to do the same and allow the religious groups to have a concientious objection allowed in law but allow marriage to be a right for all who publically want their status to be acknowledged and respected.
No doubt there will be wheeling and dealing in the meantime to achieve a result that satisfies borh sides of the argument.I have tried to keep my response as close to the title of the thread as posssible and not introduce "Red Herrings"
I find the thread a good socialogical excercise in the sense that all the colours of the rainbow are in view whether they are our favourite colour on not.
Have a good day :<) and in musical terms "All gods children have place in the choir"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM

No good plying Ake with logic!

If God himself removed HIV from the whole population, Ake would still object to Gays having equal rights to have their unions blessed.

He has a long line of ""other considerations", awaiting the development of a 100% effective vaccine.

His objection boils down to an objection to Gays, not to anything they might do, or want.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 05:41 PM

Ake, I don't know how things are in the UK regarding the legality of same-sex marriage or civil (legally recognized) partnerships [these two are NOT the same, incidentally], but I do know that people at one time were imprisoned for "perversion." I presume that the UK has become more civilized in recent decades.

In the United States, until recently there were no same-sex civil unions, and most certainly not marriages. Within recent years, some states are recognizing civil unions, but still not marriages—with the exception of a very few states, including, in the recent election, my home state of Washington.

There is a substantial percentage of same-sex couples who have been living together for years—decades—and are, in all intents and purposes, married. EXCEPT that, despite the fact that these people would like to declare their relationship official, only a few states have, so far, allowed them to do so.

This is not just a social thing. There are rules, laws, and privileges involved which apply only to married couples (but not to civil partnerships), regarding such things as property rights, inheritance laws, next-of-kin visitation rights in hospitals, and a myriad other things that are not open to same-sex couples who ARE in FACT, if not de jure, married.

Granting these people the same legal rights IS a civil rights issue.

Considering that the divorce rate in the United States (I don't know about the UK) hovers at about 50%, the fact that some same-sex couples don't necessarily stay together all their lives hardly signifies.

Ake, why does it matter so much to you? How does it actually effect you in any way?

And DON'T continue to beat your hum-drum about "gay men spread disease" because one the one hand, encouraging stable relationships should reduce the spread rather that increase it, as you seem to be trying to imply. That argument doesn't wash!!

After all, heterosexuals did a pretty efficient job of spreading the so-called "French disease" (syphilis) all over Europe in the Sixteenth Century.

Don Firth

P. S. Kenny B., it was several religious groups, including the Mormon Church, who poured money into California to fund Proposition 8, which rescinded California's new same-sex marriage law. Washington State just passed a same-sex marriage law, and I'm sure it won't be long before the "Inquisition" gathers its forces and charges in with flaming swords.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 07:21 AM

Religious Groups 10 reasons Marriage for Scotland Campaign


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM

Ty TIA u are a scholar

AKE says
"On the other hand, if a study of several thousand hetero/ and homo couples comes up with average duration times of approx 2 yrs for homos and 10 yrs for heteros, then I think those figures would be reasonable."

Note the word "if" That is conjecture and clearly usubstantiated guesswork and invented to try to try to justify your case. May I quote Shakespeare and say "Pish"
How can u possibly quote aids stats in isolation as an objection then resort to conjecture. The more u try to justify your dubious argument the bigger you dig the "hole of desperation" that your argument has fallen into and your credibility as an honest debater declines to all time low.
Read the case put by the churches in Scotland in the Scotland for Marriage campaign who are much more worried about how much it MAY cost them an legal fees and BAD PUBLICITY when denying the same rights to all. It was in a mailshot to every household in Scotland by the joint religious pressure groups. Not a word in it about the health risk and im sure if it was a legitimate argument they wouldnt have thought twice about using it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 13 - 06:25 AM

My objection is, that in the main male homosexuals do not appear to have an interest in long term relationships or monogamy, examplified by the low take up rates of civil union, or homosexual "marriage" where available and the short duration of these unions/"marriages" in general terms.

It seems to be accepted even here, that studies and health figures show that male to male sex carries huge rates of promiscuity endemic to that type of sexual behaviour.
As I have remarked before the comparison of male homosexuality and monogamy, looks very much like the one between chalk and cheese.

Gay "marriage" legislation......smokescreen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 09:33 PM

"……just as Don Firth is quite wrong to say, that because he knows several couples whos "marriage"/union has lasted a moderate length of time, homosexual "marriage"/ union is generally as long lasting as hetero marriage."

I did not say that, ake. Please do me the courtesy of not misconstruing or misrepresenting what I have said.

Since same-sex marriage has not been legal until very recently and only in a few states, one cannot say for sure one way or the other. BUT even without legal marriage, hitherto denied to them, the couples I mentioned, and the couples in PH Jim's link, have shown every sign of maintaining their monogamous relationships and of having melded their lives in the same manner as heterosexual couples.

Even when same-sex marriage was not legal, the relationships existed over many years, and continue to exist.

Let me put it to you this way:   going through a marriage ceremony, especially a church ceremony (which some liberal churches now perform) complete with friends and relatives in attendance (not to mention the expense involved in such a ceremony) is a public declaration that such a relationship exists. I have attended three such ceremonies that took place a couple of decades ago (recognized by the church and the attendees, whether the law acknowledged it or not) and they are still together and doing well. And I know of other such ceremonies which I didn't attend, and the same situation prevails.

It's obvious that you're objection that "gay men spread HIV/AIDs" in THIS circumstance does not apply. And, indeed, they should be encouraged, not opposed—IF one is truly concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDs.

So—what is your objection? How does it, in any way, affect you?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 08:02 PM

The point I was making Ian, is that if I was to infer that because I know three homosexual couples who have separated relatively quickly, this means that homosexual "marriage"/union is generally of short duration, I would be quite wrong......just as Don Firth is quite wrong to say, that because he knows several couples whos "marriage"/union has lasted a moderate length of time, homosexual "marriage"/ union is generally as long lasting as hetero marriage.

On the other hand, if a study of several thousand hetero/ and homo couples comes up with average duration times of approx 2 yrs for homos and 10 yrs for heteros, then I think those figures would be reasonable.

PH Jim......Who said Homosexual "marriage" had an effect on Heterosexual divorce rates????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 07:18 PM

Louse!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:54 PM

Its Burns Night 25 January

so remember "where ere ye be let yer wind gang free" And in BS term be careful not to touch cloth


"O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An foolish notion:"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:29 PM

I am still curious as to why it seems to bother straight folks if gay folks want to get married.
I also am curious as to why they think it's any of their business.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:27 PM

And also, ake, there is the matter of PHJim's post at 25 Jan 13 - 12:58 a.m. with it's link.

How do you explain that away?

They are in stable relationships, they are "monogamous," they are not spreading a plague, as you keep claiming, and other than their sexual orientation, they are just like anyone other couples--including the fact that some of the couples have children.

They are not harrassing you. Why are you harrassing them?

Don Firth
--


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM

Akenaton, I know three gay married couples and two lesbian married couples personally. I am acquainted with several more such couples who have also been in long-term relationships, some having recently made their relationship official, since it is now legal in Washington State.

Let's DO try to stick to the truth, shall we?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:24 PM

Exactly Lighter. Correlation does not imply causation. Instead, correlated phenomena may be linked to some other factor (in this case level of education perhaps?) that could be considered as a causative factor.

Nate Silver acknowledges this, and closes with:

"At the very least, I would be surprised if there were any statistical evidence that interpreting the right of marriage to apply to same-sex couples would be injurious to heterosexual couples in any material way."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM

Since it's difficult even to imagine why *banning* same-sex marriage would result in a rise in divorce rates, or why allowing it would result in a decrease, it seems that the safest tentative conclusion is that there is no statistically significant causal connection between gay marriage and heterosexual divorce.

In less precise, everyday terms: there's no rational reason to believe that marriage equality has any significant effect on anybody else's likelihood of divorce.

Gay marriage, yes or no, is not responsible for either set of figures. They result from other factors.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 10:00 AM

Yup. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Statistical significance is required.

So let's ask the god of statistics...Nate Silver:

"Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates. Eleven of the 24 states (46 percent) to have altered their constitutions by 1/1/08 to ban gay marriage experienced an overall decline in their divorce rates, but 13 of the 19 which hadn't did (68 percent)."

Go look at the charts.

click


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 04:36 AM

Akenaton. STOP! Hold on...

Go back to your very last comment above, after the comma. You said "looking at an issue like this in a subjective manner is meaningless."

Agreed. Spot on. Good shot. Absolutely. Bang on. Appreciative nod in your general direction.

Now, find out who has been posting in the name of Akenaton above and try telling him that will you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 03:49 AM

Surely i dont need to explain how laws are manipulated

All you have is an "equality" agenda in place of an argument, in a system where anything real equality does not exist.

All the arguments and figures which underpin my view still stand.
I have read nothing here which brings them into question.

You are a "busted flush" Ian.

Guest PHjim.....I know almost everyone in my area. Over the past few years I have worked for three male homosexual couples.....they have all now separated one member moving on to a new partner. This in itself proves absolutely nothing.

Proper studies have been done which show that in general same sex unions or "marriages" last only a fraction of time hetero ones do.

If you are unable to access these studies, say so and I shall print them for you.

Don firth has been making your point for years.....he knows three homosexual couples who have been together for a number of years, but looking at an issue like this in a subjective manner is meaningless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 02:50 AM

Dunno what the government's drive to encourage people to invest in pensions has to do with it? Perhaps the old fool has run out of ideas on the subject in hand.

Just think Akenaton, a couple of weeks time after the vote in Westminster, democracy as well as morality will be on the side of the angels. Who do you have left batting for your side?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 01:51 AM

You wish!..There is a lot to be said..and it may clear up missed perceptions,..and how we get from 'point A' to 'point B'....forthcoming.....

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 01:42 AM

Thanks, PHJim. That refutes both akenaton and GfS.

And that ends that. No more to be said.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jan 13 - 12:58 AM

GfS said, "I'll bet none of you know a homosexual couple who have stayed together longer than your married counterparts...ya' think that is good for children?"

Same sex partners have not been able to get married for very long, but that doesn't mean there are not committed same sex couples.
My wife grew up in the village of Cannington in southern Ontario. There was a couple in that village, Timothy Findley and Bill Whitehead, who had been together since 1962. They stayed together until Findley died in 2002. - 40 years.
Here are some more examples: Committed Same Sex Couples


You criticised others for not answering your questions while you ignored mine.
Your marriage and mine doesn't suffer when two people of the same sex marry.
Why does it bother you so much?
In fact, why is it any of your business?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 09:04 PM

Don T.....I understand very what equality under the law means.

In the UK last week the govt announced that, as we were all in this financial mess together, child allowance to high earners should be cut.
The next day it was revealed that if these high earners payed more into their pension funds and brought their take home earnings under £50 thousand pounds per annum....they could continue to claim child benefit.
The law says that all citizens should be treated equally regarding benefit rights, but low earners require all of their take home earnings to live and are unable to manipulate the system as high earners do.

This is one example of "equality under the law"

Instead of wasting time and energy on the "marriage" rights of homosexuals, most of whom do not wish to be married in any case, perhaps we should be scrutinising the real inequalities which are becoming more and more obvious under the present system.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 13 - 02:49 PM

Don't know them.....
Hang in there, TIA....this isn't over, yet...and may very much surprise you!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:52 PM

Please pose the question to Cecil and lansing. They will answer it for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 08:10 PM

"Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..."

Hey gfs? Why don't you just say Fudge packer and Carpet muncher, like other people who feel that way about them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 07:45 PM

DonT, I was addressing the other Don..not you..I know you have different feelings about fatherhood, than the 'other Don'.

....and with all the blustering..NOBODY has answered or addressed, with any credibility, the questions I asked.
Typical!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 07:34 PM

Your on, Steve. The odor of bigotry and prejudice--and fear of "the other"--is getting overpowering around here. I'm gone!

The future is coming. Those who don't either get with the program or get out the way will be left like litter in the gutters.

See ya on another thread, another subject.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 07:20 PM

Ignore him, chaps. Let this die.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 07:07 PM

My own son is mentally and physically healthy, very intelligent, quite thoughtful, and well-informed. His upbringing was NOT at all unusual, and I will not discuss him with GfS because no matter what I say, GfS will twist it into something smutty and degrading. That does not reflect anything about my son and I, but it most certainly displays the degree of rot and corruption in GfS's own wizened soul.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:54 PM

""Are you speaking from the experience of raising your own child, Don, or is it all theoretic, based from talking points???

Two children and five grandchildren without any discernible prejudice, thanks to the care lavished on their upbringing, and a refusal to accept any intolerance or bigotry in their attitudes.

Why, they wouldn't even be prejudiced against ignorant unfeeling dickheads like you.

BUT I AM! So take your bigotry, roll it into a cylinder and SHOVE IT!

I also have some very good gay friends with children who are as well adjusted as any I've ever seen.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM

I do have kids...and grand kids...you must have cross referenced to someone else's post.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM

You lose that bet instantly.

Clearly you have a very short memory.

The saddest bit of post was when you said that you have kids.

I pity them even more than I pity you, and I surely do pity you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 05:19 PM

Are you speaking from the experience of raising your own child, Don, or is it all theoretic, based from talking points???

I'll bet none of you know a homosexual couple who have stayed together longer than your married counterparts...ya' think that is good for children?

gnu: "Can't read any more of this thread for a while, if at all.

Get you head outta your asses!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 05:09 PM

After over 1100 posts don't y'all think that no one is going to change their mind here? And that maybe you're all just running in circles? Why not just agree to disagree? Does someone really think they can "win" this thing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM

GfnS... "...merely imitating emotions and affections..."

I stopped reading right there. Can't read any more of this thread for a while, if at all. I find such statements not only narrow minded but so very saddening. Intolerance is bred from ignorance and that statement... well, it does not get any more ignorant or intolerant than that. The lack of compassion astonishes me. I cannot fathom how someone who would say such a things could care even in the least for anyone else or feel any emotions at all, save hate.

Sad shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 03:46 PM

It occurs to me that from what I have personally seen of same-sex families and their children, if there ARE people about who are likely to be the ones to cause these children to have psychological problems, it is people with attitudes and prejudices like GfS!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 03:38 PM

I know personally a number of same-sex couples who have children, some adopted, some though artificial insemination with a surrogate mother. These families are normal in every way, with the exception of the fact that the parents are the same gender. The children have plenty of contact with both genders through aunts or uncles or friends and they are just normal kids with no particular psychological problems. A few of the kids are fully aware that their families are a bit unusual by the "standards" of some, but they pay little attention, identify it as the prejudice it is, and shrug it off.

GfS more than illustrates his lack of knowledge and understanding.

After reading his litany of misperceptions and misconceptions about life in general and this issue in particular, I have changed my mind about GfS. His pompous and incoherently presented arguments (if, indeed, they can even be elevated to the status of "arguments" instead of simply hate-filled and bigoted rants), have caused me to change my mind about him.

I feel sorry for him. Anyone that mentally impaired is an object of pity

His petty and prejudice rages have angered and disgusted me since he first showed up on this forum. How can a human being—especially one who claims to be a family counselor—be so rigidly judgmental? God help his clients if he actually is!

As Dante said of those whose petty minds and rigid attitudes have condemned them to the lowest rungs of Hell:

"Let us look but once, then pass on."

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 03:17 PM

Really fucking good at it.

Never knew there was a market for quacks.

Some people are very fucking good at wanking. Their pleasure makes them every bit a wanker as someone who tries and fails to get it up.

Isn't that right Professor?

Woof!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM

You ALL MISSED IT!!
EVERY living thing on this planet has TWO basic instincts..the will to survive and reproduce....now if you don't have one (for one reason or the other), what else might you be missing...that is essential that offspring from the same species, would NEED, and NEED to be re-enforced?!?!
Do you think that is 'love'???..NO..it is some self centered, self absorbed, sexually active 'adults', who think it would fill their image, as a 'family'..to accommodate their sexual behavior!!!
Would you want your children raised WITHOUT the will to survive re-enforced in them???..Why would you not want to provide the other one(reproduce) in them too????...or raised them with impaired damaged goods???!!??
Though it is the politically 'trendy lifestyle d'jour', it isn't the best we can do for our children....but then, why would you care???????? ...its all about political agendas, at the price of doing the best we can.

GfS

P.S. ..and TIA: "You are an offensive asshole."...Sometimes one has to appear to be that in order for people to THINK past their brain-locked mindsets!"

"No way are you a counselor".....How much would you like to wager?
Actually, when I do..I'm real fucking good at it!

"It is just another one of the things and people you have pretended to be."

Haven't pretended to be anything. Everything I've said one here, as to my background is indeed true....I might be out of the norm...but like I used to tell my kids, growing up, "If you want to be different, be excellent!"

...and one thing for SURE...you may not like everything I've said...but at least it has caused people to THINK!...and in time, the things I've said WILL BEAR OUT!....(its just that political propaganda takes time to wear out, and manifest their falsities!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 12:59 PM

I think I can see enough testimony here for my learned diagnosis of prat.

Never thought I could be so insightful. Mind you, best not get too cocky. Its only Goofus and such a diagnosis isnt rocket science.

I saw a few days ago where a couple in their late '80s got married last week. If it is all about sex then I want a pint of what he drinks...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM

"...merely imitating emotions and affections..."
"Auckie"
"Lesbia"
etc.

You are an offensive asshole.
No way are you a counselor.
It is just another one of the things and people you have pretended to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 08:34 AM

If it were just about the "sex," why would they even *want* to get married?

But that's a different stupid question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:21 AM

""Each family has its own relationship with their kids and just because they are different, doesn't mean they are better or worse.""

Absolutely true!

I sincerely hope that GfS has no children to whom he can pass on his miserably prejudiced views.

If he has, unfortunately, they will probably live their lives with the same twisted and bigotted attitudes.

That, to me, is far worse than they would fare if they grew up in a loving home with gay parents.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:13 AM

""This isn't about 'love'..it's about sex. Same SEX 'marriages'.""

If you are stupid enough to believe that the concept of marriage (a lifelong commitment to another human being) is based purely on sex, then I pity you for your lack of normal human feelings.

If you are saying that it is only so for gay couples, not only are you doubly stupid, but the depth of your prejudice is disgusting in the extreme.

You are not worth the energy ezpended in debating further with you.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: PHJim
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 03:04 AM

GfS wrote,"...how about the rights of the children, and all the crap they'd have to put up with..knowing that instead of a mom and a dad, they got Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole..."
Who will be dishing out the crap that these kids have to put up with? It won't be my kids nor the kids raised by most parents these days. Granted, there are still kids being raised in intolerant households, but they are becoming fewer and fewer. I certainly don't think that they will be free of bigots throughout their lives, but I do think things are far better than they were when I was a kid.

GfS also wrote, "Do you actually think that nurturing mothers and fathers have the same relationship with their children as homosexuals do with 'theirs'? Do you think that the space between her newborn and the mother holding the baby is the same, Bruce and Darryl, deciding it's time for Egbert to go to bed now?
Do you think the weeks and months that a woman is pregnant, feeling the child grow within her..the anticipation, discomforts, hopes contribute maybe just a teensy-weensy bit of a DIFFERENT dynamic and bonding, than 'Auckie' and 'Lesbia' fulfilling their 'image' to accommodate 'respectability' for their sexual preferences and behaviors???..You think that is the SAME????
Nope!....different dynamics....different bonding....different instincts....different 'motives'.
It's just plain different!"

Do you actually think that you and your partner have the same relationship with your children as I do with mine? Do you think that you have the same relationship with your children as your co-workers, as the cop on the corner, as the grocery store clerk...? Each family has its own relationship with their kids and just because they are different, doesn't mean they are better or worse. I can tell by reading your posts that your relationship with your kids will be nothing like my relationship with my kids. As a single father, I never went through the pregnancy nor did I feel the children growing inside of me, but I did feel "the anticipation, discomforts (not the discomforts of pregnancy, but discomforts just the same)and hopes" as will a same sex couple.

GfS also said, "This isn't about 'love'..it's about sex. Same SEX 'marriages'."
It's all about love. The term "same sex" isn't about the sexual act, it's about the gender of the partners. Your marriage and mine doesn't suffer when two people of the same sex marry. Why does it bother you so much? In fact, why is it any of your business?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 02:21 AM

Well said...even if it's all bullshit...."our gay brothers and sisters" and their human right to feel love for anybody they want,..."

nobody is saying anything about who or what they have a 'right' to 'feel love' for. This isn't about 'love'..it's about sex. Same SEX 'marriages'.
(Obama has a way of twisting a phrase and the meaning..always has).
This is about equality of two same sex people...having the same circuitry of pair-bonding as two of the 'opposite' sex, and children and families, and how this would be a DIFFERENT institution, as to the properties, than two same-sex bed buddies, who want to CALL themselves 'married', pretending to think that merely imitating emotions and affections, is the same pair-bonding that goes on when two people bring children into the world. Now I know that there are marriages between two heteros that bringing children into the world is not part of their program.....and these are nine times out of nine, second, third fourth and so on 'marriages'..of people trying to compensate for their first one fucking up....(just think of most of your friends and acquaintances)....but originally, it was not so.
Impregnating your mate, and all the things she goes through in her pregnancy is a LOT different than, "Gosh Bruce, let's go out and amuse ourselves by getting a kid...then we can really look like a family".
You want to talk about 'rights'?...how about the rights of the children, and all the crap they'd have to put up with..knowing that instead of a mom and a dad, they got Auckie Dildoc and Lesbia O'Toole....Oh, WE can ignore it...so much we can even convince ourselves that the kids don't mind, or think it bothers them, when their friends look at them weird.....Oh, I guess if WE can shrug it off, then it must be OK..(selfish people think that way)..Or if they long for a mother's nurturing, and what they get is Bubba making the best at not being TOO inconvenienced by them.
....and that goes for heteros as well.
Do you actually think that nurturing mothers and fathers have the same relationship with their children as homosexuals do with 'theirs'? Do you think that the space between her newborn and the mother holding the baby is the same, Bruce and Darryl, deciding it's time for Egbert to go to bed now?
Do you think the weeks and months that a woman is pregnant, feeling the child grow within her..the anticipation, discomforts, hopes contribute maybe just a teensy-weensy bit of a DIFFERENT dynamic and bonding, than 'Auckie' and 'Lesbia' fulfilling their 'image' to accommodate 'respectability' for their sexual preferences and behaviors???..You think that is the SAME????
Nope!....different dynamics....different bonding....different instincts....different 'motives'.
It's just plain different!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 06:25 PM

Well said, Lighter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 04:22 PM

Someone commented on TV yesterday that Obama's inaugural mention of "our gay brothers and sisters" and their human right to feel love for anybody they want, and have family arrangements with equal protection under the law, was of "world-historical importance."

It's hard to disagree: the democratically elected leader of the most powerful nation on earth, the first nation-state to claim that "all men are created equal," said it straight out, at his inauguration, on Martin Luther King's birthday, with the whole world watching.

To the extent that History ever speaks, History has spoken, much as it spoke long ago about racial and gender equality under the law. I have no problem with it.

If busybodies (good term) want to turn it into some kind of bitter theoretical dispute about the nature of man and God, and whether Obama is really a citizen, the Constitution protects them too. However, it doesn't require the rest of us to play along.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM

Musket: "Any more own goals Goofus? They are becoming too easy, you stupid prat."

So, I'm a 'stupid prat' because I point out that a queen can't conceive a child??...and that 'it's' maternal instincts just don't match up to that of a loving mother??...and father????..
Who's being the 'stupid prat'?

....who cannot refute:

"Why??..Are you afraid we might start talking about a man and a woman, conceiving their own child and raising it, as a family..and homosexuals can't do that....but they can do a pretty good imitation."

...and all you can do is call me a stupid, immature, name????

Get real!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 01:22 PM

OK, got it.

Big fish, small bicycle. (Or: an awful lot of busy-bodying and bitching from a very, VERY small number of people.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 01:13 PM

Jeri, Just messing around with another angle of reducing some of the arguments that come up here to absurdity. A couple of our fonts of wisdom here have repeatedly asserted that it's obvious that homosexuality is unnatural because a homosexual couple can't reproduce, at least in the "natural" manner. There has to be at least some implication there that those who don't reproduce aren't quite as fully human as those who do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 12:47 PM

Dean, I'm not sure just who you're trying to piss off.
Or what you're trying to say.
If a mother superior or a nun wants to get married to another person, she should be able to. She probably won't remain a nun, but that's the church's decision, the the government's.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 12:07 PM

Then again, there are people like Mother Theresa who, by their own behavioural decision, are also reproductively impaired. The so-called-liberal idiots here probably think people like that should have equal right, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 04:48 AM

Most social workers will relate to the number of heterosexual couples who do a pretty poor imitation.

Any more own goals Goofus? They are becoming too easy, you stupid prat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM

Why??..Are you afraid we might start talking about a man and a woman, conceiving their own child and raising it, as a family..and homosexuals can't do that....but they can do a pretty good imitation.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 03:54 PM

Jesus, how exquisitely friggin' intelligent it was for some pillock to resurrect this sick thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 03:16 PM

Akenaton will never understand the difference between "EQUAL" and "EQUAL UNDER THE LAW", which was the oft misunderstood message of the United States Declaration of Independence.

After all, he IS A PHARAOH, and therefore more equal than anyone else.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 02:50 PM

With the greatest of respect (see, I said it and a thunderbolt didn't strike me down. I must be getting soft. )

Try noting the difference between equal and equal opportunity. Might help remove a few blinkers and raise the mist. ..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 01:46 PM

You surely dont buy that shit about everyone being born equal do you?

The huge majority are born into extreme poverty, a tiny minority into
obscene priviledge.From that point the laws are twisted and bent to make sure the satus quo ...and the system remain in place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 01:38 PM

Wonder if he had anything to say about the brothers who were murdered in Algeria?....or those of us who supported the insurrection in Libya which provided the killers with weapons and power.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 12:57 PM

"For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." — President Barack Obama, from his second inaugural address


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Jan 13 - 02:34 AM

Goofus you clown.. Steve was trying to end this awful thread and for a while it looked as if others thought that a good idea too.

It appears that bigotry is so entrenched with some that they genuinely cannot see how their odious views affect the lives of others.   Liam Fox was on the news today saying how much he opposed it and then tried saying that as a doctor he understood the issues.   How the hell can he say that? Because as a back bench politician and a disgraced ex minister he has the opportunity to wield his vote. Crazy crazy world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jan 13 - 02:19 AM

I already said that the post, apparently came from my computer..but the post wasn't from me...nor was my father ever a homosexual. He had 6 children died, still faithful to his wife(my mother), who never remarried, and is alive today.
Now if some of you WANT to believe otherwise, knock yourselves out...it won't be the first time you've believed nonsense!
You SAY you want to believe THAT post, that was NOT authored by me, but won't believe THIS one...which IS...go figure!
Some people believe what they WANT...they are either 'religious' or 'political' hacks....and...if my father was a homosexual, don't you think I'd be championing homosexuality???..and saying how great it was..because he raised 6 kids??....but the fact is, he never was, till the day he died.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 08:40 PM

This thread has, if nothing else, shown that there are plenty of members of this forum who will tirelessly oppose prejudice, bigotry and hatred of "the other." I agree with Don that time spent opposing the very few horridly-intolerant and narrow-minded people who propagate those kinds of sentiments is not time wasted, as to allow them to post their poison unchallenged would, in the long run, serve to misrepresent the forum.

I'd really love this to be the last ever post on this thread, and not because I enjoy having the last word. Because I've bloody had enough.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 07:45 PM

Don F is absolutely correct.

Goofus did indeed use his father's (according to him) defection to the other team to claim homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

Any effort by him to claim that he was not the author of that post should be treated with extreme disbelief, until Joe Offer confirms more than one poster on his IP address.

Sorry Goofus, your slip is showing.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 07:33 PM

Don: Firth: "My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one,..."

Aren't you proud of yourself??..Were you bragging??..or complaining??

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 04:24 PM

Yeah, I got what you intended, froggy, and I, too, wondered if GoofuS, in his on-going tap-dance, might try to take that tack. But no sweat.

My son grew up in a real family, two parents, siblings and all. It's just that he didn't know who his real father was until his mother told him at the age of twenty-one, feeling that he had a right to know. And he and Shannon have been living together for some years now, even own a house in Ottawa, which they're selling so they can move out here, closer.

So if Don is gay, he's got a weird way of showing it! Shannon is a real looker, and a very bright young woman!

Tough luck, Goofus!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 03:57 PM

Don, I'm glad, for one reason, that your son isn't gay. In case anyone didn't realize, I threw in that "assumption" to mess with gfs's theorizing. I cringed a bit afterward, thinking, "Oops; what if it should happen that Don's son is gay? gfs will jump up and down for joy, crowing that I provided support for him."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 03:07 PM

Translation of the above Proverbs quote:

"Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot!"

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 03:00 PM

The fact is that, as the world (we hope) grows more civilized and the human race matures, things like racial prejudice and homophobia will gradually diminish and disappear into the mists of antiquity, as has widespread slavery and such atrocities as burning "heretics" at the stake. Same-sex marriage will inevitably come, in the same way that interracial marriage is now no longer illegal (or taboo, at least in the more enlightened areas of the world).

There are people on this thread (and it's easy to tell who they are) who would lock us into a "social feudal system" because of their own ignorance, prejudice, and fear.

In time, they, too, will pass into the mists of antiquity.

=======

GoofuS wrote the post on the Prop 8 thread about his father "deciding" to leave the family and take a male lover in an effort to "prove" that he knew from personal experience that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Whether his story Is actually true or not is moot. Then, too late, he realized what he'd left himself open to some interesting speculation as to why he was so adamantly opposed to ascribing sexual orientation to anything genetic, despite the findings of recent research. And when he was confronted with it, he realized he'd left himself open to all kinds of interesting further speculation about why he was so hysterical about it.

Forthwith, he launched into a tap-dance that would have amazed Fred Astaire, in order to cover his tactical boo-boo.

We've just seen a replay.

=======

This thread has long since passed its "sell-by" date, so methinks I'll bail out and devote myself to more productive endeavors.

As far as GoofuS and Ake, and maybe a couple of others are concerned, I leave you with a quote from the Bible:
Proverbs 14:7 –
Go from the presence of a fool, for you will not discern words of knowledge from him.
Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 02:53 PM

I've already showed you one, a Guardian ICM poll. Yes, in terms of absolute numbers responding, counting all the signatures on anti petitions and all the postcards in the anti postcard campaign, you got a majority. I'm not arguing with the tactics of the anti people. Good for them. But if you really want to know with any degree of accuracy the true proportions for and against in the whole population, you don't do it that way. You poll a large enough representative sample of the population, not just sit there encouraging your bedfellows to roll up. God knows why I have to explain this to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 01:09 PM

Steven...you can refute and squirm as much as you like, the survey{consultation) was conducted and the result presented 30/ 60 against.

Now if you want to dissect that result to suit your agenda that is fine by me, but the result of the biggest survey on the subject goes in the book.

BTW please show me what sort of study came up with the 2 to 1 in favour that you quoted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 11:15 AM

Hopefully I am a candidate for the one who insults Goofus the most. Partly because I think he is barking mad and partly because he has just about enough intelligence to abuse people by making them read what he thinks is a learned opinion of their lives.

The good professor has him weighed up though haven't you boy?

Woof! Woof!

Akenaton on the other hand doesn't want it to be legal in case it becomes compulsory. Considering gay marriage doesn't affect him or me for that matter, our views matter not one jot.

The only people in a democracy who have to consider the question are either two men or two women in love who wish to express their relationship in the same way as everybody else.

Nobody cares about your subjective drivel masquerading as figures. Nobody cares that you shroud your bigotry in false shades of concern.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 08:36 AM

"".and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!""

And on that we are in total agreement, so why would you suggest that such useless trash be coerced or persuaded to live up to their responsibilities and bring up the kids they obviously don't want.

Are you really suggesting that such action would be in the best interests of the children and that resentful biological parents would be better thaan loving and caring adopters?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 08:24 AM

""Don...I was not "quoting"you, I'm not nearly angry enough for that...neither am i able to do all the exclamation marks, black text, or puffs of steam required :0)
I was simply paraphrasing your words so that your meaning might be more clear to our avid readers.

If I have you all wrong, feel free to put me to rights.
""

I just did!!

My meaning was perfectly clear and your twisting of it didn't improve its clarity one bit.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 01:19 AM

Hey dingle-berry, you just posted this: "When I called you on that in the Prop 8 thread, you accused me of posting under your name."

Now, if you remember I also asked the 'Mud-elves' to check it..would I have accused you...If I posted it???

You make NO sense, and will stop at nothing to try to accuse somebody of bullshit, if you thought it would make your narcissistic self look good.
I don't care..I didn't post it..and that is that!

It's sure is 'peculiar' that you insist my Dad was a homosexual...and you were really quick, to say you were NOT a homosexual, and you had a son.....as if, down deep inside you, you HAD to make that clear, that neither you or your son were homos....What's the matter?....You'd be embarrassed....for being 'normal'??????
Even you don't believe your own press....I don't!...and it shows through the cracks. You don't give a damn about homosexual 'rights'..just so long as you have soapbox to look 'astutely noble' upon!
Get real!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 12:57 AM

Well, you go ahead and stick with that story, GoofuS.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 13 - 12:31 AM

I already told you that..didn't you read my last post???? I did NOT author that post, though it may or may not have come from my computer....and if you remember, there were several posts, with my name, that were not from me..or my computer...and Joe took them off. I think you are more interested in sensationalizing a bullshit fraudulent post, than you are saying ANYTHING truthful! (Same M.O.)
What's the matter?..the subject of fathers raising their own children pisses you off???

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 11:09 PM

When I called you on that in the Prop 8 thread, you accused me of posting under your name.

Apparently you were (are) unaware that everyone's computer has an IP number, and it's unique to your computer. Like "caller ID."

When you made that accusation, I checked with the Mudelves and was informed that that particular post came from YOUR computer, NOT MINE.

We've had this conversation before.

GoofuS, you seem to be incapable of telling the truth.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 09:58 PM

Don Frothmeister: "Well, perhaps it has THIS to do with the subject:    I theorize that it is quite possible that your homophobia is brought on by fear. You said, in the Prop 8 thread (and if you deny it, I will link to the post so that everyone here can read it for themselves) that your father, after siring several children including you, "decided" he wanted to be gay, and deserted the family to grow up on their own when he ran off with another man."


....and don't forget to link them to the posts that I said that I did NOT author the post you are talking about.
My father was not a homosexual, never was, and didn't run off to be one. My father died in 1975 at the age of sixty. My mother never re-married.
You can post all you want. I did not write or submit that post....and SEVERAL people back then were using my name to post nonsense..and got called on it. I believe the post in question, as Joe said, was submitted from my computer, and IF that was true, I did not write it, nor submit it.(Possibly one of the musicians who come here who wanted to play, and thought I was spending too much time debating idiots!).

Don T.: "You can promote all you bloody like, providing you are willing pick up the pieces when those kids come back and tell you what particular hell on earth you condemned them to."

When my son was in his junior and senior year in high school, we took in a student whose father was diagnosed with MS, damaged from agent orange. We visited the dad, with/without the son, till his death. Ben, the son, was in his mid senior year when his dad died.

My daughter, as well has taken two kids (brother and sister) whose mother was an unfit, abusive alcoholic, and she gained custody of them legally. The daughter, a BEAUTIFUL 13-14 year old is expected to be totally blind by the time she is 18-19.
..and on this one you and I are agreed..though it is somewhat of a thread drift..but not that much.

..and I still think that parents who abandon the responsibility to love their children,, and in doing so, raise them lovingly, miss out on the greatest privilege that ever came their way!...they cannot be taken seriously, for just about anything!

Take it easy,

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 08:03 PM

It is not representative at all, liar. It's fine to organise postcard voting. It's fine to organise mass petitions. I've been involved in both myself many times. Nothing wrong with it at all. But it is not fine to extrapolate from the results that two-thirds of Scotland is opposed to gay marriage. That is simply untrue. The only fair guide we could have for finding out is a neutral, unforced poll, innocent of leading questions, of a large and representative sample of the Scottish people. That has not been done. A poor second would be the result of your precious "survey", once it's been shorn of its pressure-group votes. And that gives a result consistent with the rest of the UK, two to one in favour of gay marriage. I'm really sorry that you find facts so inconvenient. The rest of us try to cope with them as best we can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:59 PM

No, Ake, it would not.

GoofuS is telling lies about me and I am explaining, briefly, what the truth is, not just to refute GoofuS, but in my own defense.

He accused me in open thread of irresponsibly abandoning my son in order to discredit me as a human being. I set the record straight.

Would you not do the same?

GoofuS delights in hitting below the belt. In more ways than one.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:54 PM

Moron???
Typical example Don.

The Scottish consultation contained representations from interested groups, which included religious groups, LGTB groups civil/human rights groups etc.
It is the most representative survey of opinion that we have had so far.
Scotland has historically been a rather socially conservative nation, so I would presume that a referrendum on the issue would produce an even larger majority against.
Steven is again indulging in wishful thinking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:51 PM

Well a couple of us certainly think it's worth responding to you when you deliberately perpetrate lies. Not only that, you insult us by perpetrating the same lies that we have already roundly refuted and which you think we might have forgotten about. If you don't want to be called names, don't insult us with lies, please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:40 PM

Sorry GUEST(Don)? I have no knowlege of the subject to which you refer.
Would it not be better just to stop all the nasty stuff regardless of who started it?
Name calling is very unseemly for grown ups and gives a bad impression of anyone who indulges in it.
Its getting worse on this thread....now most of the posts just consist of a heap of abuse.Its hardly worth responding at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:28 PM

Let me reiterate. I am against homosexual "marriage"....i am not alone in this strange opinion, in my area a very large majority would support my opinion. In my country, the biggest survey(consultation) resulted in 30+% for....60+% against. The survey(consultation) was conducted by the Scottish govt.

Yes, LET you reiterate. You think, like most other morons, that repeated reiteration will somehow make a lie more true. I refuted this days and days ago, yet you think, by raising it again days later, we will have forgotten. Well I for one have not forgotten. The results of your precious Scottish "consultation" included a ton of "votes" gleaned from petitions which were organised for the sole purpose of skewing the result and from a mass campaign of standardised postcard voting, both of them tactics organised by the "anti" side only. Remove these from consideration and you get precisely the same result as you get from HONEST polls carried out from the rest of the UK, which show, broadly, that there is an overwhelming majority of around two to one in favour of gay marriage. Doubtless you will now ignore this inconvenience, wait for another week or so and peddle the same lie again. Well good for you. I'm waiting, moron.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM

Don...I was not "quoting"you, I'm not nearly angry enough for that...neither am i able to do all the exclamation marks, black text, or puffs of steam required :0)
I was simply paraphrasing your words so that your meaning might be more clear to our avid readers.

If I have you all wrong, feel free to put me to rights.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:10 PM

Sorry Jack, I missed your earlier posts.

Let me reiterate. I am against homosexual "marriage"....i am not alone in this strange opinion, in my area a very large majority would support my opinion. In my country, the biggest survey(consultation) resulted in 30+% for....60+% against. The survey(consultation) was conducted by the Scottish govt.

My chief reason for opposition is the health statistics pertaining to male homosexuality and I believe that the proposed legislation amounts to the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy.
I do not believe that male to male sex is safe and healthy and should not be promoted as such. Homosexual "marriage" or civil union, where they have been instigated have had no appreciative affect on infection rates.
I am also against homosexual "marriage", because I believe that heterosexual marriage is in general much the better template to raise children and form an extended family structure.....homosexual unions are completely different in that respect...the short duration of these unions on average and the lack of children would make the stability required, very hard to achieve.

So I would be against homosexual marriage for both genders.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 07:01 PM

Do feel free though, to try to explain just how you extrapolated from evidence printed in 1962, to reach the conclusion that because Gays were forced underground then, they will not have changed their attitude toward long term commitment NOW, when their relationships are legal.

I am assuming that, if you had any hard evidence of current rampant promiscuity, you wouldn't have relied on fifty year old anecdotal evidence from one author, but instead would have produced up to date data.

Very shoddy debating from one who prides himself on being logical.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM

Ake, you will notice (or perhaps YOU won't) that GoofuS has been insulting and denigrating me from the start, and he went so far as to dig into old threads and drag up a somewhat painful incident from my past in order to wave it around and claim that I shirked my duty as a father. That is a lie! He doesn't know the full circumstances and he attempted to put the worst possible interpretation on it.

It is extremely unfortunate when people feel impelled to do this (as an alternative to arguing FACTS), but GoofuS made allegations about me in an effort to insult me, and to attempt to undercut my credibility.

And I am not going to let that sort of thing pass!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:50 PM

""Someone above said that Baldwin's depiction of male homosexuality could be discounted, as homosexuality has become more accepted by society and can be practiced more openly......well this openess and acceptibility has produce worse than ever health figures in all STDs especially hiv; so it seems that "cold anonymous risky sex" is still endemic to male homosexual practice.
"More an addiction than an orientation"
""

If you are going to quote me then do so honestly, assuming that you can remember the meaning of the word.

""Baldwin wrote "Another Country" in 1962, while decriminalisation of homosexuality didn't occur until July 1967.

So Baldwin was describing the situation while Gay men were forced to pursue furtive liaisons in toilets and back alleys, and any long lasting relationship inevitably led to discovery and jail.

Nice try Ake, but no coconut!

Don T.
""

Now the whole forum can see just how deviously you try to change the meanings of posts to which you have NO ANSWER!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:44 PM

""As Keith says why dont you just confine yourself to addressing the points made.""

You mean keep to the issues as did the perpetrator of the following:

""If the complete absence of your signs, and the complete absence of a single person who knows where one is to be found is not sufficient evidence, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?

You can post out of date links and call it evidence, BUT THERE ARE NO FUCKING SIGNS HERE YOU TWAT!
""

Now who could that have been?

OH YES! Now I remember.........IT WAS KEITH!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 06:34 PM

""I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!""

Quite right Goofie!

As the father of two much loved children and the five grandchildren with which they have brightened my existence, I too have a complete lack of respect for that type of worthless human.

Almost as much lack of respect as I have for a dumb shit who suggests that their kids would have a great life if their errant parents were coerced into coping with the responsibility they ran away from in the first place.

You can promote all you bloody like, providing you are willing pick up the pieces when those kids come back and tell you what particular hell on earth you condemned them to.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 03:06 PM

Do you folks ever read what you write?

Don..read through your post and count the number of times you deliberately insult sanity....and you are not the worst offender.

there really is little point in trying to discuss issues if all this personal stuff is going on.

As Keith says why dont you just confine yourself to addressing the points made.

One GOOD thing about these threads is that anyone reading them can get a view of both sides of the argument. I'm pleased about that, because the pro's have only one argument "equality" the great myth, whereas the anti's have several, secular and religious, societal
and health related.

Someone above said that Baldwin's depiction of male homosexuality could be discounted, as homosexuality has become more accepted by society and can be practiced more openly......well this openess and acceptibility has produce worse than ever health figures in all STDs especially hiv; so it seems that "cold anonymous risky sex" is still endemic to male homosexual practice.
"More an addiction than an orientation"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM

That's pretty much it, frogprince.

But my son did not grow up to be gay. He's a flaming heterosexual, as I am.

He did grow up in a real family. His mother married (be it know that I offered marriage, but her circumstances were such that she refused, so it wasn't a matter of me being unwilling to do the honorable thing, as Goofus would have you believe), and my son had a father, mother, and siblings. Then, finally, his mother told him, when he was twenty-one, who his real father was, and he wanted to see me. But he got shipped off to college in Ottawa where he picked up a degree in Philosophy. When he got back to Vancouver and was living on his own, he phoned me.

We had a long chat on the phone and he came down (south) to Seattle and stayed with us for a time. Barbara said that when she picked him up at the train station, she had no problem recognizing that tall, young man as my son. The resemblance is rather striking.

Other than teaching, you can't do much with a degree in Philosophy, so when Hollywood started making movies in Canada (because it was less expensive to film there than in Hollywood, for some strange reason), he worked as a grip on several movies. Concurrently, he has written a screenplay about the lost Franklin expedition in Canada. Hasn't done anything with it yet, but I'm encouraging him to do so. Not only historical, but highly entertaining.

Far from being gay, when he was at the university in Ottawa, he met a bright young woman there, and after he (his mother named him "Don" for some strange reason!) and I spent some time together, he returned to Ottawa, and he and Shannon are working together on ecological issues under contract to the Government of Canada.

The two of them will be moving out to Victoria, B.C. within the next few months to live there and set up their business operation there. Partly, he said, because they are tired of Ottawa winters, and to be where we can visit frequently (a pleasant ferry ride between Victoria and Seattle).

The move won't disrupt their business because they telecommute, so it doesn't really matter to the Canadian government where they work from. In fact, Don and Shannon spent two weeks in Hawaii a couple of years ago, and since the work got done, the Canadian gummint didn't even know they weren't in Ottawa.

Barbara and I are looking forward to seeing a lot of them in a few months.

And no, Goofus, my son is NOT gay.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Goofus, since YOU brought it up, what the hell does THIS have to do with the subject of this thread?

Or has your position become so untenable that you're flailing around trying to distract people and divert them from the fact that you're way out of the realms of reality on this matter?

Well, perhaps it has THIS to do with the subject:    I theorize that it is quite possible that your homophobia is brought on by fear. You said, in the Prop 8 thread (and if you deny it, I will link to the post so that everyone here can read it for themselves) that your father, after siring several children including you, "decided" he wanted to be gay, and deserted the family to grow up on their own when he ran off with another man.

So if same-sex orientation is genetic, this could mean that YOU are carrying the gene—and you're fighting like crazy to stay in the closet to yourself!

Hence, your frantic insistence that homosexuality is NOT genetic, that it's a matter of choice. And you're doing your damnedest to chose NOT to be gay.

And you're scared!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 02:03 PM

DonT: "In the second case, a loving, caring, relationship is, by definition extremely unlikely."

They should have thought of that before she spread her legs, or he bullshitted her into fucking her.....but, instead of taking a stance on that..let's promote readily available trash cans for the 'inconvenience' as the result of their irresponsibility!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 01:59 PM

You STILL don't 'get it'..and YOU'RE still a moronic twerp!
Of course there are legitimate reasons that children go up for adoption, one, of course being death of the parents...though that is a miniscule reason, by the numbers..the other is that the parents don't want them....don't you think that parents giving up their children because they are selfish pieces of shit, and 'don't want them' should NOT be promoted, and that some effort(at least) should be given to promote parents having children to get their act together...and not make 'adoption'(which is a good thing, but also often abused), just a convenient trash can for unwanted kids???
Yes, those who adopt, are far better, (in theory) than those who just abandon their kids with no thought, other than how they are going to 'make it' at their next self indulgence(and avoiding child support, of course)...whether it be their careers, schooling, another lover, an addiction or just being a fucking flake.
I have a hard time finding 'respect' for those parents who just blow off their kids for selfish bullshit...and you know what is really tragic..and speaks to how fucked up our society has become??...there are just too many of them!!

Now if you stayed with your kids and raised them, I'm sure you can agree with that...then again, if you were an asshole, selfish pig and correctly thought you were a worthless human to even want to attempt at raising your own kids....you will probably be inclined to 'defend' abandoning them...for ANY reason!
Once you have kids, life's road is layed out for you..either as a mother or father...and just giving up on your kids, and blowing it off, is a DEFINITE sign of a worthless piece of pig vomit.
I have no respect for either women or men who find a convenient 'reason' to walk away from their kids...and that includes the mothers who find welfare an easy alternative..as well as fathers who don't take responsibility, and act like immature assholes, in regards to their FAMILIES!!!

GfS

P.S. Defenders???? (..Like they have a good enough reason)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 12:09 PM

""Back to you!..You're the know nothing twerp for interpreting that so stupidly.""

Twit!

There are two reasons why children are up for adoption.

1. The parents are deceased.
2. The parents don't want them.

In the first case, even you, with your airy fairy spirituality, would be hard put to achieve a result.

In the second case, a loving, caring, relationship is, by definition extremely unlikely.

I'd rather see a child parented by two gays, male or female, who would love him/her, thanm forced upon biological parents who don't want to know.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 12:02 PM

""There are about 500 AIDS deaths every year in UK.""

And how many deaths among the hetero population of Africa, where some 40% are HIV positive.

I don't hear Ake expressing any concern, or objections to them marrying.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 12:00 PM

I noticed in the paper today that UKIP have sacked their youth leader for supporting gay marriage.

I suppose that is positive on two fronts.

1. Just in case anybody ever thought they were a political party we can rest assured they are not open to reality after all.

2. Younger people can't see the fuss in general. Not even those previously swayed by a closet racist gang masquerading as a political party.

Still, so long as we know why some people support bigotry. They are told to it seems. Is that better or worse than a bigot by choice?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 11:56 AM

""Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs.
He actually sates that is his only concern.
""

And when asked what his attitude would be to Lesbian marriages (lesbians being a low health risk group), he replied that there are "other considerations".

So my statement would seem to have some basis in fact and it is likely that there will always be ""other considerations"" offering an excuse for discrimination.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 11:34 AM

Now THAT'S a jump!
No wonder you are so detached from reality...you make up your own!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 08:29 AM

Actually I had heard about your son, but forgot; I know now where gfs is going. He is back to how you should have locked your son's mother in the cellar in order to keep her from separating you from your son during his growing years. Obviously what you haven't mentioned is that your son is gay; that has to be inevitable, since you "abandoned him, and he wasn't raised by his two natural parents.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 01:59 AM

See? I told you it would be fun when Goofus joined in again!

This thread needed lightening up and Goofus manages that with his nonsensical waffle and bullshit.

The good professor and I are having a good chuckle aren't we boy?

Woof!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 01:09 AM

What rest, GoofuS?

What, exactly, are you referring to?

(And don't talk to me about courtesy. Since you're the rudest person on Mudcat, you're in no position to talk about "courtesy.")

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 10:25 PM

Well...tell him the rest.....he asked an honest question with an explanation of trying to understand your position...at least give him the courtesy of giving him the rest of it, so he can make an honest assessment of why you hold your position.
Fair enough?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:23 PM

No, froggy, all systems go.

Yup! One son.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 04:37 PM

If children are orphaned while too young to fend for themselves, they should be killed and buried with their parents. Much better for them than to be adopted by defective reproductively impaired so-called human beings.

Don Firth, do you have children; if not, it is obvious why you would side with other reproductively impaired people over real parents.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 04:00 PM

"They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????

Never mind, I already know....
..and I already know why you can't admit that."


Whatever you're drooling about is a mystery to me, GoofuS. What parents are boring which kids? And what is it that you think you know? (You? Think? Hah!!). And what can't I admit? And why?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 02:59 PM

"Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs.
He actually sates that is his only concern."

Nice try KAoH, But our attention spans are not that short. STIs are not a factor for Lesbians, but Akenaton opposes their marriage because it might lead to divorce or confusion among main stream "Christians."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 02:55 PM

Being a Liberal--and proudly so--I may change my opinion on an issue in the face of new facts or compelling argument. And so I do that in this thread. I have decided to become homosexual. Here are my reasons:

I can revel in the "friendship" people show me on the Internet, on the street, from "ex-gay" counselors, within a whole shitload of court decisions and legislation, and, of course on Mudcat.
I can have sex without worrying about pregnancy.
I can have sex and enjoy the risk of getting HIV.
I can enjoy special treatment when I apply for a job, because most employers prefer to hire gays.
I can enjoy special treatment if I go to prison.
I can enjoy feeling universally loved wherever I go, because everyone is so friendly to people who "choose" to love someone of their own gender.
And so much more...

I have "decided" at the age of 30(++) that I will make this change in my life, because to not do so would suggest that I was unable to make correct choices.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 01:48 PM

Pointless, trying to enlighten someone with no more intelligence than a kumquat.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 08:40 AM

Dumb T: """They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????""

Because, you dozy twit, their biological parents are not, by reason of either accident or design, available to them.

Christ, what a bloody know nothing twerp."


Don't you think that loving, caring parents who bore the children should be promoted?????...and responsible??? or did you take a lesson from the other Don, and parse out a phrase out of context?

Back to you!..You're the know nothing twerp for interpreting that so stupidly.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 07:13 AM

Don, you "strongly suspect" that Ake would not change his opinion if there were no serious STIs.
He actually sates that is his only concern.

HPA states clearly that HIV/AIDS has been reduced to a chronic manageable condition.

HPA also states, "HIV continues to be one of the most important communicable diseases in the UK. It is an infection associated with serious morbidity, high costs of treatment and care, significant mortality and high number of potential years of life lost. Each year, many thousands of individuals are diagnosed with HIV for the first time. The infection is still frequently regarded as stigmatising and has a prolonged 'silent' period during which it often remains undiagnosed. "

There are about 500 AIDS deaths every year in UK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM

""They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????""

Because, you dozy twit, their biological parents are not, by reason of either accident or design, available to them.

Christ, what a bloody know nothing twerp.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 06:01 AM

Baldwin wrote "Another Country" in 1962, while decriminalisation of homosexuality didn't occur until July 1967.

So Baldwin was describing the situation while Gay men were forced to pursue furtive liaisons in toilets and back alleys, and any long lasting relationship inevitably led to discovery and jail.

Nice try Ake, but no coconut!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM

""This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex......and in my opinion, the straight and accurate figures that I quote on male homosexual health, have a great bearing on the issue.""

Your premise is absolutely false and from false premises anything follows, in this case bigotry follows.

Marriage, either hetero or homosexual, is not primarily about sex. It is about loving and committed relationships.

It is only comparatively recently that society stopped hounding homosexuals and jailing them.

Of course, prior to that time it was about brief meetings with nothing but sex involved.

Fortunately, we are more enlightened these days(well, most of us are), which has opened the way for long lasting and committed relationships.

You constantly repeat your tired mantra that ""Homosexuals are inherently promiscuous"", without a morsel of evidence, yet steadfastly oppose anything which would tend to reduce that supposed promiscuity.

The effects of the disease, thanks to medical research, have been vastly reduced, to what the HPA condiders manageable, yet you persist in your claims that it is a worsening plague.

Your whole demeanour is that of a committed homophobe, who will never accept any degree of equality for those whose activities (though neither your business, nor affecting you in any way) you deplore.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:32 AM

"".and THAT goes for a lot more than just the homosexual, reproductively impaired issue.""

You just can't resist those little, unjustifiable, denigratory references can you?

God help any poor sod who relies on counselling from you.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 05:25 AM

""They are there for all to see and you clearly accept HPA as a reliable source.
So what is you objection?
Show us some false data or doctored stats.
""

HPA states clearly that HIV/AIDS has been reduced to a chronic manageable condition.
So what is your objection?
Show us some false data or doctored stats.

If Ake is so concerned with the health of Gay men (though I have never believed that he is), why is he not pleased with this progress and why does he still object to low risk Lesbian marriages on the basis of ""other considerations"", whatever that means.

I strongly suspect that if HIV/AIDS were totally eradicated tomorrow, Ake's position on Gay marriage would not change one iota. In fact, I'm bloody sure of it, just as I'm sure you would still be supporting him.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 02:11 AM

Froth: "And again I point out that 1) the idea that homosexual couples only want to adopt children so they can molest them is bigoted, stupid, and ridiculous; and 2) these adopted children are one helluva lot better off in a family situation, even if it is not a traditional family, than they would have been if left in an orphanage."

They'd be BEST off by being raised and wanted by the parents who bore them. Why don't you promote that????

Never mind, I already know....
..and I already know why you can't admit that.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 08:13 PM

No. You have the characteristic of MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY!

You keep blathering on about the joys of having children and seem to be saying that children are the whole point of marriage, hence marriage should be denied to same-sex couples for the simple reason that they can't reproduce.

As I pointed out in a post a short distance above, I know of more than one same-sex couple who have ADOPTED children, taking in children who, for whatever reason, their natural parent or parents could not keep or did not want.

And again I point out that 1) the idea that homosexual couples only want to adopt children so they can molest them is bigoted, stupid, and ridiculous; and 2) these adopted children are one helluva lot better off in a family situation, even if it is not a traditional family, than they would have been if left in an orphanage.

Don't get a hernia trying hold onto your prejuduces and twisting yourself out of the way of the truth.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM

Save food..be a homosexual!..Is that your new rap?

Eat me!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM

"You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros."

A. Do you have statistics to back this up?
B. You seem to be comparing Lesbians pairs in your country who can not marry to hetero couples who can. Are you?
C. Are you saying that women should not be allowed to marry because they may get divorced?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM

For those of you who seem to be hell-bent on reproducing like rabbits, let me present you with a few sobering facts:
David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, estimates that the sustainable agricultural carrying capacity for the United States is about 200 million people; its population as of 2011 is over 310 million.

In 2009, the UK government's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, warned that growing populations, falling energy reserves and food shortages would create a "perfect storm" by 2030. Beddington claimed that food reserves were at a fifty-year low, and that the world would require 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.

According to a 2009 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the world will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people.

The observed figures for 2007 showed an actual increase in absolute numbers of undernourished people in the world, with 923 million undernourished in 2007, versus 832 million in 1995. The 2009 FAO estimates showed an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion.
A few years back, the government of Malaysia, becoming very aware of the overpopulation problem, tried the tactic of (believe it or not!) encouraging homosexual relationships in hopes that it would cut down on the dangerously increasing overpopulation figures—and the increasing number of food riots in that country. The program was an abject failure because heterosexuals did not want to change their sexual orientation! Nor could the "patriotic" few who tried to comply keep it up. The homosexual population kept doing what they were doing. The heterosexual population decided they didn't like their new "life style" and returned to their old ways.

People don't "DECIDE" to change their sexual orientation.

Along about 2030, I'll see you at the food riots!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM

G'night Sanity....thanks for the smiles...A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:45 PM

Akenaton: "????"

He's just coming unglued...you just can't keep postulating his nonsense and keep your shit together, at the same time....eventually the cracks begin to show.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:38 PM

Akenaton: "I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children..."

YES!..the nucleus of ALL societal fabric of ALL civilizations!
Did anyone here come from any other form of civilization?
NOPE!
It's just a 'trendy' self indulgence for the self absorbed, to be hung up in promoting random family structures!!
As far as second and third marriages..it's still in the pattern of trying to compensate for what went wrong in the first one...often formed while they were too young and naive.
A classic saying, "Youth is wasted on the young".

Got another little story for ya'...............

This guy, who was quite a womanizer in his younger days..(and married four times), told me this, not that long ago..."Women are the second most thing I hate......you know what the first is??...That I didn't hate them sooner!!"

BTW,(side note)..womanizers are usually those who actually hate women...though they keep fucking them....and with a little skillful probing, will admit it!

Nice yakkin' at ya'!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:30 PM

????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:24 PM

Just WRONG. No relationship with the real world.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM

You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros.

Additionally, although i dont believe in organised religion, millions of people do and I think it odd that these people should be asked to re-define their beliefs to accomodate a tiny sexual minority.
I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children, so I would be against re-definition to include lesbians.

As I said to Ian, what is to stop homosexuals of both sexes starting their own "gay" church, with "gay" clergy and "gay" congregation?

Problem sorted....nae bothir!

I suppose in a fraction of the time that the conventional church has existed, the "gay" pews would be bare and empty?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM

Thanks....I'm still chuckling!
..but what I posted is more often than not, the case.

I once knew a guy, Richard a wonderful bass player, and better friend than either of us would admit, that told me a great story...

He was working as a night auditor at a rather exclusive hotel in Hollywood, California...and there was a woman who also worked there, who had been 'eying' him for quite a while. When the hotel hired another woman for the same shift, the two women began talking about Richard, who was in the back room. He could hear bits and pieces of their conversation...

Newer woman to the other, "Do you think he's the marrying type?"

Richard, upon hearing that, emerged from the back room.and in his LOUD, New Jersey voice boomed, "Marrying type???!!! NO!! None of us are the marrying type..THAT'S YOUR JOB!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM

Definitely NOT "hate" sanity and you obviously do have an understanding of the issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM

Akenaton, just for an addendum to you post....you said, "..probably most young heteros dont either, but around their mid twenties they wish to start a family....."

I would venture to say that females usually have more of a drive to have children then males...the woman comes home from the doctors, and says, "Guess what, Dear...." and the guy's silent fear is 'Aw shit, don't say your pregnant'...he waits..she says, "WE'RE going to have a baby!"
His first verbal response is, (with the fear that it might not be true), "Are you sure?"...."Really??..You're positive???" ..(gulp)..."Well, that's really cool".....

Akenaton: "In my view...and it is only a view, the drivers of the gay "marriage" issue are not homosexuals, who have other problems to address, but centre "liberals" with a chip non their shoulders."

THAT is correct!..However, homosexuals do not have the pair-bonding mechanisms and cycles that hetero couples raising their own children do, and they DO sense it, therefore, the 'push' to 'marry'!!!
(..and that is a rather 'inside' insecurity that they have, whether they can articulate it to themselves or not).
..and that is a FACT!

GfS

Now, does that seem like 'hate'.....or understanding?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:10 PM

As to matters of choice and children:

One of the two people I mentioned, the one who is in our writers' group, was married—to a woman—for several years. And after that time, he knew that he had made a mistake. Essentially, he "came out of the closet" to himself. The two divorce amicably—mutual agreement. He soon met the fellow he is with now and they have been happy ever since.

Granted, this was a decision. But what is at issue here is what prompted him to make the decision; his own inner yearnings, which no decision could change. He loved the woman—as a friend (and they have remained friends)—but his love for the man he joined up with was of a whole different magnitude and quality. This, he knew, was right.

As far as I know, these two do not have any desire for children.

But Barbara and I know another couple. We all go to the same church, and they were, in fact married in that church several years ago—even though, at the time, the State of Washington did not recognize same-sex marriage (which it does now, after our recent election). They wanted the public announcement, before their friends and family, that THEY consider themselves to be a married couple. They had the support of the church and its congregation, incidentally.

Since that time, they have adopted two infant boys from a Chinese orphanage. The boys have grown quite a bit since then, and the older of the two is now an acolyte in the church. They are just a couple of normal kids. They refer to their parents as "Daddy" and "Papa." And see nothing unusual in this.

Now of course there are those who will have a hissy-fit over two gay men raising two boys, with the predigested sick assumption that they only did so because they want to raise them as homosexuals, and are sexually abusing them. But there are no indications of this. The two men are NOT pedophiles, and are giving the kids a good upbringing.

And they will have a far better life than if they were left to languish in a Chinese orphanage! And, incidentally, the older of the two boys is entering adolescence and is showing a considerable interest in girls.

We also know a same-sex couple who went through a marriage ceremony at the same church who have children. Of their own! Boy, do they have children!! They hired a surrogate mother. She was artificially inseminated by one of the men, and produced a fine baby boy. Then, she was artificially inseminated by the other man and—Holy Cow!!—TRIPLETS!!

It's a real snort to see this family in church on Sundays. Two slightly harried (but happy) guys and four little crumb-crunching curtain climbers. Like herding cats!

By the way, this is NOT a "gay church." It is a main line Lutheran church. Other than the fact that it is quite liberal in its views, both politically and religiously, there is nothing unusual about it—except for the scarcity of religious and political hypocrites.

You're right, GfS, it's NOT a political problem. But it is NOT a medical/psychological issue EITHER. Sexual orientation is inate, inborn. Like eye color or skin color.

Perhaps it is akin to left-handedness. It's not a matter of choice. Most people are right-handed. But some are left-handed. And this is genetic. One also has a dominant eye and a dominant ear as well. Which ear do you automatically put the phone to? That's your dominant ear. It seems to be related to which side of the brain is dominant.

It is interesting to note in this context that early on, parents and school teachers tried to force left-handed children to use their right hands. This attempt to force a change produced psychological problems in the affected children, so later on cooler heads prevailed and no longer tried to force a change. And the incidence of psychological problems in this context disappeared.

After all, other than occasionally bumping elbows with someone at the dinner table, left-handedness isn't much of a problem.

Attempts to "cure" homosexuality have ALSO produced psychological problems. Such as a very high level of recidivism (it didn't work!), many choosing to be celibate, thereby no longer having to confront the issue of sex, a large incidence of depression—and, in a group of 202 people, six suicides.

Not a howling success!!

Most politicians have avoided this issue like the plague, because no matter which side they come down on, it's going to lose them a pile of votes they wouldn't have lost if they'd just kept their cookie-traps shut about the issue. It is gays and lesbians themselves who have brought this issue to the forefront, and it is very much like the civil rights issue of the '60s.

The matter was in the forefront of the recent campaign and election in the state in which I live, and I watched it up close. And I KNOW what is going on.

And if people don't believe what I'm saying, then THEY are the losers, because it IS the way it IS.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Jack is right. In the aforementioned church there have also been a number of marriage ceremonies between two women.

These same-sex marriages, which have taken place over the past thirty years or so, represent a small percentage of the total number of marriages in this church. It is, characteristically, a fairly young congregation, so there have been a number of people of marriageable age,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:02 PM

I am pretty sure that the "drivers of gay marriage" are gays who want to marry. Liberal is not a dirty word. In this case it means people who want others to have the same rights as themselves.

Lets turn the question around. Since you say that is the danger of gay male sex, do you have any objection to female gay marriage?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 04:43 PM

Yes Jack, I realise that, but unfortunately the stats say that homosexual unions are a rarity amongst young MSM and on average last only about 1.5 yrs.

I honestly dont believe sexually active young homosexuals want committment.....probably most young heteros dont either, but around their mid twenties they wish to start a family......the braking system which does not apply to homos....and which is so hard for our "invisible friend" Ian to comprehend.

In my view...and it is only a view, the drivers of the gay "marriage" issue are not homosexuals, who have other problems to address, but centre "liberals" with a chip non their shoulders.

Whether they like to admit it or not, "family" is an important constituent in most marriages


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:58 PM

..and do you also realize that 'marriage' may not solve that problem..whether it be homosexual or hetero??

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:45 PM

"This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex."

Are you sure about that? I feel you may be missing half the picture.

"Baldwin maintains that it is generally an incessant search for cold anonymous sex combined with the thrill of risk taking, more of an addiction than a sexual orientation."

Do you not realize that committed marriage is the antithesis to all of that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM

Don, (and I'll remain 'civil' for this one)...Ask your friends if in the course of their lives, if they had ever wanted, or thought that they(either one or the other) ever considered having their own children..but thought they couldn't because of their sexual 'orientation'.
I have asked that to a fried of mine, who was homosexual(now deceased, due to AIDS), and it DID hit a nerve. We were close enough that he could confide in me, knowing I wasn't going to ostracize him.
Tears swelled in his eyes, but he thought he couldn't.

So maybe YOU don't see it as a problem..but he certainly did!

It's NOT a political problem..it's a medical/psychological issue, that politicians have accentuated, trying to model it after the civil rights issues of the '60's.

You may not believe that...but then not many people believe you, either.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:56 PM

Musket.
Keith. I do not have to respect opinions. Full stop. Neither does anyone else.
Agreed.

I have no respect for pogroms, for fascism, for Sheffield United, for religious hatred, for celery or for intolerance masquerading as a view.
Me neither, nor for anyone who defends such things.(except celery)

You can not disagree with Ake about statistics.
They are true.
We can both disagree with him about same-sex marriage, but it is quite wrong to infer from his opinion that he is a bigot or a homophobe.
There are many good people who think it wrong who are neither.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:24 PM

Goofus, it is by listening to other outlooks that I decide whether to hear them or not, according, as you say, to my views. So yes, your first statement is correct, I decide who should be heard or not. I can't stop them speaking, but I can decide whether to listen or not, or whether having listened to treat them with sheer contempt or buy them a pint.

if you still think that encouraging Akenaton is a good idea, take, as a random sample, his last post, above. He cites a book, "Another country" as showing male to male sex as harrowing. Presumably similar to any book on rape that shows male on female sex to be harrowing too. He thinks that mentioning one person's experience of using gay sex as a thrilling risk taking experience, it has something to do with inflicting his warped view on those wishing for monogamous marriage. I still fail to see the link but as you and Keith say, he has the right to his soap box. Pity that any gay person reading it may feel crushed and dismayed that in the 21st century, people can still hate on the basis of stereotyping them, but there you go. He has the right to upset people it would seem. (He managed it with knobs on a bit earlier thinking about it. He even had to resort to a grovelling second insult.)

And if you want to keep it intelligible, you are the one who appears barking, not the good Prof.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:18 PM

". . . symptomatic 'relief' as opposed to SOLVING the problem. . . ."

GfS, same-sex orientation is not a "symptom." And it is not a "problem," except when other people—who can't mind their own business—make it so.

And all indications are that the only way same-sex orientation can be "solved," i.e., eliminated, is through genetic engineering, and that would entail a major scientific project to "solve" a problem that not everyone agrees IS a problem. And even if successful, it would not help those already living who are homosexual.

And as to homosexuality not being "normal," it exists in the animal kingdom, so although it is not a primary sort of behavior, one cannot say that it isn't natural.

I am not a practitioner thereof. I am heterosexual. I always have been, and do not recall a time when I was ever given a choice in the matter. And I have been married—to a woman of infinite resource and sagacity—for thirty-five years as of this recent December. But we have a number of gay acquaintances, including one couple—two men—who have been living together, happily and monogamously, for several years. They are often guests in our home on holidays and one of them is a member of our writers' group.

If I react strongly to prejudice and negative propaganda about people such as these, it is the same as if Barbara and I had a couple of black friends—and certain people went around denigrating them for their "blackness" and claiming that they can "cure" their "condition."

THEY don't find it a problem. Except when other people MAKE it so!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 01:34 PM

Sanity is perfectly correct, this issue is about sexual behaviour not "love".....we all love people of both sexes whom we would never imagine having sexual relations with.

This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex......and in my opinion, the straight and accurate figures that I quote on male homosexual health, have a great bearing on the issue.
Keith disagrees but remains civil....you "liberals" should read and learn.
Whilst on the subject, you would be better informed if you took the time to read James Baldwins great novel, "Another Country", which gives a harrowing depiction of male to male sex.
Baldwin maintains that it is generally an incessant search for cold anonymous sex combined with the thrill of risk taking, more of an addiction than a sexual orientation.

At the time I read the book, I thought Baldwin(a practicing homosexual)....to be a brave and insightful human being.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:44 PM

..and it is up to you, to decide who should or shouldn't be heard...according to YOUR views????..I'm afraid not.....because someone with OTHER views might want to broaden your outlook....and they may, or may not be right...but then you may never know...unless you hear them!

GfS

P.S. your 'woofing' is so immature, who would want to care what you have to say. let's keep it intelligible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:21 PM

Hi Goofus!

Woof Woof Woof Woof!

And I would like to echo those sentiments. Thanks for joining in the debate. You see, I love a good laugh and I don't think Akenaton has anything to laugh at and Keith seems too confused to make a stance of his own. At least with you, the good Prof. and I can have a chuckle, can't we boy?

Woof!



Keith. I do not have to respect opinions. Full stop. Neither does anyone else. I have no respect for pogroms, for fascism, for Sheffield United, for religious hatred, for celery or for intolerance masquerading as a view. it is lack of respect and not accommodating bigotry that allows civilisation to work towards a fairer society for all.

If I had a view that everybody who supports Sheffield United should be banned from public places till they seek help, would that view be respected? Sadly not. And quite rightly too. If someone with a pub found an old "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" sign, would we have to respect their right to display it?

Respect the respectable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:42 AM

Musket: "Make your mind up. At present, you have gone from supporting homophobia to saying homophobes have the right to be heard."

EVERYONE SHOULD have the 'right' to be heard...it is in the 'shutting up' of either side, that stifles accurate information getting out, that leads to the truth. Perhaps some of you should LISTEN, and CONSIDER what the 'opposite side' says....instead of accusing them of ANY form of hate..just because it SOUNDS repulsive.
...and THAT goes for a lot more than just the homosexual, reproductively impaired issue.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:41 AM

How can the figures support his view if, like the human race, you don't support his conclusions?

The figures are true.
MSMs are at great risk from HIV, and many times greater risk than the general population.
Ake was right about that.

I know those facts to be true but I am in favour of gay marriage.
I do not believe the danger is a reason not to allow gay marriage, he does.
A difference of opinion.
I would challenge and deate the issue with him, but I see no reason to call him names just because he has a different opinion to me.
Why do you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:29 AM

"They do not substantiate any aversion"

Do you want me or anyone else for that matter to comment on that?

If MSM lifestyle is dangerous, just like man on woman for that matter, as more STDs are through heterosexual sex, then....   See? Playing with figures is best left to the grown ups.

Ok, just for you. Either you are in agreement with me or not. You just said that you do not agree with his conclusions. Yet you say he produced figures to support his view? Are you sure Nigel hasn't offered you a safe "might not lose your deposit? You are doing a credible attempt at speaking like a politician.

Once more; How can the figures support his view if, like the human race, you don't support his conclusions? If you don't agree with his conclusions, how can his view be supported?

Make your mind up. At present, you have gone from supporting homophobia to saying homophobes have the right to be heard. I doubt you will ever say Gay people should be equal in law, that would be too much. Any opportunity to have a pop at the government and to hell with who is demonised by it. Well I've got news for you. We are part of Europe and we have courts to strike down human rights violations, and the Prime Minister knows this, hence he can propose the most stupid laws, in the knowledge the first challenge will strike them down and he won't be to blame.

We need human rights laws whilst ever dangerous idiots want to make second class citizens.

Tell you what. I have figures that prove putting copper treatments in fish tanks with crustaceans can cause them harm. Strong irrefutable facts. As a result, I would like to use that fact to prevent ginger people getting served at the bar before me. That is the level of the fool you are supporting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:25 AM

Musket: "Akenaton. What is "unconventional" about love?"

It's about sex, Einstein.

People can love each other all they want...you don't get STDs or HIV/AIDS from it, The risk is higher when in includes sex.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM

I have read all his posts.
No twisting.

if you are saying Akenaton has not used HPA figures to substantiate his aversion to gay people being married, you are blind, a fool or both.

I am saying that.
He produced the figures to support his view that MSM lifestyle is too dangerous to allow gay marriage.
I do not agree with his conclusion but the facts are facts.
They do not substantiate any aversion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM

Do something complicated if you think you are capable.

Scroll up and wherever you see a post with the blue word Akenaton at the side of it, you will find all the twisting you like.

if you are saying Akenaton has not used HPA figures to substantiate his aversion to gay people being married, you are blind, a fool or both.

There is a third option but for now, I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 09:52 AM

I did say that the data has been twisted to substantiate prejudice and bigotry

I say not.
Please give an example to prove me wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 08:33 AM

Why cite all that data Keith? I accept every last bit of it. Never said I hadn't.

I did say that the data has been twisted to substantiate prejudice and bigotry. Before trying to reason with people who, dare I say, understand data analysis, may I suggest that

a) You learn the difference between raw data and conclusions gleaned from raw data.

b) You look up the word "context" in a dictionary. It may surprise you.

c) Try to understand that accurate data can be false data when used subjectively.



Akenaton. What is "unconventional" about love? When it comes to digging your grave with your gob, you set the mark for others to follow. Well done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:12 AM

""You really are pathetic.""

In your opinion, which is worth zilch in the light of your many prejudices.

You are a sad and miserable being and seem to be determined to drag everybody else down to your level.

Enjoy your distaste for your fellow man, but I for one am not inclined to join you.

You may now return to your cave and mumble into your beard about the iniquity of a world which stubbornly refuses to reflect your bigotry.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:05 AM

Keith ~ You have already agreed with me that all this is irrelevant to the topic of the thread; so why go on boring us all into comas proving someone else has got the figures wrong if you agree they don't relate to the subject anyhow?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 04:43 AM

Tia.....On reflection,I think an apology to you is in order.

Dysfunctional was a bad choice of words and comes across as rather crass, perhaps slightly unconventional would be a better description.

I seem to make a habit of putting my foot in it when in discussion with you.   Sincere apologies....A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:16 AM

HPA - Men who have Sex with Men (MSM)www.hpa.org.uk › ... › HIV and STIs › HIV/STIs Prevention groupsCached - Similar

23 Oct 2012 – MSM remain at greatest risk of acquiring HIV infection within the UK with no evidence of declining infections in this group. STIs in MSM 2011 ...
HPA - MSM HIV Datawww.hpa.org.uk/.../HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb.../120392...Cached - Similar

23 Oct 2012 – HIV Data for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) ... MSM HIV Data. Tables and Graphs. Accessing HIV care: Men who have sex with men 2011 ...
HPA - Largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses in MSMwww.hpa.org.uk › ... › Infections A-Z › HIV › New HIV DiagnosesCached

25 Mar 2011 – Largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses in MSM ... sex between men ( MSM) (data adjusted for undetermined risk) [see Figure].
HPA - HIV and sexually transmitted infectionswww.hpa.org.uk › Home › Publications › Infectious diseasesCached - Similar

Reports about diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of HIV and STIs (syphilis, LGV, ... Men who have ex with men (MSM) are a group at increased risk of specific ...
[PDF]
Sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men in the ...www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131685989

2 Nov 2011 – This report from the Health Protection Agency summarises and .... HIV negative MSM it carries the risk of HIV transmission (as a quarter of HIV ...
[PDF]
MSM slide set: 2011 - Health Protection Agencywww.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131687416

Late diagnoses of HIV among MSM: United Kingdom,. 2001 - 2010. 0%. 10% ... A late diagnosis increased the risk of dying within a year. 10-fold compared to ...
HPA welcomes national HIV testing week as new data show quarter ...www.hpa.org.uk › ... › National Press Releases › 2012 Press ReleasesCached

29 Nov 2012 – New diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) reached ... The black African community also remained at higher HIV risk in 2011 ...
HPA - HIV/STIs Prevention groupswww.hpa.org.uk › ... › Infections A-Z › HIV and STIsCached - Similar

There are population groups at particular risk of acquiring HIV and STIs. Here we ... MSM image, courtesy shutterstock. Men who have sex with men (MSM) ...
BBC News - Highest-ever HIV diagnoses in gay menwww.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380Cached

29 Nov 2012 – Overall, one in 20 MSM are infected with HIV. Of those diagnosed in 2011, nearly two-thirds ... BBC Health: HIV and Aids. The HPA said the figures showed there was "room for improvement" in testing people in at-risk groups.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:57 AM

He quoted HPS stats.
They are there for all to see and you clearly accept HPA as a reliable source.
So what is you objection?
Show us some false data or doctored stats.

I say that you can not, and wonder why why pretend you can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:40 AM

Unfortunately for liars such as Akenaton I use HPA data as part of the work I am involved in, , working for a health regulator.

Hence I stand by my stance. If anybody wishes to debate public health statistics and the epidemiology of what that entails I would happily contribute to the relevant thread.

But sadly I won't engage with distortion or misrepresentation. Reality is bad enough without abusing real life issues in order to convince people of a view that reflects the mental state of the poster rather than the situation we face.

There is still an issue and a huge one at that with STDs and complacency is not the answer. Neither is dissuading marriage. ..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM

Musket.
Keith in the meantime seems to disagree with Akenaton and quoting STD subjective data but bizarrely supports the data as being true.
The data is good and is used by NHS.
It was from HPA.
Which are you disputing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:11 AM

MtheGM, I too agree..TIA's post was indeed interesting...and I applaud her for her question. I'm sorta waiting for her response to the video link. I hope the pests don't divert the thread away, for this could be far more constructive than someone interjecting the political angles and agendas.
When someone calls for help, I don't think they really need or could use another campaign speech.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM

..As a point of reference as to someone providing symptomatic 'relief' as opposed to SOLVING the problem from the root!

Jeez, you'd think it was obvious...except to the devious.

Don't be offended..it was a thoughtful question....you know, thoughtful?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:11 PM

Would you rather a program for the government to issue entitlement wheel chairs to polio victims...or caring people in the medical field to provide a retro active cure??

Not in any way comparable.

GoofuS, if you think you can get to me by dragging in a reference to the fact that I had polio when I was two-years-old and currently need to use a wheelchair to get around, then you are a lower form of protozoan than I thought even YOU were capable of.

I have worked my whole life, mostly as a singer of traditional folk songs and ballads and as a music teacher, but also as an engineering illustrator for the Boeing company, a radio announcer and newscaster, I clerked in a music store for a short period of time, and I worked for the Bonneville Power Administration as a technical writer. I have also written—and had published—about thirty magazine articles.

I spent six years at the University of Washington taking a whole variety of subjects, but mostly Music and English Literature. Included were courses in Philosophy, Psychology, Political Science, and Astronomy. I also spent two years at the Cornish College of the Arts, studying Music intensively.

And I PAID for it all myself.

I hauled myself all over two campuses and to and from various jobs walking on a pair of aluminum forearm crutches. I also walked out on stage on a pair of crutches, having put my guitar on stage ahead of time, sitting on a stand beside a chair.

I've been told that a few people who had heard of me were surprised to see me using crutches, because no one had considered it important enough to mention, but they thought no more about it once I started singing. After all, internationally known concert violinist Itshak Perlman also walks on stage on crutches, much as I did.

When my shoulders simply wore out some twenty-three years ago, I had to take to a wheelchair. I bought the wheelchair—and a couple of wheelchairs since then (they don't last forever)—with my own money, even though I qualify for Medicare. And Medicare does pay something for what they refer to as "durable medical equipment."

So if you're trying to imply that, because I have had polio and currently use a wheelchair to get around, I'm living off the system, then first, let it be known that I am NOT. I have always earned my own living and paid my own way.

And second—that makes you a slimier piece of offal than I even believed was possible.

And it has nothing whatever to do with this discussion, so why did you even bring it up!??

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM

Akenaton says all I am interested in is equality.

This being a thread about equality. ..

He says gay people should get their own church. Why? Religious gay people already have churches? ? same as any other church goer.

In case anyone is confused. I call myself Musket on this site but he refers to me as Ian for some reason. By a coincidence it happens to be my name.

Keith in the meantime seems to disagree with Akenaton and quoting STD subjective data but bizarrely supports the data as being true. Are they fuck. If The NHS used such figures to plan care millions would be wasted that luckily is used appropriately with encouraging redukts. Especially in the sad growth area of teenage girls.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:54 PM

I would agree M that Tia's family certainly sound "interesting" in an educational sense.
Tia's family are far removed from the template of family structure that is the norm in my part of the world.
Most people here live conventional lives.

.,,.
What most people may or may not do do is beside the point, which is that you denounced the family in question as 'dysfunctional'. You had no grounds to use this word. I made it entirely clear that it was your use of this word to which I was taking exception; a point which your supposed response to me has evaded entirely.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:29 PM

Don Firth : "Over and OUT!"

Just your lies and misstatements ......THANK GOD!

..and your last post did NOT include anything of substance(again)..just your usual spewing and frothing of attempting to discredit.....and you HAVE been called on it REPEATEDLY...perhaps some therapy for that??..THAT IS treatable!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:20 PM

Don T.
"commensurate" referred to your complete lack of interest in any other risk than that of the group you choose as a target for your bias, and not to the degree of risk in the grouoings.

It is the degree of risk that is significant Don.
The general population has a negligible risk compared to MSMs.

pretence of concern about health risks was just that, a pretence of interest in an irrelevance to cover the real bias beneath.
No pretence Don.
I believe Ake really does care.
It is also his objection to gay marriage, but not one anyone else happens to share.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:13 PM

We in the UK used to have a TV comedy called "The Two Ronnies."
"The Two Dons" would make a fine series.....similar to the "Teletubbies" I think.

You really are pathetic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:06 PM

""MtheGM, I have made the same point as you about the irrelevance of STIs and stats. to this debate.
However, when someone makes an error of fact and I can help to clarify, I do.
""

One down and one to go.

At last a measure of success, with Keith at long last admitting that the pretence of concern about health risks was just that, a pretence of interest in an irrelevance to cover the real bias beneath.

TIA, Ake is only happy when he's miserable!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:59 PM

""That is not bigoted. It is a fact that they are not "commensurate"""

You know damn well, you slippery liar, that "commensurate" referred to your complete lack of interest in any other risk than that of the group you choose as a target for your bias, and not to the degree of risk in the grouoings.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:58 PM

Goofus, you are complete divorced from reality and apparently you can't read.

A hysterical, spittle-spraying lunatic. You can't even keep your own lies straight!

Over and OUT!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:39 PM

Don the bullshitter Froth: "And as to GfS, he also makes flat statements about sexual orientation that are based more on historical superstition than recent genetic and brain research, which STRONGLY INDICATES that genetic components determine sexual orientation. Since he claims to be a family counselor who can "cure homosexuality," I can see why he objects to the idea that homosexuality is most probably genetic and cannot be "cured."

Let's look at this again....

Don: "And as to GfS, he also makes flat statements about sexual orientation that are based more on historical superstition than recent genetic and brain research,...)"

FALSE !!!

Don: "...which STRONGLY INDICATES that genetic components determine sexual orientation."

'Strongly indicates'...is not a FACT...it is an INDICATION!..shit I even posted the name of the genetic marker...something YOU could NOT do!

Don: "Since he claims to be a family counselor who can "cure homosexuality,"

FALSE, AGAIN!!...I did NOT make the claim that > 'I' < could 'cure homosexuality..however, I did say that homosexuals who would want counseling, should NOT be denied therapy...(something that 'caring' ideologues seem to want to deny them!!!!!)

Don: "I can see why he objects to the idea that homosexuality is most probably genetic and cannot be "cured."

Most probably?????????????????...Is that become a 'fact, now..because of "PROBABLY"??????????????

Frotho: "WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE SO INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHERS DO IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES WHEN IT—IN NO WAY—AFFECTS THEM?"

What they do in their own do in their privacy is their business...What they try to alter in the political system, or re-defining marriage, becomes anyone's business!

Don the bullshitter: "Well, I followed the recent Washington State campaign pretty closely, largely because Barbara and I have a couple of friends who are gay and we know several other couples—and a member of one of these couples is a state legislator. He was involved in the campaign of course, as was another legislator he knew who was also gay."

See the above note on politics....and BTW, your 'friend who is a homosexual state legislator, puts you objectivity highly in question. ....any thing else you want to say, as so far as your relationship with him?????..Remember, in science and related field OBJECTIVITY is a key component!!!

Don: "But other than these two, and a couple of fairly religious-type legislators who were opposed to the initiative, none of the local politicians wanted to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole."

Fairly religious?????....'Fairly'???...what do you do with this quote?: "New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."-Revelations 3:16

Don: "I don't see this as an issue that politicians really care to turn into a football. At least, I can't name a national politician who hasn't shied away from it."

Well why don you follow the example of you political idols..you bullshit WAY TOO MUCH!

Let me ask you a question....Would you rather a program for the government to issue entitlement wheel chairs to polio victims...or caring people in the medical field to provide a retro active cure??
....now be consistent, here.

..and stop lying!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:34 PM

"Akenaton, if nobody's said this to you before, you're a fucking ignoramus of the highest order. I hope you enjoy sleeping in the cess-pit at night."

Yes many have said that, or something like it on this forum, but they usually have the balls to use their Mudcat names.

You are a coward my imaginary friend!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:26 PM

Because, among other things, his constant citing of statistics is--as you say--irrelevant. Yet, he keeps insisting that it is, somehow, an argument against same-sex marriage when, if one thinks at all, it is an argument for.

This whole vociferous anti-same-sex marriage thing IS rooted in homophobiaa and bigotry.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 03:51 PM

Don F.
All right, Keith, where exactly did I do that?
Have you not ascribed certain posts to character defects (homophobe, bigot) in the poster?
Why?
Why not just challenge the post?

This thread was revived when the issue was raised by Cameron.
I know nothing about the situation in US.

I agree that STI stats are irrelevant.
Ake alone bases his objection on them, but his stats are good.
Why do you all keep challenging them so that it has taken over the thread?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 03:50 PM

Ian.....Dont put words in my mouth, what I AM saying is that the whole pro homosexual "marriage" argument is based on one thing..."equality", nothing else. Equality like faith cannot be quantified, in means different things to different people.

The fact that you ignore the massive inequalities inherent in this social and economic system and concentrate instead on the marriage rights of a tiny sexual minority.....who already have all the legal rights through Civil Union, would lead most people to think that your argument is agenda driven.

If homosexuals are so keen on the word marriage, why dont they start their own homosexual church..... a club where they can write their own rules?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 03:32 PM

I would agree M that Tia's family certainly sound "interesting" in an educational sense.

Tia's family are far removed from the template of family structure that is the norm in my part of the world.
Most people here live conventional lives.

I still dont see what Tia's personal family arrangements have to do with this discussion, "interesting" as they may be?

Sorry though, that you dont find my stance credible, but you cant please everyone....I shan't sleep tonight over it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 02:38 PM

Don F, yesterday I highlighted an example of Ake's own words being selectively edited and thrown back.
It was done to justify labelling him.
Why do you try so hard to do that?
How does it forward the debate?

This thread was about the UK gay marriage debate
.

All right, Keith, where exactly did I do that?

And furthermore, since when was this thread exclusively about the UK marriage debate? This debate has been going on for a number of years now in the United States, with a very long thread after the California Proposition 8 debacle, and it was an issue in the recent election, in which gay marriage was legalized in the State of Washington, where I live. It is NOT an exclusively UK issue!

Ake's ceaseless quoting of HIV/AIDs statistics is irrelevant within the context of same-sex marriage, yet he insists on cluttering up threads on this subject with endless quotations thereof. Along with his insistence that gay men don't WANT stable relationships, when THEY say otherwise, and proceed to prove what they say by the number of marriage ceremonies that take place in localities where it has recently become legalized. Ake contradicts himself and ignores facts.

To me, this smells a lot more of homophobia than it does of genuine concern for the people involved.

And as to GfS, he also makes flat statements about sexual orientation that are based more on historical superstition than recent genetic and brain research, which STRONGLY INDICATES that genetic components determine sexual orientation. Since he claims to be a family counselor who can "cure homosexuality," I can see why he objects to the idea that homosexuality is most probably genetic and cannot be "cured."
(He also claims to be a screen writer and composer of film scores, but I find no evidence of this on the Internet Movie DataBase.)

WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE SO INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHERS DO IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES WHEN IT—IN NO WAY—AFFECTS THEM?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 01:58 PM

Akenaton wrote - 'Male homosexuality appears to carry within it a propensity to very high promiscuity....due in my opinion to male sexuality without the braking system of the family structure and the nature of male homosexual practice.'

1) As a male homosexual I utterly reject your assertion that homosexuality and promiscuity are intimately entwined. There are serial shaggers of every persuasion. Why single out male gays?

2) I've no ideas what you mean by a 'braking system' or 'the nature of male homosexual practice'. What is specific about my sexual practices which makes me so vulnerable to promiscuity? You don't know me and you've probably never discussed gay relationships with anybody but your imaginary friend.

I come from a very strong, loving and cohesive family background. My parents fully support my choice of sexual identity and have a very good relationship with my partner of twenty years standing.

Akenaton, if nobody's said this to you before, you're a fucking ignoramus of the highest order. I hope you enjoy sleeping in the cess-pit at night.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 01:36 PM

Akenaton's false and misleading statistics

All from impeccable sources, but put up a false one and prove me wrong if you can.

I have always regarded the STI argument as irrelevant to this debate, only responding to false claims.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 01:15 PM

Mmm there is no god and there is no equality.

So by saying equality is difficult to achieve we shouldn't try?

A bit like saying we can't so shouldn't fight crime or get trains to run on time. Why bother having an Internet or providing power to homes. Health doesn't work cos we all die anyway.

You'll be saying next that we can't treat people as equals if they don't want the same lovers as you.

Oh   you just did.


Anybody going to defend his stance? Or can the thread either close or start looking at the issues surrounding gay marriage for once?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 12:29 PM

Ake ~~ I feel bound to say that you seem to me to have lost any sort of cred you might ever have had [if any] in re this thread and others of a like topic, in using of Tia's interestingly described and obviously interestingly and varyingly peopled family, the word 'dysfunctional'. What on earth, unless you really are beyond any sort of intellectual or moral redemption in this particular, could you possibly have meant by such an epithet?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 12:03 PM

"Equality is the reality"........"God is the light and the way"

Spot the difference :0)

There is no God and there is no equality under this system, even with a new way of life, there would be no such thing as "equality"; we are all different and would have different contributions to make.
Unfortunately within this particular system our value to society is weighed against our earning ability.
We are what we earn.    Go spout your equality speal to the unemployed young people who have been denied any fulfillment....their lives over before they have even begun...by this wonderful egalitarian system.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM

Nicely put, Michael. I understand fully Don's desire to not let things go in this thread, which would mean leaving it looking as though Mudcat is a homophobic forum. I'm of similar mind myself, but I'm flagging in the face of all the prejudice, the thinly-veiled demonisation and the downright homophobia. The most recent post of Akenaton's is the most depressing thing I've read here in a long time. What a sad bloke he must be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 10:17 AM

Dysfunctional?

Akenaton you disgusting specimen.

Oh. On other matters. Keith, don't go around applauding Akenaton's false and misleading statistics and then start spouting the obvious bit about gay marriage not being about STDs. Some of us have been stating that consistently rather than just when we are made to look idiots. Are you still supporting him after his latest contribution?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 09:41 AM

MtheGM, I have made the same point as you about the irrelevance of STIs and stats. to this debate.
However, when someone makes an error of fact and I can help to clarify, I do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 08:37 AM

akenaton,

My point was that I am sick of people denigrating my loving, cohesive, and HIGHLY accomplished family.

Yet your take-away was "dysfunctional".

You surely do fear and loathe homosexual, and I can only imagine what happened in your life to make you such a bitter hateful person. Sadly you will probably struggle through a miserable life and take it to your grave. A little honesty (even sprinkled with obscenities) would probably change what is left of your life immensely for the better.

After getting it all off my chest, I feel much better, and have nothing but deep pity for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 08:30 AM

Oh, well: I did my best. If they would rather go on bandying irrelevant statistics about STIs, the nature and accuracy of which they are never going to agree about, instead of trying to address the actual thread question and postulate what difference it would make to anybody except the principals concerned in the transaction, whether a Civil Partnership, after 9 years of legal recognition, was called a Marriage, or whether any religious component should be therein admitted, I have done.

And I hope it keeps fine for them.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 07:22 AM

It is bigotted when you show no commensurate interest in stopping the rise in Chlamidia, Gonorhea and other STIs in heterosexual males and females.
No. The rate is many, many times less among heteros.
That is not bigoted. It is a fact that they are not "commensurate"

Statistics are available for the steadily worsening situation both in transmission of those STIs and also the rise in HIV in the Heterosexual community,

Only among other high risk groups.
In the general population the increase is much slower, so the huge gap is actually widening.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:15 AM

This thread seems to me to have oddly lost its way long since. Monogamous permanent relationships for same-sex couples have been legally recognised for some years in the UK by the Civil Partnership Act of 2004. All of my several same-sex longstanding couple friends have availed themselves of it, and my late wife & I attended some pleasant parties to celebrate this. I can't see where statistics of the proclivity of persons of any particular orientation being more or less liable that others to contract certain diseases or disabilities, have any relevance to the question as to whether such relationships should now be permitted by our laws to introduce an element of religious vows into the formulation of the partnership & call it Marriage instead of Civil Partnership ~~ or even just to change the name Civil Partnership to Marriage, as with hetero couples who marry before the registrar rather than a minister of religion.

All these considerations being so vehemently debated here seem to me completely marginal to what the thread is really asking; and to be in any event way behind the fair, or locking the stable after the horse has bolted, or whatever other proverbial or idiomatic phrase for such considerings may take your fancy. There have, I repeat, been legally recognised same-sex partnerships for nearly 9 years now.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:00 AM

The health agencies say that "other initiatives need to be instigated and brought to bear on the hiv problem in MSM".......code for a degree of compulsion.....not locking away Don.

In conclusion my stance is to irradicate the scourge of hiv/aids in our respective countries, and that wont happen if we say to our children...all is well within male homosexuality....it is just another of humanity's rich tapestry of sexual behaviour.

Code in your somewhat less than reliable interpretation for a degree of compulsion.

Nowhere do they actually suggest that Gays be forced into celibacy. Perhaps they see Gay Marriage as a route to reducing promiscuity as hetero marriage does.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM

""Action needs to be taken immediately to stop the rise in all std infections especially hiv, amongs MSM.....to say that is a bigoted statement is cruel and disgusting.""

It is bigotted when you show no commensurate interest in stopping the rise in Chlamidia, Gonorhea and other STIs in heterosexual males and females.

Statistics are available for the steadily worsening situation both in transmission of those STIs and also the rise in HIV in the Heterosexual community, but you're not interested in that.

The HPA has been carrying out research into dealing with HIV/AIDS, and they have stated unequivocally that it has been reduced to the status of a chronic manageable condition with a near normal life expectancy.

That seems to be well on the road to what you originally stated as your aim, that HIV be taken seriously and action taken to reduce the effects.

Or was that original expression of concern for the health of the Gay community just a cover for your real agenda?

Tell us Ake, given that research has very considerably reduced the effects, precisely what action you are advocating.

Do you want them all locked up, or would castration suit you better?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 13 - 03:29 AM

Don F, yesterday I highlighted an example of Ake's own words being selectively edited and thrown back.
It was done to justify labelling him.
Why do you try so hard to do that?
How does it forward the debate?

This thread was about the UK gay marriage debate.
My position was in favour, but that the deeply held convictions of opponents should be respected and given a fair hearing.
It emerged that the proponents here do not even know what the objections are, which really makes my point.

The causes of being gay are no part of the debate outside this thread.
I think that GFS is wrong, and that the accumulating evidence will eventually make his position untenable, but it is not yet proven.
Why does it make you angry?

STIs are not part of the debate outside this thread.
Ake's statements about it are factual, and the proof is in the stats.
If he were a homophobe he would be happy to see them die.
Instead he calls for interventions to save them; frequent testing and discouraging unsafe practises.
If my son was MSM, I would put exactly those pressures on him, not from homophobia but from love.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 08:17 PM

Standard comeback is that Ake, GfS, et al are being misrepresented when their own words are thrown back at them.

Same old same old.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 07:46 PM

Keith, I am beginning to think that they are quite mad.

Dons posts misrepresent everything we try to say, Ian spouts words like equality and discrimination in the manner of an old time evangelical preacher.....no attemped at objectivity

""Equality is the reality"".....laughable and at the same time so pathetic, the "right on" left wing liberal on the right wing fundamentalist pulpit!.....I am rather relieved that he seems to hate me so much.

I am sorry Tia about your disfunctional family, but emotive as your post may be, do you really think that it adds anything objective to the discussion?
Additionally, you may have found that it would have carried more impetus without the obscenities.

As always Little Hawk has things pretty well summed up....the whole issue is of course ramped up by politicians who know the power of the media, a fact which I am sorry to say Mr Farage may find,to his personal cost.

I do not hate homosexuals. I do not fear anyone...man beast or Deity!
Get that into your thick heads.

I work for homosexual customers, if I wished to discriminate I would do so through the withdrawal of my services.....which are in great demand in this area.

Male homosexuality appears to carry within it a propensity to very high promiscuity....due in my opinion to male sexuality without the braking system of the family structure and the nature of male homsexual practice. The word "marriage" does not cause men to become less promiscuous.
It is obviously stupid to bring forward legislation to promote sexual behaviour of MSM as safe and healthy, when within the demographic there lie such severe health problems.

Action needs to be taken immediately to stop the rise in all std infections especially hiv, amongs MSM.....to say that is a bigoted statement is cruel and disgusting.

It means that our "liberal" friends care more about their precious agenda, than the quality of life of mostly young male homosexuals.
Millions have been poured into "education" to no avail, according to CDC, homosexuals now account for the majority of the aids budget, but still they are unable or unwilling to regulate their behaviour.

The health agencies say that "other initiatives need to be instigated and brought to bear on the hiv problem in MSM".......code for a degree of compulsion.....not locking away Don.

In conclusion my stance is to irradicate the scourge of hiv/aids in our respective countries, and that wont happen if we say to our children...all is well within male homosexuality....it is just another of humanity's rich tapestry of sexual behaviour.

I also try to illustrate the hypocrisy of the political system and how it can make grown, reasonably intelligent, men and women, behave like 4th grade schoolchildren.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:41 PM

Heteros do it too. Quite a lot of them!
I am sure none of us knew that.
Thank you Don T.

If you march in lockstep with a bigot and support all his bigotted utterances, what does that make you?

I stated that I disagree with his views on gay marriage.
I support no bigoted utterances, but the statistics he produced were all from impeccable. reliable sources.

If you ignore the contrary opinions of organisations like the HPA (whose publications you and Ake cherry pick like a couple of autumn squirrels).
That is a simple lie Don.
The stats are unequivocal.
You say that STIs are rampant in heteros.
That is not a very scientific statement.
They are present in the hetero population but tens of times more prevalent among MSMs.
It is not fair or just, but that is how it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:32 PM

"Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome. The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality."

Obviously the conclusion that "there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality." Is based, not on fact, but on the predisposition of the researchers (who are in all probability gay) to defend homosexual behaviour. A more reasonable conclusion would be that the practice of homosexual behaviour eventually changes the makeup of the chromosones. In the case of the remaining 7 sets of brothers, they had, in all probability, not yet engaged in enough homosexual behaviour to cause the observable changes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM

""here are statistics on anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex but if you are linking that to gay marriage you have a particularly sick mind.""

And not just sick! Stupid as well if you haven't noticed that anal sex is not the sole property of the homosexual community.

Heteros do it too. Quite a lot of them!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:55 PM

""You have no idea what objections people have, but instead of finding out just assume mindless homophobia.""

If you march in lockstep with a bigot and support all his bigotted utterances, what does that make you?

Simple question, but I expect either no answer or a slippery evasion, and in that department you never disappoint.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:50 PM

""Akeneaton's statements about MSMs and STIs have been honest and accurate, and foolish to challenge.""

If you ignore the contrary opinions of organisations like the HPA (whose publications you and Ake cherry pick like a couple of autumn squirrels).

STIs are rampant in the hetero population, but you have no problem with their marrying, or for that matter with their promiscuity.

You reserve all your horror antipathy and bile for Homosexuals.

I'd have rather more respect if you just came out and said "I can't stand the perverted so and sos". At least that would show the courage of your bigotted convictions.

Don T.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:42 PM

""Or are you stating that no legislation has ever been stupid?""

Nothing of te sort Keith. I'm stating that Ake's opinion doesn't make it stupid, when you put it alongside of his oft stated antipathy toward certain minorities.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM

Ake's argument is that he is against gay marriage because gays don't really want to get married (not according to them) and that they're responsible for an epidemic of HIV/AIDs which (somehow!) will get worse if gay marriage is allowed.

GfS's argument is that sexual orientation is purely a matter of choice and to arbitrarily CHOOSE to be gay is "sexual perversion." And HE CLAIMS he can cure them through counseling and therapy (attempts along this line have proven to be an abysmal failure, sometimes leading to depression and suicide) .

Both of their arguments are far from the mark—and when presented with counterarguments, they, especially GfS, get insulting and abusive, amply demonstrating that they are fully aware that they're on very shaky ground.

Their arguments against gay marriage have EVERYTHING to do with homophobia.

And there are a number of pretty pathological reasons for THAT!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 04:53 PM

Musket, the debate about gay marriage has nothing to do with STIs or statistics or homophobia.
How can you pontificate about it without having any idea what the debate is even about?
Educate yourself and then come back.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 02:36 PM

Goofus, you're an idiot!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 01:56 PM

Go on then Keith.

Spell out an alternative to equality. If you can I shall be happy to discuss it. But watch out, it may be something that promotes inequality.

In which case I might just dismiss it as disgusting bigotry.

It isn't rocket science. Opposing marriage based on the choice of gender of partner is bigotry.

You haven't collected a single statistic so stop lying. There are no medical statistics on gay marriage. None. Zilzt.

There are statistics on anal sex being higher risk than vaginal sex but if you are linking that to gay marriage you have a particularly sick mind. Why the fascination with gay sex Keith? Plenty available on other web sites without you polluting Mudcat with your fixation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 11:52 AM

S0o Don gets a wet dream, because he chases down the 'gene' number I posted..and makes a big deal over it. The gene you posted has the 5 markers(even though you were not as specific as I was...but what you posted, is common knowledge amongst those who know that stuff..so stop pretending you 'knew it all along'..or you would have posted it when I asked for the gene number. If you would have read much about what you are spouting, you would have also read that this gene has 5 markers, or an 'indication'..and is NOT the particular gene that determines anything. Yuo seem to take a little bit of info and blow it out of proportion and sensationalize it, as if to the less informed, it looks like you know jack shit about whatever bandwagon you jump on...speaking of bandwagons, stick to music..there you DO know something, but this stuff is really NOT your cup of tea, in the land of expertise..and you do more damage than you do giving help.
Fair enough?

TIA, Hello...I have to admire your 'full disclosure' post.
You and I have indeed butted heads in the past, however, my hats off to you, and I have to respect you in this matter for your honesty.
Unlike others, it is a pain in the ass to find solutions, for a lie.
I will try to shed light on the subject for you, the best I can.

First of all, you have (hopefully) read my posts on the 'receptor issue'...I don't know what you know about that, so I'll start with acquainting you with 'receptors'. This is a video that I thought was a great explanation for the 'lay person', who may not be familiar with them. It lays some of the understanding, as to why some people feel as if they 'were born that way'...and have mistakenly credited the 'genes issue' as the sole reason.
I really hope this may begin to help you to understand and/or cope, with questions you may have. It does not specifically address the homosexual issue, but DOES adequately get you acquainted with receptors and the roll they play.
I'm not sure of which segment..you'll have to watch them all, but the segment on receptors is well done, and you may find it fascinating, and enlightening....and you may begin to see the groundwork...that too many people overlook.
Regards...and happy viewing!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM

I `ad that Sandy in my cab the other day. I picked `im up at `is little cottage in Chelsea.
`e said, "`Allo Jim, you alright then?"
I said, "Yeah Sandy, apart from a slight toothache. What can we do for you?"
`e said, "Oh Bless! Would you take me up to Shepherds Market, we`re `aving a conference to decide the `omosexual marriage question."
I said, "Blimey ,I dunno what for, I thought it `ad already been settled."
`e said, "What do yo mean?"
I said, "Surely the question is, DO YOU TAKE THIS MAN TO BE YOUR LAWFUL WEDDED `USBAND/WIFE,(Delete where required)!!"

Whaddam I Like??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 09:47 AM

The data is from impeccable sources and not open to interpretation.
I studied it myself during a discussion here two years ago.
You can produce nothing to discredit it because it is accepted fact.

You and I agree that we have no objection to gay marriage, but I am not so arrogant as to believe there is no alternative view except for homophobes.
You clearly have not bothered to even ask what are the objections to it.
(Ake is not at all representative of those who object. He is on his own.)
You have no idea what objections people have, but instead of finding out just assume mindless homophobia.

That is arrogant, ignorant prejudice Musket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 09:33 AM

The issue is that there is a thread called gay marriage question. The only answer to a gay marriage question is "I do." There is no other answer.

So, we are left with homophobia Keith, pure and simple. You state Akenaton's data to be honest and accurate. You then say it would be foolish to challenge it. By saying what you did just there, you are either being foolish or perpetuating an awful disgusting set of lies.

Akenaton has just about enough intelligence to twist statistics, mix data from different countries, never mind different demographics (!) and draw conclusions to support his hatred of anybody who doesn't have a hernia or has more money than him. For some reason, he seems to focus this on gay people, and then only male ones. He says it promotes a dangerous lifestyle. Considering that marriage promotes monogamy, you still seem enough of an idiot to repeat his diatribe.

I don't take you seriously, so stop asking for the issues to be debated when your agenda seems to be as disreputable as his, and at least he admitted he hates gays. You wish to wrap it up in false data, mainly supporting his data. You want some data? Here you go! 1 + 1 = 5.7634.

Judging by your track record, you won't see the slight error.

Oh and Goofus. Just fuck off, there's a good chap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 07:09 AM

Akeneaton's statements about MSMs and STIs have been honest and accurate, and foolish to challenge.

I do not "keep harping on about this."
Don T raised it again and I just responded.

Ake is of the opinion that allowing same-sex marriage might encourage more into a very dangerous lifestyle.

I do not agree, but I can not prove it to be wrong.
It is a valid opinion, though open to challenge.
It is no reason to make accusations of homophobia or bigotry.
Why is the application of labels to your opponents so important to you?
Just debate the issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 06:43 AM

Of course heteros get STIs but the risk of infection among MSMs is many times higher.

And your solution for this is...?


Or is the fact you keep harping on about this more about your desire to demonise homosexuals?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 02:14 AM

Don T
Stupid in his opinion Keith, which makes it worthless as a statement of fact.
Clearly not intended as a statement of fact, but as no legislation specified you might be in agreement yourself.
Or are you stating that no legislation has ever been stupid?

Of course heteros get STIs but the risk of infection among MSMs is many times higher.
You have been given the reliable data showing that FACT Don.
Why do you keep taking us backwards?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM

Thanks for that, Tia.

That sums it up. Anything else on this subject is just meaningless noise.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 12:37 AM

Oh Fuck it.

Full disclosure.

Here is what you are up against:

My grandfather was gay (and a holy roller preacher with a hetero marriage but my grandmother knew everything).

My uncle (his son) is gay and in a long-term (37 year) monogamous relationship (now marriage).

My sister is lesbian and in a longterm (15 year) monogamous relationship.

I am totally hetero, and have never "promoted" any orientation, but...

Two out of my three daughters are lesbian and are either in monogamous relationships or not sexually active.

My niece is a non-sexually-active lesbian and flipping brilliant.

There has been no "indoctrination" in my family. The rest of us (a HUGE) family are hetero.

So fuck you to hell all of those who who say this is a "choice" or a "behavior" and compare my family to child molesters or sluts.

My daughters are more intelligent and more accomplished than you (or I) will ever be. But I will not trot out the degrees and international awards to prove it...you can just talk out your asses and make me laugh to refute this...everyone reading this knows at least one of my daughters' names and musical or scientific accomplishments - no shit, you really do. But you don't get to hear it from me. I am just sick of the bullshit.

In 13 years of reading and discussing in this pit, I know who gets it and who is an asshole.

And I get to live with my "deviant", "unhealthy", "mind-blocked", and oh horrors "liberal" family. Alas, poor me.

You bitter, ignorant, self-righteous homophobes can come at me all you want. I *know* who is happy and who is secretly scared and miserable.

But I (as Jesus would...though I cannot claim to be a Christian) love even you, and encourage you to eschew all denial and fear and loathing, and just be true...to others and yourself.

Peace and Good Night.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM

LH:

"As for Gays who are pressing for their own civil rights...fine...I sympathize with them and I have no problem about that whatsoever."

So is there any logical reason to belittle those who support them?

Because (sorry) you did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 11:03 PM

Well, I followed the recent Washington State campaign pretty closely, largely because Barbara and I have a couple of friends who are gay and we know several other couples—and a member of one of these couples is a state legislator. He was involved in the campaign of course, as was another legislator he knew who was also gay. But other than these two, and a couple of fairly religious-type legislators who were opposed to the initiative, none of the local politicians wanted to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole.

I don't see this as an issue that politicians really care to turn into a football. At least, I can't name a national politician who hasn't shied away from it.

(Speaking of what a chicken thinks.)

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 10:07 PM

For sure. It's nobody's business except the partners directly involved. We never had any disagreement there in the first place, Don, so no need for the exclamation points. I didn't need any convincing about that.

I think some politicians are having an absolute field day with it, though. They salivate over the possibility of all the shit they can raise about it. They use it to get people righteously enraged at their political opponents and to apparently hold what their supporters think is the "moral high ground" and cast guilt upon all who don't take their particular side in the matter. This has worked well for both the Right and the Left, and they're not about to stop stirring the pot, because politics thrives on controversy and division.

Others, of course, are afraid to touch it. It depends on how risky they think it is in their particular case...and that may depend on what region they live in and who their most loyal supporters are.

As for Gays who are pressing for their own civil rights...fine...I sympathize with them and I have no problem about that whatsoever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 09:34 PM

A point, Little Hawk. It's not the politicians who are pushing for gay marriage (most of them are terrified of taking a stand, particularly in favor because of their religious constituents), it's gay people themselves who are damned sick and tired of being discriminated against for something they can't help.

Not very different from being discriminated against because of the color of your skin or the shape of your eyes.

Because it has to do with sex, about which most humans have all kinds of hang-ups, fed to them mostly by religious fundamentalists and those who can't keep their noses out of other people's--businesses--for various reasons, these people are having wall-eyed fits at the idea, and resist the concept that it's a civil rights issue the same as racism.

Where it HAS been legalized or is generally accepted, there is no sign of societal breakdown or that the world is coming to an end.

It's an issue not too far removed from, say, interracial marriage. In some places, that STILL has a big "yuk" factor for some folks.

As long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights, who the hell's business is it anyway!??

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:58 PM

""He has said nothing against the gay community, merely pointing out the huge risks that MSMs run from infection.
He actually cares about them.
If STIs did not exist he would have no objection to same-sex marriage or anything else.
""

Watch out Keith.

Your sycophancy is preventing you from using your brain to any real effect.

The vast majority of STIs are found in the Hetero population, and if Ake's concern for health risks is genuine, he is strangely reticent about the health risks to that community.

No mate, Ake doesn't give a rat's arse about the health of Gay men. He'd like to see them locked away as they used to be.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:53 PM

Having avoided taking the plunge of conventional heterosexual marriage thus far (and I'm 64 years old)....I haven't really gotten around to considering much the pros and cons of gay marriage. And I doubt that I will. I have no reason to.

As to whom one is attracted to, that's something each person figures out by themselves, going by their own instincts, and I place no judgement upon it. Not my business who you're attracted to. I doubt that it can all be explained through genes...maybe some of it can, but very likely not all of it.

It's probably partly genetic, partly cultural, partly familial, partly pschological, and so on, and so on...a VERY long and complex story! In past societies where homosexuality was deemed quite acceptable, there was a lot of it happening, and people took it for granted. It was very common, for instance, among the men in classical Greece, where men would often have both male and female lovers (or wives, in the latter case), and they were quite open about it.

It's a political football right now, which is why it's getting so much bla-bla all the time in the media. Politicians are using it to push their various agendas. It helps them keep the pot of controversy and self-righteous posturing (from either the pro or anti-gay perspective) boiling, and that's very useful when you are practicing the old "divide and conquer" game that politicians are so enamoured of.

I do sympathize with Gays who are facing discrimination. Certainly! But I feel that the politicians and media are (mostly) just cynically using the issue to push their own careers forward, and not to liberate people. It gives them a soapbox from which to holler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:47 PM

""I do not discriminate against Blacks, Women or Homosexuals, but I do stand against obviously stupid legislation."

It was clear from his previous statement that he was referring to criminal behaviour being rightly discriminated against.
""

Stupid in his opinion Keith, which makes it worthless as a statement of fact.

You really need to try to understand that Ake describing legislation as stupid says more about his agenda than about the legislation.

The above statement lines up very neatly with a plethora of similar statements along the lines of "I am not a .......... (choose among racist, misogynist, homophobe etc. etc.), but..........!"

Most such statements serve merely to emphasise that the speaker is precisely what he is claiming not to be.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:05 PM

Goofus, like I've been saying all along:
Evidence for homosexuality gene

Description/Abstract

A genetic analysis of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers has uncovered a region on the X chromosome that appears to contain a gene or genes for homosexuality. When analyzing the pedigrees of homosexual males, the researchers found evidence that the trait has a higher likelihood of being passed through maternal genes. This led them to search the X chromosome for genes predisposing to homosexuality. The researchers examined the X chromosomes of pairs of homosexual brothers for regions of DNA that most or all had in common. Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome. The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality. The chief researcher warns, however, that this one site cannot explain all instances of homosexuality, since there were some cases where the trait seemed to be passed paternally. And even among those brothers where there was no evidence that the trait was passed paternally, seven sets of brothers did not share the Xq28 markers. It seems likely that homosexuality arises from a variety of causes.

Author: Pool, R.
Publication Date:
1993 Jul 16

OSTI Identifier:
5957271
Resource Type: Journal Article

Journal Name: Science (Washington, D.C.); (United States); Journal Volume: 261:5119
Journal ID: ISSN 0036-8075; CODEN: SCIEAS

Subject:

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; BEHAVIOR; GENES; HUMAN X CHROMOSOME; GENETIC MAPPING; MALES; SEX; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CHROMOSOMES; HETEROCHROMOSOMES; HUMAN CHROMOSOMES; MAPPING; X CHROMOSOME

Date: 2009 Dec 17
Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:59 PM

GfS... that link quotes an opinion of a contributor to the "Catholic Medical Association" (in 2003) It ends with suggestions about 'what good Catholics can do'

You got any corroborating stuff (with or without lots of red underlining) from recent, unbiased sources?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:23 PM

TIA, Gladly.....but at this moment, time does not permit..because some musicians showed up...but I SHALL.
..and like I said, prior, I did not fully agree with the source..as you also noted.

Will be back.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM

Ah, so you are in fact willing to accept the burden of proof for your own position. That is a start. Thanks.

But it is an opinion piece - an interview of an openly anti-gay (and not surprisingly devout Catholic) pyschiatrist.

No *proof* at all.

Get me something from the peer-reviewed literature, and I promise that I will read it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM

I'm neither hysterical or anything like your over active imagination may wish...shit..I'm even doing your homework FOR you...you expert, you!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:06 PM

...even though I have disagreements with the source...there is some factual evidence.

Oh, and the closest, for all those who can't come up with it, or didn't know, and just spouted nonsense, the closest thing they have to a
'genetic link' is 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28.

Oh, I know...you 'knew' it all along...but they are ONLY indicators...NOT the determining 'gene'....unless, of course, you wanna' stretch the truth...which I'm sure some of the more outstanding, outspoken ASS-umers, may wish to do...and probably will...

...but it ain't the 'gene'.

That issue will lie in the subject of 'receptors'...formed during the gestation period.

(That is for all those who make the claim that they were that way since birth).

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:05 PM

Try not to be a TOTAL ass, GoofuS (Oh, sorry! I really shouldn't be asking you to do the impossible!)

No, I do not know the "queer gene's" mailing address, apartment number, and zip code, but geneticists agree that there is more than enough evidence extant to indicate that homosexuality is genetically determined, probably by a combination of genes, and they are currently seeking further data.

Don't bitch at me, take your whining to them!!

AND why are you getting hysterical!??

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:02 PM

Here's a number: go find 100 gay people and ask them whether any of them had a choice about who to get turned on by. Here's another number: go find 100 straight people and ask them whether they had any choice about who to get turned on by. Here's another number: You will find 100% agreement. You should consider using common sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:57 PM

Here, TIA....this is just for starters: Here, (just for starters)TIA, read up on it...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:18 PM

Just not getting the subtlety are we?

What is your "proof" that it is behavioral?

I do not accept the burden of proof. I say it is yours.

Don't like it? Tough.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:17 PM

bobad, and your source was????
Give me a name of a researcher..a lab, a date....ANYTHING, that goes beyond 'suggests', 'seems to indicate' 'may suggest'..give me a FACT!

..and yet there are some ridiculous Bozos who INSIST that it is a fact(some of them right here on Mudcat!)

..and no matter how much they INSIST...they have NOTHING to back up their claim.

Go figure!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM

Yeah..and one in a thousand (true number) can roll it backwards!...but I'm sure with all these 'experts' on here who specialize on 'homosexual genes', would have THAT number..you'd think it would be dear to their hearts.
Fact is..it doesn't exist!


Oh??..you say it does??..Post it!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:01 PM

The cause of many conditions was identified as being of genetic origin before the technology to identify the specific gene responsible was available.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 04:38 PM

GFS, I know for an absolute fact that the ability to roll one's tongue is a genetic trait, but I could not give you a catalogue number.
Further, like most genetic traits, it is not under the control of a single gene but a complex interaction of several.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 04:21 PM

Number, please??
Don??
TIA??
Don T??
Musket??
Saul??
Steve??

Without it your rap falls completely down!

So just come up with a number for the 'gene'..if you can't Google it up, you can always rely on your delusional imaginations.

Number???????

GfS

P.S. Maybe a 'new'