Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

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


BS: 'Gay marriage' question

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









Subject: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM

I'd have thought one way and another this topic has been talked to death - but a letter in today's Independent newspaper (London) raises a point I haven't seen discussed anywhere before:

"A marriage comes into existence when it is consummated. How do you propose to define consummation for same-sex "marriages"? If it can't be done then failure to consummate as a ground for annulment must be removed. If that happens marriage will not be redefined and extended – it will be abolished. (S P Rouse,Ashtead, Surrey)

The point at issue being, what counts as "consummation" in the case of gay relationships, male and female? And what doesn't? And have the legislators in various places where marriage has been redefined reached a common definition?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM

That was Bill Clinton's defense. Kind of.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:06 PM

Its like that judge said about pornography. You will know it when you see it.

As for myself, I'd rather have them just sign a certificate or something saying that they have consummated rather than have them describe what they did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:10 PM

Nah... if one partner makes another come, it's all good.

Maybe not a good joke but a stab.

In actuality, "consummation" occurs when they sign the papers. When you sign the contract you are truly fucked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:17 PM

"A marriage comes into existence when it is consummated. "

Not in British law. Nor is it putting on the ring, or saying I Do, or kissing the bride, or cutting the cake. Signing the register by both parties commences a legal marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM

I'll start the popcorn........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:22 PM

Wesley... hahahahahaha!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:23 PM

Not strictly true GUEST - signing the register commences a potentially legal marriage - if it doesn't get consummated, it is subject to annulment, which means the court has determined that there never was a marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:28 PM

Wesley, I'll take one.
Popcorn, I mean.

The consummation inspector for marriages presumably would check all of them, not just the heterosexual couples.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:32 PM

"... if it doesn't get consummated, it is subject to annulment.."

Presumably this becomes relevant upon a 'complaint' by one party.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:34 PM

You guys are back in the tarpit confusing civil rights with religious significances. WHen I perform a wedding, and send in the legal forms to the County office and it gets registered, that is the civil marriage, signed and sealed. Legal marriage in the eyes of the civic community under civil law.

Consummation or any other form of voodoo such as blood on the sheets or the arrival of holy spirits or the crowing of a cock is all foderol belonging to the various religious organizations who thought it would be a good idea to grab people by the shorts so as to control their lives--a very successful tactic, but not honorable, ethical, or necessary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:37 PM

This is gross. Will our troops be consumating in foxholes on the
battlefield?
(:-( D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:40 PM

I would say the marriage is "consummated" when a minister or judge utters the words, "By the authority vested in me by (whatever legal office), I now pronounce you man and wife." Or "husband and wife."

But under the circumstances of a same-sex marriage, in one church I am acquainted with, when marrying a same-sex couple, the minister said, "I now pronounce you duly married."

This church has married four same-sex couples, three male, one female (and whether the state recognizes it or not, in the eyes of this particular church, they are married), and as much as fifteen years later, all four couples are still together.

Something took.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket (for 'twas he)
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:43 PM

You are confusing a marriage which is null and void ab initio (e.g. because the parties may not legally marry*) with one which is voidable, e.g. as a result of a complaint that one party is unable or unwilling to consummate the marriage. In this second case the marriage has legal force until nullified by a court. It is to be doubted that such complaints will arise (I nearly left that 'i' out) significantly more often in the case of same- sex marriages than they have done hithertofore.

* where one party is underage, in cases of bigamy, where a person has misrepresented themself as the opposite sex, or between United and City supporters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:51 PM

"between United and City supporters."

For 'mericans, he means M&M...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:54 PM

I think you miss the point Amos - there is nothing religious about a determination by a court that a marriage did not exist on the basis of a failure to consummate. More likely to be a matter about disputes regarding property.

From a legal point of view it would be analogous to any other contract where it is allegedthat the conditions have not been observed, for example the cheque bounced.

In the case of a heterosexual couple the legal situation is that some kinds of sexual activity count in this context, and others do not. It's not at all clear what the analogous situation is in the case of gay couples.

I can envisage that court cases will arise which will centre on disagreements between partners about this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 05:58 PM

A situation in which UK and US laws differ, I think. The law almost certainly varies between states, but failure to consummate isn't grounds for annulment in the 3 different jurisdictions I looked at. Impotency is, however.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM

Sprocket... hahahahahaa!

Um... I dunno if anyone that has posted so far really gets it? Am I remiss in this assumption? Perhaps it's best for me to ask a simple question. I was just making jokes but it seems to me that some people here don't even understand the true meaning of consummation, soooo...

What is "consummation"? And, don't look it up in the dictionary... the dictionary is wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM

Annulment on the grounds of failure to consummate a marriage is based on the idea that sex is an implicit part of the marriage contract. If either party refuses to put out, an annulment may be sought by the aggrieved party without having to go through divorce proceedings. But an annulment must be sought by one of the people in the marriage. It can't be foisted upon a couple by some third party. If a couple is happy living chastely, or if they just prefer mutual masturbation and oral sex to coitus, it's nobody's business but their own.

Also, if the nonconsummation argument relative to gay marriage is based on the idea that sex between two people of the same sex cannot create children, then any heterosexual marriage in which either party uses birth control 100% of the time could be said to be unconsummated. If that's the case, then my current marriage was unconsummated for well over ten years, until my wife reached menopause and threw her diaphragm away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM

BWL... yer ALMOST there. Soooo close. I think you just explained it at about 99.99%.

Sorry... I don't mean to sound condscending even tho I do. I really wanna know if many posters actually get the concept of non-consummation and how it applies to annulment over time. Maybe there is another question... how long can annulment be sought? Is frigidity acceptable grounds for divorce under law (British Law)? How far can a spouse take that in proceedings? How do these two ineract in... maybe this is tooo much? After all, the OP asked about same sex marriages so discussing something that has little to do with sex other than procreation may be too much thread drift???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:41 PM

Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means LOL

not tonight dear, I gotta headache :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:53 PM

We have kinda been here before with civil partnerships.

In Scotland, a civil partnership is MORE binding than a marriage. Adultery is grounds for divorce but it is NOT grounds for dissolving a civil partnership. Too late to look this up now, but I suspect absence of solatium (Scots-law concept resembling "consummation") doesn't feature as a ground for breakup of a civil partnership either.

We don't have gay marriage here yet. It seems odd that it would imply *looser* standards than the arrangements gays can make at present, but if that's the way the family moralists want it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:27 PM

"Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means.."

nonsense... ;>)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:58 PM

"Consummation" in this context refers to having sex. Gay people definitely have sex. If they have sex after they get married, they have consummated the marriage. This all assumes that the whole idea of consummation and annulment are in any way important. I've never actually known anyone for whom it was, though. If your spouse won't screw you, and that's the basis for your marriage, you can always just get a divorce.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 11:20 PM

"not tonight dear, I gotta headache :-)"

If Women are supposed to be able to do two things at once,
how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM

Good point Frank I gotta ask next time :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 11:47 PM

Encoded in law or not the consummation issue is an absurd parody of sensible legal structures. Marriage and divorce are voluntary subscriptions by free individuals. Their sexuality, their religious convictions, their skins, ethnicities, or tax status have no bloody thing to do with it. These are arbitraries injected into the pattern, and the fate of all arbitraries is to give birth to more and more complexity. Get back to the simplicities. All the rest is persiflage and furbelows and absurdity. Two people wish to commit to being married; the state records and recognizes same. Two married people feel they cannot maintain the state of being married. The state records and acknowledges same. How complex do you have tio make it before your vast appetite for endless, ridiculous complications is satiated?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:56 AM

Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means LOL

I think I know what you are talking about. Rodney Dangerfield?   Hennie Youngman? But we'll be married 10 years Oct 10 and I don't know it from experience.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:57 AM

well Amos for a bunch of movie stars the engagement ring has to be more that 7 ct and the wedding has to cost more than 3 million


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:33 AM

Gay people engage in sexual activity, but they DON'T have sex. There is a difference.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:41 AM

Henry, would you care to enlighten us--IN GREAT DETAIL--as to what the difference is?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 03:30 AM

In the half dozen states where I've spent sufficient time to be curious about the marriage statutes, the civil marriage - the thing for which you get a license - does not mention any requirement that the couple have sex, or place any limitation on what kind(s) of sex they may have.

I haven't done any particularly detailed search/study, but it appears that "annulments" are seldom granted in civil courts, and only if it is found that there was legal impediment to the marriage, which rendered it null and void from the outset.

While an inability to perform expected acts, sexual or otherwise, that one party concealed or lied about prior to the marriage might be cited as an evidence to be considered by the court/judge any decision that simple "inability or failure to f*ck" was a sufficient cause to declare the marriage void would have to be based on the judge's belief that it was "an egregious violation of common (common law?) expectations" extensive enough to violate the agreement. In most cases I would expect that a decision would rely more on the presumption that the ability or proclivity was concealed from the other party before the marriage, and "he/she knew I wouldn't" would probably be an adequate defense.

The most common reason for a civil annulment probably is one of the parties being under the legal age to marry (and lacking parental consent) at the time of the marriage. A second reason that appears fairly often would be evidence that one of the parties was coerced or not mentally competent at the time of the marriage (but if one of you goes berserk later - even on the honeymoon - a divorce would likely be required).

I have known at least a half dozen heterosexually married couples who have said their marriage was based on agreement before the ceremony that there would be no sex of any kind between them during the marriage. Their reasons were apparently rather varied - and not my concern. Those marriages were perfectly valid, under the laws of all states for which I have any specific knowledge. At least one of these couples did divorce (not annul) the marriage while I knew them.

I have known at least an equal number who obtained a civil divorce that their religion did not recognize. All parties to those marriages, except one, did not remarry so far as I knew, citing the strictures of their religion; but a primary reason for the civil divorce in all cases was that the civil court can order and enforce support for the dependant party while the churches have no legal standing to do so.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:12 AM

As part of my "interfering in health and social care" role these days, I was at a nursing home the other day. I was delighted to speak with a couple who had met when he was admitted last year and sat at the same table as her. They married last month.

Does anybody wish to ask, as she is in her '90s and he in his late '80s, if they are married or not? My own mother married again in late old age and he was her husband. Don't try telling me anything else.

I can't help wonder if this archaic word "consummated" is linked to the Catholic inspired bit about "procreation."   In which case, as I already had two grown up sons when I married the other year, I'm not married either as neither of us want children. After all, I'm to be a Granddad soon.

So we are left with a distinction with which to exhibit bigotry, and especially in the direction of gay people.

It isn't that gay people deserve an equal stake in marriage. It is that they are an equal stakeholder in society so why the fuss? The law must reflect society or it is irrelevant in a democracy.

I look forward to the Tory conference so the TV screens can show the fringe meeting that has been set up by the "pro marriage" brigade. Let us see what a bigot looks like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:14 AM

Sex is between a male and female and can result in reproduction. It involves the penis and vagina. Sexual activity can be with anyone and anything. People,animals, fruits and vegetables, inanimate objects, etc. I have sex,Don. You merely engage in sexual activity, Don. It's the difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk.
No brag, just fact.
(:-( D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:20 AM

"Sex" is not what you meant there, Henry. What you are clearly referring to is "sexual intercourse". The word 'sex', tout simple, has many other connotations. You merely confuse, and do not advance, your argument by such disingenuous semantic confusion.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM

Sex is sexual intercourse.
Anything else is just monkey junk.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM

"Sex" is also a distinction of physical gender; and a verb meaning "to determine the gender of"; and a collective term for the members of one or other gender; and an adjective or compound-noun-former used for certain artefacts [e.g. books, films, pictures, &c] concerned with the topic of the distinction between the genders and the physical and intellectual activities thereto concomitant......

You are a confused obscurantist I fear, Mr K. If you would just use the term appropriate to the concept you desire to express, your points would be more firmly asseverated.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM

Sex is gender distinction.

Sexual intercourse is fucking. Gender distinction is not part of the term of reference....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:34 AM

Yea, I was going to mention the gender distinction angle, but I thought it was too obvious. Soooo, is there a gay sex?
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:43 AM

Oh I think that YOU know that there is. Your bluster is like that of a well known Republican lawmaker with a wide stance in a men's room.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:06 AM

I can see the lawyers having a field day with this.

Marriage involves sharing property in a civil contract that is binding in law. That means that disputes about whether a legal marriage existed is liable to involve lawyers and arguments as to what were the precise conditions of the contract and whether they have been fulfilled. There are of course physical constraints as to precisely what sexual activities could be implied conditions, given the gender of the parties involved.

I think artbrooks was right about there being differences about this kind of thing between laws in various places. Which implies that though we all use the term "marriage" the precise definition of this varies from place to place. Which will continue to be the case even more so, and give the lawyers even more fun in an era of increased globalisation of everything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:19 AM

Bluster?        Pshaw! I'm merely stating my case.
What's your excuse?
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:41 AM

Would anyone care to explain why marriage was invented in the first place? It had very little to do with sex.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:13 AM

"The law must reflect society or it is irrelevant in a democracy."

Very well put, Musket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:19 AM

Primarily as a way of trying to ensure stability of human and other resourcers during childhood. And for property reasons. Without marriage or some equivalent these things get even more complicated than they are to start with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM

It was invented to allow sole claimancy to a female by a male. Simple ownership in fee simple, and an evolutionary advantage (when exercised wisely) in stronger offspring, loyal sources of help, and so on. It evolved into a valued societal institution because it made stronger families to have stable management and a reasonable division of duties.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM

Mostly to protect women an children who had no legal right to own anything. When hubby died she was destitute.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:01 AM

I can't see that "invented" is the right word. It rather suggest that sometime back then someone had a Eureka moment, and then set about getting other people to implement it.   

Social patterns aren't invented, they evolve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:10 AM

This question, and the interesting implications it raises, shows how much of our language/thinking about sex takes heterosexuality for granted. It's a bit like asking a gay person when they 'lost their virginity' - what counts as that for us non-hets ??? (I was going to say what yardstick do you use, but realised that might be offering a gift to the inuendo mafia!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM

Intelligence is something demonstrated by most of the Mudcat membership except Henry Krinkle.

Anything else is just monkey junk.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 12:05 PM

"The consummation inspector for marriages presumably would check all of them, not just the heterosexual couples."

Let's hear it for the Inspector General!

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM

Marriage is a leading cause of divorce.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 12:53 PM

Mr Mcgrath has put a rather interesting question and in response gets...lame jokes, platitudes and veiled abuse.

mr Krinkle is correct once again in his definition of "sexual intercourse"....if a woman wishes to have a child and the man cannot penetrate or ejaculate, the marriage could be said to be un-consummated and the woman could seek an annulment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:36 PM

It's a bit like asking a gay person when they 'lost their virginity' - what counts as that for us non-hets ???

I'd imagine it might have a range of different meanings, with lots of room for disagreement. Even within couples.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:25 PM

Absolutely. As long as the disagreement stays friendly, it's an interesting debate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:43 PM

Excellent discussion and ponts well made by most, even when off topic.

I still think there are points which have not been addressed which are germain to the OP but the thread has become so "diverse" and, at times, derisive/divisive that I fail to see any interjections I may make as anything more than a new can of worms.

Soooo... I'll just say this... civil union (contract) allows two "outs" and so does religion. And for VERY good reason(s). >;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:57 PM

Hey, Charlie, shouldn't that be "Inspector Genital?"

####

Krinkle has no imagination. He says he has sex, but it must be boring as hell for his partner.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 03:13 PM

"Krinkle has no imagination. He says he has sex, but it must be boring as hell for his partner."

The way he overcompensates? I doubt if it is long, I doubt that it is able to bore much either.

How about short and filled with guilt and recrimination so much so that it causes overly passionate condemnations in the public sphere? You know, like a senator with a wide stance in an airport men's room.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM

As I see it, there are many grounds for divorce and "the ability to consummate" is only one of them. The act of consummation may only currently apply to heterosexual couples but perhaps some judges would rule to broaden the definition so that it means sexual gratification by whatever method achieved. I don't think the Pope would approve.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 PM

Surely everyone understands that marriage is about a lot more than "sexual gratification"?

As Henry Krinkle has noted, some people get "sexual gratification" in very strange ways


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:52 PM

I thought a bit of strange stuff once in a while was fairly common.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:03 PM

"Surely everyone understands .."

Everyone? Sorry, ake... not everyone. MOST of us would agree, but there is nothing about sexuality that everyone agrees on.

There are marriages where one side simply wants sex to be "legally guaranteed", while the other offers sex for security.... the law still recognizes them as married.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:16 PM

So there is no definition of marriage?
I do not recognise the two examples you quote as "proper marriage"
How does one "legally guarantee" sex? How does agreeing to sex provide security?

It just does not make sense. In this area many young people co-habit, when they wish to start a family, they get married....very few parents here remain unmarried....marriage and the family structure is still of great importance


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

Divorce is not relevant in this context. Annulment is.

Sexual gratification? That could mean just about anything.

Presumably some kind of way of sorting out the legal issues would be arrived at, by judges if not by legislation. A different set of rules for the three varieties of "marriage" involved - and any others that might develop in time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:39 PM

Thank you, McGrath.

Annulment cannot be justified (read "PROVEN") in same sex marriage. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for some to understand?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:00 PM

How does one "legally guarantee" sex?

Like in this song *grin*

relevant verse:

♫"Her lover said "Erica, marry me.
This relationship is answering a basic need
And I'd like to have it legally guaranteed.
For without your precious love I would surely die
So why can't we make it legal?" Said Erica, "Why?
Basic needs, at your age, should be met by you;
I'm your lover, not your mother---let's be careful what we do.
If I should ever marry,I will marry to grow,
Not for tradition, or possession or protection. No!
I love you, but your needs are a very different issue."
Then He cried, and Erica handed him a tissue."♫


Do I really need to explain the concept?

Yes though... as this entire thread shows, there is a need to define marriage...and there ARE clear...but different definitions. Religious ones, personal ones, legal ones...etc.

You, Ake, just said YOU have an idea of "proper marriage"... but two people in an IMproper marriage, as defined by you, can still function in society without anyone but themselves knowing about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:28 PM

It's Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
I think homosexuality is a form of immaturity. Childish behaviour.
But that's my opinion. And I know what some of you think of my opinions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM

You seem to leave the idea of a family structure out of the equation Bill. Surely that is the bedrock of marriage?
I agree that a few people have an unusual view of what marriage means and they are entitled to believe what they wish...but for the vast majority wordwide, marriage and the extended family structure are indivisible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:21 PM

McGrath, I was playing loose with the word. I do know the difference. I think Created is a better word. Nothing can evolve until it is first created.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:28 PM

Good point, kendall. First, for example, mankind created the automobile...a self-propellin' carriage that dispensed with the need for horses. And it has been evolvin' ever since.

It's like that with any created thing. Ya look at guns, books, turtles, chimps, language. They all hadda be created first, and they've been evolvin' ever since.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM

Can't argue with that, ake. Not at all. Yer good. Yer one of the best that I ever read. Vague definitely suits you. It's what all the chick trolls are wearing this season.

Hank, on the other hand, is a hack. Homosexuality is a form of immaturity, Hank? Yer a fuckin ameteur. Sign up fer a course from ake. The two of you could compare goats.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:01 PM

Ake... *I* am not leaving anything out. I am noting the differences in people's definitions.

Of course "extended family structure" is the most common ideal in most societies.... but marriage is legal whether the partners fit YOUR criteria or not.

As you say, people are entitled to their own views. You have a fairly conservative one on a number of things, but always seem surprised that not everyone sees YOUR point and has the same attitudes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:16 PM

Slow Hand


Oh, grow up and be a man.
With a slow hand.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Melissa
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:11 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:54 AM

Krinkle would LOVE to have a look at Ake's goat.

Ake, watch yer goat!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 02:03 AM

Never thought I'd see the Adam & Eve/Steve line here on Mudcat. Still, it serves the useful purpose of indicating that its user may be confidently disregarded as as a fatuous lamebrain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 04:16 AM

Speak for yourself, Jackass.
And no namecalling, Smedley. Be a good little boy and mind your manners. This is grown up talk.
(:-(D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM

I wondered how long this thread would last without a slight malodour.

People have proper marriages where you are eh?Akenaton? I'll let you into a secret, people have proper marriages everywhere if they say they are married. Once the government pass a law to have the terms simplified and use one term instead of two, Nick Clegg's bigots as he rightly called them before realising they are allowed fo vote can find something else to force religious privilege on.

Of course, those whom profess to be atheists and still side with persecution of those who have same sex partners will have to sit down and think hard as to why they hate without even the feeble excuse of scriptures...

I repeat. Gay people do not need to be seen as equal people in marriage because they are already equal members in society and the government has to reflect that. And soon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 09:21 AM

This is grown up talk. Now that IS amusing, Stinkle!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM

Seems to me it's more a matter of passing a law to have one term instead of two for two things that aren't quite the same, because, while they have a lot in common, they also have some not insignificant differences. Like giving apples and pears the same name.

Given there are in the UK no differences between the duties and benefits of civil partnerships and marriage, I can't see much benefit to the change. And the issues mentioned in this thread do suggest there may be some unconsidered implications that might possibly cause problems down the road.

But I can't say it worries me too much. Not enough to justify getting aerated about - on either side, I'd have thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM

" Like giving apples and pears the same name."

Pomes?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:09 PM

The two things - civil union and marriage - are very different (at least right now), in the US at least. It's not too likely that there are any implications that haven't been considered here, ad nauseum. If they were the same, then the struggle of individuals to obtain the rights guaranteed by marriage would, IMHO, be much more muted.

As it is, individual states define marriage and, at least in theory, each state could redefine it to include same-gendered couples, just as many had to do so to legally recognize bi-racial marriages a few decades ago. This, of course, assumes that the religious fundies who think that their world view applies to everyone (Adam and Eve, my ass!) and who control a large monolithic voting bloc would allow this. The problem is the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which governs Federal benefits such as Social Security and government pension survivors' rights. DOMA defines "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, so gay and lesbian couples are excluded from these benefits, whether or not they are married according to state law.

This is the reason that, for example, Neil Armstrong's wife was entitled to a survivor's pension, but Sally Ride's partner was not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:41 PM

That's how you do it in the States, artbrooks, so I understand how people must think the only way to ensure equality is to change the definition of marriage.

But that doesn't apply in the UK, and I imagine a whole lot of other countries. When civil partnership was introduced it was intentionally given essentially the same legal status as marriage. Those kind of inequalities you mentioned wouldn't be legal here.

It seems to me that the move towards changing the definition of marriage here is a spill over from the situation in the States - a sense that if that's the way to ensure equality there, it must be necessary to ensure equality here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:42 PM

I wish we had your system, McG.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:47 PM

Speak for yourself, Jackass.
This is grown up talk.


Good one Mr. Wide Stance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 10:52 AM

McGrath,

As I see it, whilst there is little difference in law between marriage and civil partnership, you then have to ask so why not the same word?

And that is is the issue. (Starting a sentence with "and" is a completely different issue.)

The benefit of the change is that people can legally say they are married rather than some Blairspeke term. It removes the stigma that bigots would prefer to remain in place. I cannot think of a better reason, decency being what it is and all that.

As my wife and I are not planning children, does that mean we are not married? The old people I referred to above? My work colleague and her wife?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 11:38 AM

Maybe they should come up with a new word....Now this word would only describe THIS unique situation, and no imitations...you know, a word for two people of the opposite sex, who decide to live together, keeping only to themselves, for the purpose of having sex and conceiving their own children as a result of the sex, and lovingly raising them as their own nuclear family....the word used to be 'marriage'.

Oh wait a minute.....we've managed to destroy that concept with 'new' definitions of 'being hip', and 'permissiveness' destructive to the elements of the concept of what a family is, or should be...just to satisfy other lame behavior, and stupid decisions, horny youth, drugs and selfishness and the culture needed to accommodate unthinking people!

"Oh well, I can ALWAYS get a divorce, and get on welfare and child support...children don't need the influence of two loving parents, from the opposite sex coming together, just to have and raise them(us), just so long as I can still get MY monthly check....I'LL 'get by'."

My my, how far we've plunged, and left our children with the resentments of the role of either parent, an how easily we find it, to write that damage off!......and then have the arrogance to deny culpability!!!....and just get more permissive to let our children make up new rules as to what constitutes a 'family' or 'marriage'

Make it a 'political issue', and get the repercussions of irresponsible people away from my conscience!!

.....and for God sakes, if we find someone who is functioning as an original nuclear family, THEY must be the 'lame ones', right?????

Shows you how fucked up we've allowed ourselves to get!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:20 PM

Why not the same word for things that are similar in many respects but different in others?

That's how language works. Differences, even slight differences are reflected in the existence of different words.

Even with the attempt to redefine the word marriage there'll still be linguistic differences when talking about a marriage that involves a hiusband and wife and a marriage that involves two people of the same sex. "Husband and husband"? "Wife and wife"? I suspect people will tend to talk in terms of "partners" in same-sex unions, tying in with the terminology of civil partnership.

I think it's highly unlikely that the change in the legal definition of marriage will do anything whatsoever to challenge or reduce bigotry. Any reduction in that will be a matter of time. If anything I would expect the legal redefinition to have the reveerse effect.

Incidentally, is the idea that existing civil partnerships will be rebranded as marriages, or will we have the two institutions existing alongside each other?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:24 PM

How about a compromise - "marriage" with its customary meaning alongside "wedlock" for analogous same-sex unions, and both called "partnership"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM

Well, I'm looking for that magical word that describes that UNIQUE situation, as I described...not another bending of terms.
Surely, such a technically exacting language should have a word for a natural nuclear family!!........and leave the fucking politics out of it!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:02 PM

"Family" is already a word which is used to refer to a whole range of social institutions, nuclear and not particularly nuclear. Including the whole human race for that matter.

The only trouble with "partnership" as a word is that it makes for confusion with bridge and golf and business. "Wedded partner" is potentially a useful term which could be used in a way that included same-sex partnerships as well as what can still be termed married partnerships.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:28 PM

Yeah but what would you call it if a black bloke marries a white woman?

Marriage is marriage. Why should the gender of either be of interest? Both Mrs Musket and I can use the term Dr and on that Dr Musket is either gender. Who needs to know otherwise? (Even more confusing for those with an interest in the gender of people, Mrs Musket is a surgeon so uses Miss in her title although we have a marriage certificate.

Marriage is marriage and if both have a dick or both have a cunt, the only dick or cunt is the one wanting to know their gender arrangements.

Calling it marriage has the advantage of describing what it is. A commitment. Civil partnership lowers it to the level of prenuptial contract to make the splitting up or death arrangements easier.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 02:01 PM

Marriage describes certain types of lifelong commitment. Not the only kind of commitment, some of which would never be described as "marriages". For example parent and child.

Marriage is marriage. Apples are apples. Pears are pears.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 02:27 PM

Agreed. Marriage describes certain types including black & white, ginger and blonde, man and woman, man and man, ginger woman and brunette woman, man who likes good football and woman who likes soap opera nonsense, woman who has a finger missing and woman who believes in God...

That's why marriage is a term that describes a commitment in love resulting in cohabitation.

Just waiting for the government to clarify an archaic point of law which goes back to when the law was allowed to be governed in line with superstition and bigotry.

A bit like the law that needs water and hay available for taxis.

One day we will wonder why marriage provoked such debate


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:03 PM

Again, no mention of the family structure aspect.
Marriage should be the foundation of the extended family structure, which is disappearing from society.
To the detriment of the whole of humanity....soon our only goal will be "self"

Simplistic nonesense like "Marriage describes certain types including black & white, ginger and blonde, man and woman, man and man, ginger woman and brunette woman, man who likes good football and woman who likes soap opera nonsense, woman who has a finger missing and woman who believes in God"

Procreation can only be fulfilled by a male+female...end of story.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:04 PM

Redefining is different from clarifying.

Basically it seems a pretty trivial issue. I agree one day we'll probably wonder why people cared either way - why anybody wanted the redefinition in the first place, and why anybody worried too much about it.

But I think it will throw up a few unexpected complications nobody has thought too much about, like the oddity noted in that opening post.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

"Marriage describes certain types of lifelong commitment."

It is supposed to...and often does, but there are so many 'marriages of convenience' that it needs a disclaimer.

I have known of a fellow who 'married' a woman to give her American papers, then allowed her to live elsewhere. I'm not defending... just commenting.

(I have even known of divorces FROM 'lifelong committment' in order to get around certain tax laws which made filing separately a better economic choice. I 'think' that has since been fixed.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:27 PM

Well that's all fine and dandy.....I'm talking about a man and a woman who have a loving commitment, and who conceived their own child(ren) through sex with themselves ONLY, not 'joined' families, not anything but their own child(ren) from THAT union, and raising that/those child(ren), from the commitment of love, for their spouse and offspring.

Surely their is a name for that that distinguishes it from ANY other sort of 'arrangement'!

Jeez, what it takes to get a simple WORD to call a spade a spade!

What do you call it?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM

Like I said before and Akenaton is perpetuating the issue. Not that surprising though..

If marriage is procreation, my wife and I aren't married. My mum who found happiness again in later life after my Dad died wasn't married to her second husband. The old couple I met last week who had just got married weren't married. Every married couple who adopt aren't married. Every couple who cannot have children for medical reasons aren't married.

What was that shit you just came out with about everybody only thinking about self? Maybe if you thought about the rights and feelings of others, your prophesy would be that little bit further off.

But there again, you have form to go with your agenda. If gay people are married, your society will break down but the society I live in will be that much nicer, that much less judgemental and that bit more worthy of the word equal.

So; gay people, people who can't have kids, people too old to have kids. Any more on your list? Any cultural taboos to go with your gender based ones?

Fuck me, just when you thought comments had hit rock bottom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 06:01 PM

I might add, Musket... "Procreation can only be fulfilled by a male+female...end of story."

ake... do you "read" this shit before you submit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM

All those marriages you mentioned, Musket, would of course be marriages within the meaning that has had since forever. Basic rule always has been it's a commitment intended to be "till death do us part" between a husband and a wife.

Analogous commitments between people of the same sex don't fall within this definition.

If countries choose to change the way they define the word and the institution within their borders they can do it, and if people choose to use the word in that sense they'll do it regardless of whether the law changes the definition or not.

Complications may arise from the fact that many, probably most, other countries won't have made that change of definition, so that there would still be two different categories of marriage, analogous to the current situation with marriage and civil partnership. That might be more of a problem in parts of the world where international movement is more common than in the USA. But not such a big deal.

I imagine the redefinition will be introduced into the various countries in the UK before too long. But those who are sceptical about the redefinition should not be assumed to be bigots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM

"I'm talking about a man and a woman who have a loving commitment, and who conceived their own child(ren) through sex with themselves ONLY, not 'joined' families, not anything but their own child(ren) from THAT union".

Do you honest to god realize that you are effectively saying that if two people commit to each other, find that they can't conceive children, adopt chilren, and raise them in a loving home, those people do not have a real right to call themselves married, with a family?
Do you honest to god realize that you are effectively saying that if a man and a woman each have young children, lose a spouse to early death, then marry each other and raise the children in a loving home,
they do not have the right to call themselves married, with a family?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 10:05 PM

Stop being silly!
I'm only asking for a word that accurately describes two people committing to each other in life, in love and bearing offspring from their relationship, and raising their own children, in love, with the same family commitment. Not complicated at all. Two people raising their own flesh and blood. I'm not saying adoption is bad, or anything else....just trying to get an 'acceptable', 'accurate' word from someone out there, that is unique to that description.

I know it's not beyond your concept....give it a word.

GfS

P.S.....or maybe it is......yikes!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:04 AM

I'll give you a word.

Married

Seems to fit the bill. Unless ginger people married to Asian people need a differentiation too? Why pick out single sex for a different word? If you pick out those who don't or can't have children, you would be nearer to religious definitions and if you picked out inter racial marriage, there are many who would applaud it, sadly.

Sorry, but wanting to indicate that the two partners in a marriage are of the same gender has to be for a reason. The only one that springs to mind is bigotry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:11 AM

"Stop being silly!"

Do you read what you write? Ever??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 09:07 AM

I rather doubt that it would be possible to coin a unique "word that accurately describes two people committing to each other in life, in love and bearing offspring from their relationship" and spread it into common usage without some people using the distinction to denigrate the relative worth and validity of unions that aren't eligible for that exact word.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM

The basic word IS 'married', as several have tried to explain. It essentially MEANS 'legally joined and committed'. If a couple is M-F and has children, etc... fine! People who know them will have no problem recognizing their fairly common relationship.

Now... if you meet someone and ask "Are you married?", they can simply say "yes" or, if it seems relevant, they can say "to another man" or "to another woman".

There may be situations, now that laws are changing, where it is relevant to determine the details of a marriage relationship...i.e., for medical purposes or insurance...but otherwise it should be up to the married partners to explain...or not... their situation!

We don't need 'new' words for special situations. If an explanation is needed, a set of old words will suffice... like GfS so carefully indicates.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM

In the UK, civil union means "legally joined and committed"

Marriage means very much more!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM

(or, I suppose, we could invent one for GfS

.... perhaps "heteromonogamoviablesancifiedgovtsanctioned"?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:51 AM

Oh, I can hear it now!

"Are you legally joined and committed"? Or perhaps..."Are you united civilly?"

YOU wish it to 'mean very much more'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 12:34 PM

Even the churches seem to accept that a wedding may not be followed by children, and most seem to be very happy to marry couples who are well past the age at which conception is likely to occur.

Since it appears that conception is not actually essential to the concept of "marriage" but merely on the wish-list, then what is the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes "marriage" from an arrangement which is apparently identical in every way other than the gender of the participants?

If, as some people seem to be suggesting, that gender difference is of fundamental importance, could they please explain why, if conception is left out of the equation?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 12:46 PM

Akenaton says that marriage is much more than legally blah blah.

Quite so.

Glad that you agree with me that gay people need to be able to use the word marriage. After all, a gay couple can commit and love every bit as much as a heterosexual couple so have every right to use the same word to describe their marriage.

What was it that changed your mind? A barbequed donkey on the way to Damascus?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 01:25 PM

It's like the word 'ball'.....there are footballs, ping-pong balls, baseballs, basketballs, golf balls, tennis balls, soccer balls and of course testicles....yes, they are ALL balls, and all denote different functions. Nothing bigoted about it, nor denigrating....it appears that trying to be politically correct has left some of you less literate, as well. There is a distinction...or your politically correct homosexual arrangements marriage would not be prefaced with the word 'gay'.....so even according to you, there is a difference, and none of you are here as the result of homosexual breeding...that is unless you are a hemorrhoid.,,(an asshole on it's way down)....so unless you see yourselves as such, how about that distinct word, with a distinct meaning!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM

But 'ball', like 'marriage' only NEEDS explaining and naming in certain circumstances.

"Come to the picnic and bring a 'ball'." needs a little clarification.
"No, I didn't mean a medicine ball!"

Marriage needs qualification only when someone NEEDS to know that you are..or are not.. a specific type of partnership.
"Have you even been married?" can be a simple question related to legal questions about taxes.... it need not refer to same-sex or 'standard'. It might just precede "list your co-filers on this form."

The **concept** of "legally committed for relationship and legal purposes" simply does not require specification of the sexes involved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM

Sing if you're glad to be illiterate!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:56 PM

GfS, If you don't agree you are a hemorrhoid.


Yawn...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM

On the subject of redefining the word marriage: It really seems to me that this is not happening at all. What's really happening is that people who dislike the idea of homosexuality are grabbing the word for their own private use and trying to deny the rest of us the use of it. As has been noted here numerous times, the concept remains the same no matter the sex of the people involved. No one has yet come up with anything that disproves that.

There is no conversation about homosexuality that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. The only queer (in the older sense of the word) people here are the ones that are so worried about it that they want to have laws against it and wail about "redefining" the word marriage. Get your minds out of other peoples' bedrooms, you filthy perverts!

But of course, saying that is a complete waste of time. Akenaton and GfS are so lost to bigotry that they willing shut down their logic centers on this topic. All of these points have been made to them hundreds of times in the past, and they have never offered any logical defense for their stances. That's because they can't -- such defenses simply don't exist. The amazing thing is that they are both fairly intelligent, but are so blind on this topic that they don't even realize how stupid they make themselves sound.

My offer still stands: a moderated debate on the issue. One where the logic has to add up, all facts come from mainstream news sources, and personal attacks get you kicked out. I haven't had any takers yet -- it seems they are, on this subject, cowards. Or maybe they're not cowards; maybe they retain enough intelligence to know that such a debate would be over very, very quickly, with themselves as the losers. It's so much easier to simply not respond to points made by other people and just keep lobbing little bigotry bombs into the conversation. After all, it's the internet, where they don't have to face any real repercussions for their hate speech.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM

McGrath of Harlow says: But those who are sceptical about the redefinition should not be assumed to be bigots.

What else are we to call them? Everyone I have ever heard complain about redefinition has made it very clear that they think homosexuality is a perversion, a choice, a lifestyle, a sin, unhealthy, dangerous, destructive of hetero marriages, and dangerous to society. Since all of these ideas have been so thoroughly debunked, one has to assume that anyone who clings to them does so from unreasoning hatred of another group of people and a desire to limit the civil rights of that group. In other words, bigotry.

Can you come up with any other explanation that makes any sense?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:30 PM

John P: "Akenaton and GfS are so lost to bigotry that they willing shut down their logic centers on this topic."

Hey, you guys are the ones trying to re-define marriage...and as far as your accusation of bigotry, you are out of your mind!...but that word IS the 'left wing' refuge when running out of ideas!..Just accuse somebody of 'bigotry'..sounds good on paper.....toilet paper!..What next?..racist??..Tea Party??

Fact is, after so many FAILED marriages, and the institution of marriage so compromised, and men being so feminized, including heteros, I think a lot of you have lost the grasp of what it means....just a convenience..trying to 're-capture' the one of early youth, when it DID mean something!...Now, instead of making excuses for failures, we just include everyone with any excuse....but you still can't put a word on that first one, with all the idealism of being a natural, nuclear FAMILY, with all the original members!!!..natural children included.
Not only can't you put a name on it.....the very concept is buried under the tonnage of bullshit, people have made excuses for, for all their years of selfishness!...with, of course, the escape hatch of divorce!..Vows mean nothing..your word means nothing....except for hot air.....an there sure is a lot of it in here!

...and by the way, if homosexuals think the 'church' is so brain-locked and fucked up...then why is it so important to them they they are recognized by that same 'fucked up' brain-locked 'church'????

Hint:.....Because it's all bullshit!

GfS

P.S....and you all know it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:05 AM

Whoever said anything about church? It is the term married as opposed to civil partnership that is on trial here.

The church aspect is a red herring put about by pious idiots to say thy will be forced to marry gay people. As we have religious equality, perhaps they are equally worried that they will have to provide prayer mats and an arrow showing where Mecca is? It is just as daft.

The huge amount of red herrings they throw on this bonfire leads me to start believing the fairy story of the loaves and fishes, they certainly can find the bloody fish.

It isn't a "leftish" plot. Now you are being stupid so deserve the huge raspberry that I would have blown if I otherwise respected you. But till you stop wanting to label people based on your fantasy of what they get up to in their bedroom, it is best not to encourage you.

Don't worry, you aren't in a lonely place. At least one person will stick his head out of the pond and support you. Trouble is, he isn't the nicest person on Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:30 AM

The Findlaw website has this to say about civil partnership in the UK:

"There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership. The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. Therefore, the main difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is religion."

It is therefore essentially a discussion over terminology rather than substance, and the right for some members of society to call their relationship by the same name as the rest of us do. It is the religions which seem to put particular store on the term "marriage" without being very clear exactly what they see as being the essential defining characteristic which makes it special. Apart of course from the obvious point about gender, but this is only relevant if procreation is essential to the concept of marriage, which as we've already discussed is not the case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:00 AM

"...none of you are here as the result of homosexual breeding...that is unless you are a hemorrhoid..."

"...and men being so feminized, including heteros..."

Yup. The words of a bigot.

And this multi-persona yahoo purports to be a counselor?!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:36 AM

"all the idealism of being a natural, nuclear FAMILY, with all the original members!!!..natural children included."

With one breath you say that I am being silly for noticing that you put down people who adopt children and raise them in love, or remarry after widowhood and raise merged families in love. With the next you let it be known that they don't deserve the word "FAMILY",


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:17 AM

Maybe I should stop calling them bigots. How about hetero-supremacists?

Have you noticed that our "liberal" media regularly interviews rabidly anti-gay people when they write stories about gay rights? Why don't they interview neo-Nazis and KKK members when they write stories about race relations? This is part of why GfS, Henry Krinkle and Akenaton can get away with talking the way they do. Unless, as I suspect, they only talk this way on the internet.

All you hetero-supremacists out there are going to be SO embarrassed in fifteen or twenty years. Or, if you keep engaging in hate speech, you will be as ostracized as the KKK.

On another note, I'm wondering about the ethical aspects of outing bigots. I've always supported the right of gay people to be closeted if that's what they want. The only exceptions are public officials who talk anti-gay and then take up a wide stance. GfS says he places a high value on people taking responsibility for their actions. What are the ethics of outing him as an anti-civil rights potty mouth to his fans and clients? Opinions?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:27 AM

First of all, I'm NOT haggling about homosexuals..I've ONLY asked for a word that describes two people of the opposite sex who wish to live together as man and wife, and bring children into the world, as a result of having sex with each other, and to be raised by the same two people as a family, as opposed to any other 'domestic' situation....YOU are the ones with the knee-jerk re-actions!!!

YOU are the ones projecting the attitude that you think, (or imagine) that is behind the question.....and being that the name of the thread is 'Gay marriage' question'...I just asked a question.

You've conditioned yourselves into this hostility.
YOU ALL know there is a difference, of what I'm asking, and YOU are the ones intolerant of the possibility, that it does not include homosexuals, but that is only because homosexuals aren't breeding, in that scenario.....and YOU are the ones making an emotional issue of it, when in FACT, it is just a simple biological fact...and then YOU accuse others who aren't as emotionally disturbed as you, in this area, of being bigoted, hateful etc. etc..and blah blah.

Everything I've stated, or asked is just a plain FACT, without bias or anything hostile at all..(except responding to lame, wrongly placed hostile answers....but maybe that has more to do with political conditioning, rather that realistic thinking!

...and WHO has the bias???????????????????????????????

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:54 AM

Why do you want a word that indicates they are biologically capable of having children?

Presumably so they can be told they are not in the correct clinic if they accidentally go to an IVF clinic.

Why do you want a word to describe one type of marriage as opposed to any other? What about a marriage of convenience where they accidentally have children? Do they get another certificate?

Why are you interested in what a gay marriage is about? You can go on websites to find out if you are that interested.

Or is it so bigots can point, stare and judge?

I think we have finally got to the bottom as if were.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:00 PM

I gave you a word!

"hetero-monogamo-viable-sancified-govtsanctioned"

You don't like my suggestion? YOU are the one who wants a 'special' word....YOU concoct one. Good luck getting it accepted. Most of us are happy with "marriage" for all legal relationships, with disclaimers tacked on for those who feel they must set themselves apart.

(It is clear you don't really want a new word.. you want all those who don't 'fit' to quit using yours.) (It didn't work with 'folk'... why should you get special privileges?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:04 PM

Hey... I got another one!

supermarrified! Kinda special, hmmm?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM

OR...for the opposite, 'Queeried'...just a play on words..calm down!!

...or would that be 'Inqueering'??

It just seems that some of you have confused politics with reality!
Politics change with the winds...
Facts remain.

Maybe something to consider...then maybe some of you could get comfortable with FACTS....like, 'getting real'!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM

The last of my post evaporated somewhere:

With the next you let it be known that they don't deserve the word "FAMILY", in glorious upper case, in the same way that an entirely nuclear family group does.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:33 PM

another nominee for that all-important requested word"

REALLYTRULYMARRIED (be sure to use both caps and italics)

as opposed to all the other people who love each other, and children they are raising, dearly, under slightly different circumstances.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 01:03 PM

What facts are you referring to?

I am genuinely curious, it isn't just prodding you with a stick so we can all enjoy hearing you squeak.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

Not squeaking at all..quite the contrary...

..and.."What facts are you referring to?"

The simple fact, (because you apparently haven't been reading or comprehending), the fact homosexuals, by nature of their sexual acts with people of the same sex, cannot conceive with each other, in their 'domestic arrangement'....unless you want to argue that!

You guys are the ones who get all pissy for me pointing that out...and seeing if you have a word for those who DO conceive with each other, in their original marriage...and being as homosexuals do not, and can not, then why should it be the same word, defining two different circumstances??
I mean YOU'RE all here by natural means....now you want to deny the means, or the importance of it??...assuming you were all raised by those parents....no word for it???...or are you just lost in the maze of bullshit rationalizations justifying other sexual preferences??...and cannot distinguish the two???...so we accept the muddying of terms..

Now you can squeak...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:44 PM

GfS, there's already a word for two people who live together in a formal legal arrangement without bringing children into the world. That word is "married". Why do you need another one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:05 PM

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude....unless you can answer the question, nor see a distinction...

That's what too many drugs will do to ya'!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:52 PM

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude..

No, I answered your question and asked one of my own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM

Ok... NOT a question!

I hereby declare that 'married' is sufficient to refer to two (at a minimum) people living in a formal, legal situation.

Expanded explanations of the gender and functional differences are at the discretion of the parties involved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude....unless you can answer the question, nor see a distinction... >>mistaken, rude and needless lecture.

That's what too many drugs will do to ya'! >> wild, unfounded accusation. Makes you appear to be extremely rude, uneducated, unhinged.

_____________

GfS

GfS, there's already a word for two people who live together in a formal legal arrangement without bringing children into the world.   That word is "married". >>Answer to question. Why do you need another one? >>New question to you.

_______

The simple fact, (because you apparently haven't been reading or comprehending), the fact homosexuals, by nature of their sexual acts with people of the same sex, cannot conceive with each other, in their 'domestic arrangement'....unless you want to argue that!

You guys are the ones who get all pissy for me pointing that out.<<
..and seeing if you have a word for those who DO conceive with each other, in their original marriage...and being as homosexuals do not, and can not, then why should it be the same word, defining two different circumstances?? <<< pointless attempted sarcasm

I mean YOU'RE all here by natural means....now you want to deny the means, or the importance of it??...assuming you were all raised by those parents....no word for it???...or are you just lost in the maze of bullshit rationalizations justifying other sexual <<
preferences??...and cannot distinguish the two???...so we accept the muddying of terms..<<< More insults, combined with illogical gibberish

Now you can squeak...<<< I'll give you this one because musket started it.


But maybe if you were to stop trying to insult other posters intelligence, and if you took the time to write coherent sentences, you would get along along better. But I warn you being logical would leave you with far less to say. In the above section you seem to be saying that the term "marriage" should be reserved for procreative, child rearing relationships. But in all of human history it has never been confined to that. Older couples could always remarry. Sterile couples did not have their weddings revoked, etc. If you had just written down your point and looked at it before pressing "send." You may well have thought, "this is horse manure" and found something else to talk about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

"...and as far as your accusation of bigotry, you are out of your mind!...but that word IS the 'left wing' refuge when running out of ideas!.."

Bulletin, GoofuS. The same-sex marriage issue is NOT a political issue—neither Left nor Right (although those who oppose it are mainly Right-Wing conservatives). It is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

Also, there ARE main-line Christian churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples (whether the local laws recognize them as "marriage" or not) and have done so! I attend such a church (Lutheran).

Also, GoofuS, I have yet to meet anyone who consistently uses works like "queer" and "fag" as you are wont to do who is NOT a bigot.

That's the liguistic equivalent of refering to a black man by the "N-word"!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:19 PM

Don, Are you feeling alright??...You are saying it's not a political issue, it's a CIVIL RIGHTS issue?????????????????

..I'm pointing out the biological issue..which has nothing to do with the politics of any of it.....but we've been around this bush before...and let me see..a 'civil rights' issue...hmmm, that's because it is of what RACE, CREED or COLOR????......oh wait...let's re-interpret the law in order to spin a new definition.

How or what people do sexually in not a matter of race, creed or color....AND..as WELL established..it is NOT genetic either.

I have NOT attacked homosexual domestic partnerships on this thread, whatsoever!!!
I have alluded to distinct differences to original spouses and families, and homosexuality, though..and that is merely because there is...like it or not.
I have not attacked marriage to widowed, or or joining families of previous marriages, as alluded....all I've asked for is a word...because 'Words' are sounds or a group of sounds that relate an idea...and the idea of original people starting their own families, from parents who did the same, by conceiving their own offspring, from their own sexual activities, is a different idea, than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.
That 'little specialness' which the child often creates, about his parents, having come from those same two parents, would be missing from the equation....I mean if anyone actually gives a damn.

So, do you actually have a point, or just trying to sound like it????

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:26 PM

".and the idea of original people starting their own families, from parents who did the same, by conceiving their own offspring, from their own sexual activities, is a different idea, than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring."

My marriage fits the latter definition. We got married in out forties.

Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?

You are a short sighted stupid bigot and a blow hard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:50 PM

Hey 'Jack the Bright'......what about "..than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.".. don't you understand??

Don't you think that if you were rearing your OWN offspring, between you, that it might just have a 'slight' effect on your own pair-bonding???
I never brought up the homosexual issue about it...and BTW, it DOES effect the relationship....I mean can you imagine how your family dynamics would change if you had a couple of children (young or grown) demanding your time and attentions,away from the things you'd normally have on your priorities??..Throw into the mix, that you and your wife conceived them..maybe even delivered them....and life would be the same, without them?????
So as to your query: "Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?"

I was thinking of asking you the same question...now that you brought it up!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:00 PM

"Hey 'Jack the Bright'......what about "..than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.".. don't you understand??"


I understand it very well. That is MY MARRIAGE you stupid asshole. I just said so. Go fuck yourself you arrogant idiot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:01 PM

GoofuS: "....AND..as WELL established..it is NOT genetic either."

That has NOT been established AT ALL. In fact, geneticists are pretty well agreed that there is a major genetic component to the issue.

Remembering what you let slip in another thread a couple of years ago, I am aware of why you want to BELIEVE sexual orientation is a matter of choice rather than a matter of genetics.

You're afraid. Which is why you're so rabid on this subject!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:08 PM

It is rabid on pretty much every subject. It appears as though that it is often rabid before it reads other people's posts and thus does not comprehend them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:32 PM

Don: "..That has NOT been established AT ALL. In fact, geneticists are pretty well agreed that there is a major genetic component to the issue."

In theory....but without conclusive evidence..it's only a theory...perhaps borne of wishful thinking??
No gene, Ol' Bucko!

Until then, I'm sticking to the greater probability of 'receptors'.

And poor Jack, "I understand it very well. That is MY MARRIAGE you stupid asshole. I just said so. Go fuck yourself you arrogant idiot."

...and I posed the question back to you, that don't you think if you had children between you, that it might just affect the 'family dynamic'??
..or is it the thought of it that outrages you into a frothing idiot?
See, if you look back...wait, I'll cut and paste your post.....

Here:
"My marriage fits the latter definition. We got married in out forties.
Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?
You are a short sighted stupid bigot and a blow hard."

So, what you are saying, is that because I accurately described your present marriage, that makes me a short sighted bigot and a blowhard'?????

Wow!! That marriage must be more fun than shaving your head with a cheese grater, while chewing tin foil!!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:44 PM

You're raving, Goofus! You've been busted!

You're terrified of coming out of the closet--especially to yourself!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:48 PM

I think MY brilliant analysis of the linguistic issue is being pointedly ignored.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:11 PM

Far from it! We all recognize you as a cunning linguist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 10:24 PM

READ this one JACKASS.


You are saying that childless marriage is not marriage.

I am saying that my wife and I have no children and we are just as married as anyone else.

We are just as pair bonded as anyone else. And what kind of idiot are you for bringing that up? Here is some news. Lots of male/female parents get divorced while they are raising their kids. That means that the special pair bonding you are talking about only exists in your tiny insulting blowhard head.

Read your posts before you hit "Submit Message". You make about as much sense a chimp randomly banging a keyboard. Filter yourself. You jackass.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 12:52 AM

OKAY, radical idiots.....:

Jack the Jack-Ass: "You are saying that childless marriage is not marriage."

I never said that..YOU DID!...I just asked for a word to describe a union comprised of original parents with their own children....and you are having a hard time conceiving of the notion!

TIA: "We all recognize you as a cunning linguist."

Eat your own heart out!

Bil D: "I think MY brilliant analysis of the linguistic issue is being pointedly ignored."

...and what again was that?? It wasn't very well articulated.

Don Froth: "You're raving, Goofus! You've been busted!
You're terrified of coming out of the closet--especially to yourself!"

Busted for what??...That certain ideological morons in here with big fat opinions, cannot think of a word, to describe a first time original family?????????????........and I'm terrified of coming out of the closet to myself??????.....You've REALLY outdone even your own 'clown factor' this time, 'Mr. Activist'...How about activating your brain, into reality?????

This is so much frothing nonsense, you all should be embarrassed to sign your names to it!

GfS!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 01:59 AM

You know exactly what I'm talking about, Goofus.

And everybody else here knows what your hang-up is as well.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 02:56 AM

Are you trying to program everyone else, AGAIN with your asinine assertions??? Do you REALLY think EVERY one is as dumb and stupid, as it takes for you to pull this shit...AGAIN????
Give it up!..You know as well as I, and anyone else who has ANY objectivity, that you are just up to your old games...of misquoting then commenting on your misquotes!..and misinterpretations, of things NEVER said!!!

Now, if you have a question on homosexual marriage, stick to your questions...if you have NO questions, then I guess you are an expert...and we all know that is a bunch of shit!...because you've been far too wrong, too many times!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 02:59 AM

Hello sailor!

Here. You let him off with one of his comments on the basis I started it.

You also once had a pop at me for Hurling insults.

Nice to see you have found your own limit to what you will read before exploding! I for once am in total agreement with you. He is seeming to fit your description of him perfectly.

I too was annoyed with his distinctions as like you, I married (second time lucky in my case) in my forties with no intention of having children. Hence his wanting to label me as different to my first marriage is rather obscene really.

Who knows, give it a year or so and there might be another debate with you broadly supporting the same as I do on a particular subject.

In the meantime, I'll sign off now to allow the goofer to squeak.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 05:17 AM

Did you have children from your first marriage??
..and your ASSUMPTIONS of wanting to 'label' you as anything, is just an empty assumption.
For that same reason, the cat seems to have everyone's tongue...
Just think, if I threw a 'label' at you, then you'd have a reason to bitch...until then, a lot of you just appear to be plain stupid, fearful and dishonest.

Think about it...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 07:48 AM

Yeah, goofy, everyone is stupid except for you. That's it. :-)
If you look around the card table and can't spot the sucker its you.

Also, if you look around a forum and everyone is crazy and stupid but you, it is you.

Its you, Get it? You are the frantic one. You are the stupid one. You are the one that hits "Submit Message" without understanding your own posts.

It is you.

understand?

You.

"Here. You let him off with one of his comments on the basis I started it."

I was trying to make a point about why everyone is convinced that GfS is a boorish idiot. No one is going to fault him for bantering with you. But the rest of that stuff. Pretty good evidence of astoundingly poor social awareness. All I can say is that he appears to have made 6590 posts without expressing a single coherent thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 09:57 AM

Idiot. You can't even tell that my pun was intended for BillD, not you. It's not all about you you know. Although you try desperately to make it so with all of your pathetic verbal flailing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 10:06 AM

OK, you win. Let's go along with that..

You are saying then that my first marriage needs a different word to describe it than my second?

Why?

Just out of interest, I call it my marriage. I called my first attempt my marriage. The many differences include where we live, the restaurants we use, the cars we drive, the places we go on holiday, new friends, blah blah. The differences also include the fact that we had children in my first marriage as that was our intention. My second marriage hasn't, and that too was part of our plan.

If we accidentally had children, would we, and I repeat, need a new marriage certificate to denote the new term?

If it wasn't for the Mudelves, I would call you a disgusting pathetic, homophobic, covered in pondweed ... But they would not publish my post, so best not then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM

I think I've come up with a way to make it possible for us to deny gay people the right to marry without running afoul of the equal treatment clause in the Constitution. All we have to do is remove any and all marriage benefits for everyone, including the right to be consulted and/or present during a medical emergency or death. No tax breaks, no assumption of common property, no family prices to get into National Parks. I think it will be an easy sell to the current crop of Republicans, since it fits in so well with their stated philosophy: we all ought to be completely on our own.

I know it's a waste of time to try to talk to GfS, but just in case he has one of his rare moments of coherence, here's a question:

GfS, please ignore, for the moment, definitions, health issues, your concept of normality, and everything else that goes on in your head. This is a straight-ahead, yes-or-no Constitutional question. Do you think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 10:34 AM

Musket, first of all, Thank You...your post was straight ahead,...and no, I don't think that they need different names...It is the supposition of all the fanatics that think that I'm trying to get people to draw a line, by asking the question that I did. That's their problem, not mine.
Did you find in your first marriage a different 'feeling' and 'motivation' than the second? I know that when marriages dissolve many people have the 'need' to have another, and some do not. In any event, going into a second has different trepidations than the first, which often was more 'innocent'. I don't know your exact situation, so I wouldn't venture a guess....but what I can say, is that the second usually has a different set of 'cautions'...as not to repeat the pains of the first...and those pains, I'm sure, affected the children, as well, and for that, I'm sorry for all concerned.
It just seems that for all intended purposes, that only if the first on, with the children could have gone to it's full measure.
I think what I'm getting at, is that one word, or feeling that separates those two experiences apart from each other....as opposed to a 'third. or fourth, or just co-cohabiting with no commitment whatsoever. Also, the pair-bonding that goes on between parents and each other, and that with your children, is in itself a unique experience for all concerned.
Thank you for your response.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:11 AM

"A word that describes two people of the opposite sex who wish to live together as man and wife, and bring children into the world, as a result of having sex with each other, and to be raised by the same two people as a family, as opposed to any other 'domestic' situation." Clearly, the plural noun "breeders" meets this requirement. If the individuals involved wish to have a legal or quasi-religious affiliation as well, than they can join the rest of us under the much broader heading of marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:37 AM

That's what I thought artbrooks. After all, in the quote you have repeated, I see no reason why marriage would be necessary in the first place. I know plenty of people who have raised children successfully without getting married.

In promoting marriage by giving the status financial incentives, government only manage to promote the financial rather than the spiritual reasons for marriage.

I suppose religious bodies feel they have some ownership on marriage. The Archbishop of York, someone who despite his eccentric stunts is a deeply thoughtful and for a Bishop, rational man. Even he said that governments cannot make marriage laws because only God can decide what is a marriage. He went down in my estimation for that as I am irreligious so wonder how he has the bare faced cheek to denigrate my marriage too.

I do seem to be defending my own status a bit here, and the thread is about "gay marriage" which as a term should be as obvious as "dark night" or "large double decker bus."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:41 AM

Substitute "inter-racial" for "gay", and this becomes a subject that most of us hoped we had put behind us decades ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM

Misquoting you, Goofus? I don't think so.

For the enlightenment and education of all, shall I post a link to the post on that thread of some time ago where you inadvertantly revealed the REAL nature of your hang-up?

Keep it up, Goofus, and I'll blow your cover wide open.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 05:12 PM

Gone very quiet, hasn't it ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 05:48 PM

Conversing with parrots soon becomes boring.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:09 PM

Y'Art!... "Substitute "inter-racial" for "gay", and this becomes a subject that most of us hoped we had put behind us decades ago."

There ya go.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:18 PM

Oh, come now: ya don't have a choice as to your racial identity, but everyone except people brainwashed with thatthere liberal agenda knows that "gay" is a sick, unnatural choice that some guys make because they weren't parented right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 09:15 PM

I remember well the day I decided to be heterosexual. I was thirteen, and this girl at school suddenly became the only thing I could think about, specifically about kissing her and . . . stuff . . . that I didn't really know anything about yet. I remember thinking, "Gosh, I could be a homosexual if I want. I wonder if I should? I could try to kiss a boy . . ." And then, of couse, I decided to go ahead and like girls after all. I'm sure everyone remembers that moment when you decided what you will be turned on by. Fond memories . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 09:43 PM

It happened kind of early for me. I had a good buddy who lived across the street. One day I crossed the street to see him. It turned out that he wasn't home, but his younger sister was there. We stood on the front porch and chatted for quite some time. Turned out I decided she was as cute as a bug's ear and she seemed to think I was kinda neat. I'd take her for rides in my little red wagon.

I was nine. She was also nine, but a couple of months younger than me.

So I decided that I wanted to be a heterosexual. I pulled out the questionnaire and checked the appropriate box. Been hetero ever since.

Don Firth

P. S. She WAS a cutey!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 09:45 PM

And get this! I was living in California at the time!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:37 AM

I remember the day I found out I was heterosexual.

The doctor told me if I didn't follow a "straight" path, the alternative would make my eyes water.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

I often wonder why some people are so quick to question the lifestyle of others. I do all the time. I question the lifestyle of burglars, fraudsters, gangsters etc. Mainly on the basis that I could be affected by what they do if I were unfortunate enough.

But questioning a choice that has no effect on me, driving lifestyle underground until gay relationships are frowned upon by society's sheep, leading to fractious and therefore short term relationships which leads to promiscuity which leads to public health issues which can affect us all?

There you go goofus and Akenhateon, there's your excuse to hate. Unfortunately it also shows the responsibility your odious views have in creating the rare but real concerns.

Just think, gay marriage and stability could neuter your somewhat irrational fears!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 04:59 AM

Homosexual "marriage" does not seem to have altered the abysmal health figures for MSM. They continue to rise steadily...but I suppose that doesn't concern you very much?

How high must hiv rates go before you understand that there is a problem that "equality" cannot fix?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 05:53 AM

The dropping figures (HPA) are a cause for celebration.

They need to go a hell of a lot higher before I stop celebrating the low figures in homosexual people. Now, the slight rise in heterosexual women is a cause for concern.

"But I suppose that doesn't concern you very much."



Mow many statistics will you twist till they suit your views? I say "views" as we are debating in polite company. I thought views like yours could have been consigned to history. I feel a Godwin moment coming on. (If you get a pair of calipers to measure people's noses, you might be able to check to see if they are gay? or is that Jews? I get confused when people are concerned that not everybody has their lifestyle.)

Or at least the lifestyle they say they have...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:04 AM

Asserting that homosexual marriage and public health are equivalent is willful ignorance. It is just not fact.

Ake, do you have anything musically folk, or folkly musical to share with us? Or is this just a playground for you to "share" your pathological fear of people who do not share your (presumably) perfect sexuality? Just wondering.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:44 AM

'Homosexual "marriage" does not seem to have altered the abysmal health figures for MSM.'




Homosexual marriage is still repressed in the vast majority of locales because of assholes like you, so how can this be a valid argument?

"MSM promiscuity is a risk factor for HIV, therefore we should vehemently oppose an institution that supports monogamy, awwwwk, Akenaton wants a cracker, awk."

Wow you're right...it does get boring.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:25 AM

It all seems nasty to me. Nasty.
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM

Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with "marriage"

The people who want it are the same people who want nothing done about the exploitation of our children and who see any discussion of the immigration issue as "racism"
They of the wooly minded silencers of "liberalism".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM

What seems nasty? Homophobia, pointing at homophobes and laughing at them or gay marriage???

This thread has the lot. I know because I purposely cause some of it!

Akenaton seems to not like a gay lifestyle, whilst the more correctly spelled Akhenaton had gay lovers, (or that hieroglyph had the bloke upside-down and was misinterpreted....)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM

I think Akhenaton had rather too many children to be a homosexual.

He was I believe, a bit of a family man, as he is often depicted amongst his wife and children.

Had he been a homosexual, I would still have admired his vision.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM

"Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with "marriage"

Wow,,,and you did this survey where?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:22 PM

Just research any of the take up rates.....no survey.
They've had homosexual marriage for nearly fifteen years in Denmark.

Take up rates a low and "marriages" are of much shorter duration than hetero.

But I've already posted that on other threads ....why do you keep repeating the question?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

In the UK the proportion of the population getting married has fallen by a third since 1981. Perhaps we'd better stop heterosexuals marrying too as it's not very popular.

The issue is not whether you approve of homosexuality. In a fair society you don't deny someone rights just because you don't like them. We are not even discussing what those rights should be, because they already exist under the name civil partnership. The debate is just over what to call them.

Marriage in this context is an arrangement under civil law which gives couples certain rights and obligations over and towards each other. I don't see the objectors suggesting that we need different words to describe a lease, a mortgage or other legal arrangements by same-sex couples. Could someone please provide me with a reasoned argument, without resorting to abuse, why we should need a different name for marriage?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 04:09 PM

Ake says, "Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with 'marriage.'"

Patently untrue.

And, as usual, Ake cobbles the information in a feeble effort to support his prejudices.

The Danish parliament voted 85-24 to legalize same-sex marriage law on June 15th, 2012!

Hardly enough time to develop any kind of meaningful statistics!

I know at least four couples, three male couples, one female couple, who have been in stable, monogamous relationships for a number of years—and would like to have all of the legal rights that heterosexual married couples have—but are denied them by people with the same kind of prejudices that Ake spouts.

In the coming November election, a same-sex marriage law is on the ballot for Washington State. Immense amounts of money are pouring into the state in an effort to defeat the measure—mostly from out-of-state religious groups! One of the major groups is Romney's very own Mormon Church.

The same thing happened in California when Proposition 8 repealed the California same-sex marriage law.

Some people are still living in the Dark Ages and are hanging onto their archaic beliefs like Grim Death.

#### By the way:

Ake and Goofus, have this made into a sampler and hang it on your wall, and have it tattooed backwards on your foreheads so that you can read it every time you look in the mirror:

There is a lot more to a marriage than just sex!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:37 PM

"The first country at all to introduce a legal recognition of same-sex unions was Denmark in 1989".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 08:35 PM

Most homosexuals are too promiscuous to care about marriage. They'd rather hang out at some Glory Hole.
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 08:42 PM

Civil unions, yes. But NOT full-fledged marriage.

Fully recognized same-sex MARRIAGE was passed by the Danish parliament on June 15th of THIS YEAR.

Look it up!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:05 PM

Are there hetero glory holes?
Lesbian glory holes?
What is it about gay men?
And glory holes?
(:-( O)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:12 PM

Pull your head out of yours, Henry!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 10:16 PM

Glory be!
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:27 AM

Akenhateon would respect Akenhaton "even if" he had gay lovers. Added to "he had too many children to have had gay lovers" we finally get the disgusting old sod to come clean.

His comments are based on prejudice and bigotry. Nailed by his own words.

At least he doesn't have to fabricate conclusions from weird statistics any more as justification of his stance has its own malodour without spewing out bollocks to try and prove decent people are wrong.

I wondered where Harry Enfield got his inspiration for The Self Righteous Brothers from....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:49 PM

There is a lot more to a marriage than just sex!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:14 PM

Yeah, but Hank the Crank doesn't understand that his deplorable comments that ignore the logical inferences involved in that regard may be taken in three ways... either he is an idiot or a troll or both.

Bet ya a dollar Crankle asks me to explain something to him or just shits on me if he can't figure this shit out or just ignores this post altogether or says something really fucking stupid again... oh, wait, strike that last one... that's a given.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:29 PM

Not having been gaily married yet, I feel underqualified to answer any questions about it. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 06:06 PM

I never married either. A lawyer said you get married to have children. If you don't plan to have children, there's no point in getting married. And I agree with him.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM

My wife and I married thirty-five years ago. We like children, but we don't have any, and we never really considered it. We thoroughly enjoy each other's company, like the same things and the same people, and we share a lot of interests. And on a number of things, we work together.

Simple. We love each other. Sex, yes. But children? No. That's it.

And as I said above, there's more to marriage than just just sex. Or procreation.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:20 PM

Crank... "If you don't plan to have children, there's no point in getting married. And I agree..."

Told yas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM

(:-( D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:59 PM

Ian ...your last post was jibberish.....see a doctor.

You have the impudence to accuse me of hatred when you post stuff like that......perhaps you are drunk, but even that is no excuse

Calm down and try to get a grip on reality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:28 PM

200 is enough. Right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:29 PM

Ian? Who the fuck is Ian? And what was his last post or portion thereof that you dis? Please get some internut manners and explain your post as best (sometimes that would take too long but ya gotta fuckin TRY to give us a hint!) you can.

I scanned the last fifty posters names and there ain't no Ian THERE. Maybe some Ian posted but not under the handle Ian (my goggles COULD be fogged up so help me here, eh, ake?)?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:51 PM

Traumatic brain injury? Or just Wet Brain?
gnu? I'm talkin' to you.
(:-( O)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM

Krinkle, you're incoherent. What the hell are you talking about?

Or--what are you smoking?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 09:01 PM

Here Don. Just for you. And gnu....
Wet Brain


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 09:55 PM

Although I can't speak for gnu, he seems pretty together, so I don't think he suffers from that condition.

As for myself, I eat right, get a good balance of vitamins, and as far as alcoholic consumption is concerned, I occasionally have a (one) glass of wine with meals, usually when we have guests, and I do enjoy an occasional cold beer on a hot afternoon.

Korsakoff ("wet brain") Syndrome? Is that what you are suffering from?

That would explain a lot.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 10:57 PM

Musket is Ian Mather.

Krinkle, is a suffering from smartarsemischiefmakerism


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:43 PM

I can see any number of good reasons for marrying...whether or not one plans to have children. I can see any number of good reasons for not marrying too. It just depends on the individual and how they look at life, that's all. Some people are made for marriage, some are not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 04:58 AM

Thanks Jack...nice to see somebody is paying attention.

Its a bit difficult when gnu occasionally asks a civil question.
I don't like to be thought rude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM

Is there any chance at all that some of you would stop mucking up our discussions by responding to Henry Krinkle, who has never contributed anything except trollery on this forum? I don't blame someone who is a complete asshole for acting like a complete asshole, but when we respond to the assholes we don't have a conversation anymore. I'm really tired of discussions on Mudcat being ruined by otherwise intelligent people responding to trolls. Pretty soon we're spending all our time talking about assholes instead of the subject at hand. JUST SAY NO! Or rather, just say nothing . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 02:29 PM

Point taken, John. You're right!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 03:54 PM

Youse cannae help yursells... kin ye?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 04:19 PM

We always wear a great big smile
We never do look sour
We hang out here at Mudcat
Laughing every hour.
(:-( D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 06:48 PM

But the fact of the matter is, Don, gnu, Bobert, SRS, Jack and several others follow me all around Mudcat like a litter of little puppydogs.
I think they want a treat or their ears scratched or their heads patted.
Good little puppies all.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM

Meanwhile the battle for equal primate rights goes on! When will marriage between Chimps, other apes, monkeys, and Humans be made legal? When, I ask you?

When I'm elected president, that's when! Vote APP in November.

- Chongo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM

ake... "Thanks Jack...nice to see somebody is paying attention. Its a bit difficult when gnu occasionally asks a civil question. I don't like to be thought rude."

Not everyone reads every post on a thread and not everyone knows there is only ONE (is there?) Ian that you refer to so it is ONLY being polite to EXPLAIN yer post. What is so hard to understand about that that you have to go out of your way, MOST incorrectltly and illogically, to shit on me?

Keep it up trolls. Keep supplying your own rope.

Following you around, Cranky? More like I am trying to shake off a yappy little dog biting my pantlegs. Fact is, yer a toothless little yapper and, yeah, I am kinda fond a you in an odd way. Or, maybe it's more curiousity as to what inane shit you will post next. Like when you simply post troll shit with nothing to do with a thread it seems like you take the inane to a whole other level. It's like when some people can't avert their eyes from a horrible accident. Yeah... you are a horrible accident that I can't take my eyes

So, ake... please do try to be polite (as I do.. read my posts and you might get an idea of how to do so) when you are being such a twit. It's just rude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 10:28 AM

Good news! California has banned the screwball therapy that purports to turn gay kids straight. They've decided it is child abuse, since it not only doesn't work, but often leads to severe depression and suicide. The therapy has been widely condemned by real therapists. Social "conservatives", of course, are screaming that it is an invasion of the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Article in New York Times


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 11:19 AM

Sounds like a typical California-style controversy, all right. They got poodle psychiatrists there too, don't they?

- Chongo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM

They can still take them to a minister to pray away the gay.
Thank God.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM

That's Mr Musket to you. (Or Dr Mather, Mr Mather or plain Mather, even that twat for all I care. ).

But calling me Ian infers a familiarity that is just not appropriate. I drink with nice people and drink with idiots. I work with nice people, I work with idiots. I etc etc.

But I draw the line at civility with the appalling individual we know as Akenaton.

When Akenaton sees others lifestyle choices as something to "do something about" I cannot for the life of me begin to take his stance as a debating point. I don't discuss the merits of shitting on a carpet with a puppy. I rub his nose in the stuff till his behaviour reaches an acceptable standard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 01:49 PM

You should try debating with your puppy Ian, they say everyone finds their own level in debate.

By the way, I dont want to do anything about homosexuality, it seems it will always be with us, but I certainly do want to do something about legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthly lifestyle; to the extreme detriment of the family structure and homosexuals themselves.

I don't advise getting too deeply involved in debate with fido, as intellectual defeat could lower your self esteem even further.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM

gnu...I dont wish to "shit" on you, or even to be on unfriendly terms, but many of your posts are personally offensive and I find it difficult to start into a conversation with someone who seems to have taken an extreme dislike to me personally.
I have stopped responding to some members, whom I see as either liars, or just not worth the effort...I have never catagorised you as such.

I have friends here who's views differ widely from mine yet, on a personal level I value them greatly.

I am a registered member and am committed to what I post, I would never waste my time for so many years trying to wind people up.

You seem to have a very good understanding of many issues...especially political issues....so what is the problem?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 02:19 PM

Musket, there's a difference between another person and a puppy. A puppy is a small, helpless creature who is in your care. That means you have control over him and you have the responsibility to train him, thus are in a position of superior power and authority in regards to him.

This is not true of the other people you are talking to on this forum. Accordingly, I don't think your puppy analogy works, nor can it be expected to yield the results you anticipate or desire.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 05:54 PM

Yeah but it works for me.
Although a puppy might have some redeeming features.

After all, every ruddy post, he cannot help himself. Just go up a couple of posts. Lamenting that homosexuality will always be with us. Who the flying fuck are "us"?? Then goes on to show concern about legislation that promotes equality.

Ok running his nose in a shitty carpet isn't perhaps appropriate. But at least we can get a vet to neuter the sod?

In case anybody has lost the plot, this thread is about gay marriage. It invites both sides of a debate, granted. But I am not sure there are two sides to this.

You either see "gay marriage" as a term to describe two gay people making the same sort of commitment as any other couple, or you have views that have no place in decen society. He cannot even hide behind superstition as he claims to be atheist.

I could be quiet. I could let it pass. I could try and agree to disagree.

Acceptance or complacency however just encourages and perpetuates bigotry and hate. Fuck him, I'll point and glare if that's the same to you. Such ignorance and hate brings out the worst in the rest of us, me included.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM

"I could be quiet. I could let it pass. I could try and agree to disagree." .....or you could just be wrong, but you are much too arrogant to even contemplate that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM

Your arrogance has also caused you to completely miss the point of Little Hawk's post.

Foolish chap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM

ake... "but I certainly do want to do something about legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthly lifestyle; to the extreme detriment of the family structure and homosexuals themselves." "so what is the problem??

ake... ABOVE in this post is my problem... YOUR logic. Legislation will not turn YOU or anyone else gay. Don't be afraid. It does not mean YOU have to turn gay.

As for "safe and healthly", well, I guess I just gotta say, what fuckin stone age bullshit is that?

Listen up all and sundry... gay exists... it ain't goin away. The only thing that needs to go away is intolerance and ignorance. Fact is, I don't know ANY gay people (that I know of fer sure... I got some suspicions). But I surely wouldn't treat them any differently than I treat anyone else. Why would I do that? I just ain't a prick, period. I was raised not to be a prick. To treat... nevermind.

And, I GOTTA say it again... them gay parades?... shove em. THAT kinda shit pisses me off BIGtime. Be gay but don't shove it in my face eh? When ya do that yer just another ignorant, intolerant no-mind asshole like the people you rail against. It certainly detracts from everything you wish to gain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM

You find it incomprehensible that a fellow atheist (something you apparently very much approve of) could possibly disagree with you about something else than religion, Musket??? ;-) That's funny. Your own post is so redolent of various unconscious forms of unthinking bigotry and rigid stereotyping of other people based on the most superficial assumptions about them, that it doesn't really surprise me that you are so keen on hunting out evidence of bigotry in others.

There's stuff I disagree thoroughly with Akenaton about. There's stuff I agree thoroughly with him about. There's other stuff where we might partially agree and partially disagree. I have learned, through long experience, that one cannot instantly categorize a person's relative worth/intelligence/morality/fundamental beliefs or anything else based on his opinion about just one of the world's many contentious issues.

If you were to read everything Akenaton has spoken about on this forum in the last few years...rather just confining your attentions strictly to his comments about gay rights issues and legislation regarding same...you would soon find out that he is not the vicious homophobic monster who haunts your particular anxiety closet. You probably agree with him about a great many other things in life. Just not THIS particular thing. And you don't begin to comprehend why he has the opinions he does. You don't wish to even try. You want to either "save" him (by making him change his views), intimidate him into silence, or condemn him eternally amongst the circle of your peers as an antisocial bigot (which means, reduce his value to a zero quotient in the eyes of yourself and others).

He's much more complicated a person than you imagine. I find it hilarious that you are confounded by the fact that he is an atheist, and that...

"He cannot even hide behind superstition as he claims to be atheist."

You were expecting him to be a Christian fundamentalist? Well, too bad. He doesn't fit that stereotype at all. "claims" to be?????? His atheism is dead obvious if you bothered to pay any attention to the stuff he's been posting here for years and years.

Nope. He's not the stereotypical gay-bashing monster that you imagine in your mind. Not even close. You've pigeon-holed a bird here that is not even a pigeon in the first place.

Remember: When one is on a witch hunt, what does one find? A witch! Every time. And then one burns the witch.

My suggestion is not to go on a witchhunt in the first place, because the probability is that there is, in fact, no witch for you to find here. There are just other people here, people as complicated and multidimensional and unstereotypical and unpredictable and unique and idealistic as you yourself are. If you treat them with the respect you'd like them to treat you with...it might eventually be possible to get to know them AS real people, rather than as "political enemy" stereotypes.

There are certain things I'll never agree with Akenaton about. So what? I could say that about almost anyone. It doesn't change the fact that he also has many good qualities and useful thoughts to offer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:15 PM

Anybody who, in this day and age, calls homosexuality a lifestyle is seriously out of touch with reality and, I submit, would benefit greatly by doing some research into the subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:17 PM

Hmmmm No need to thank me ake, I was just telling Gnu what he had no good reason to know. Not everyone pays as much attention to Mather as you do.

As for the "puppy" analogy, think of the Mudcat at a multi-seat outhouse. People sit and shoot the shit. Some disagree like Ake and he who must not be called Ian, but that is cool. Its the dirty little yappy poodle which chooses to occupy the basement and bark up at people's butts occasionally swallowing someone else's turd that makes this place the delight that it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM

Hear!!!!Hear!!!!
(:-( 0)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 10:44 PM

He's not the stereotypical gay-bashing monster that you imagine in your mind.

Who cares? I know that Akenaton is intelligent and writes with depth and subtlety on other subjects, but a gay basher is a gay basher. I don't really care what causes a person to be so perverted. I can't speak to what's going on in his head. On this forum, in this thread, he's a gay basher. A pervert. A person who wants to have something to say about what other people do in bed. A person who wants to deny civil rights to a large group of other people. A person who ignores all facts on the subject. A person who won't and can't defend his perversion with any form of facts or logic. A person who reads health statistics and thinks they mean that other people should be second class citizens.

And you know what, Little Hawk? People who defend bigots are almost as bad. Maybe even worse in some ways -- you're supposed to know better. You should consider getting your head out of your ass on this subject. Some of us have gotten to the point where we stand up to hate speech and call it what it is. We're tired of playing nice with bigots, and they don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. If they weren't passing laws I wouldn't pay them any attention, but that's not the case. Akenaton and all the other bigots want to make other people illegal because of who they get turned on by, which means it has an immediate and large impact on me and the society I live in.

If Akenaton was on this forum going on about how black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people because that would be the ruination of society, would you be defending him? What's the difference between that and what he's doing with gay people?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM

Little hawk is the best example of real liberalism that we are likely to encounter here or anywhere else.
You and perhaps three others here are closed minded ranters who do not deserve to be on the same page as him.


There are many questions concerning the effects on society of the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy...there are many questions regarding the re-definition of marriage, both religious and secular, but to some people it all boils down to one word, equality.

This word requires to be examined and its true meaning determined.
Does it mean rights for all regardless of how we behave and how our behaviour affects society and ourselves?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM

Should pedophiles be permitted to marry children because they get them turned on?
Homosexuality is deviant behaviour. Plain and simple.
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM

And you have such a pottie mouth, Jack. Did you pick that up from the other sailors scow? What would your mum think?
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:06 AM

See?

Littlehawk, your logic is without doubt commendable and on many subjects, I would wonder who this self opinionated prick is? I am not typing as in conversation though. I am not being Ian, "Musket", "well hung stud" or any other name I regularly answer to.

I am making a point and making a point isn't connected with putting two sides over, it is pushing said point. My point is that society shall forever debate subjects such as gay marriage, mixed race marriage, women priest and dare I say it, people with learning disabilities being in love, whilst ever there are those who look down on lifestyles and social norms that are different to their preconceived views. (Getting bored with saying bigot, I am describing it instead.). All those subjects have been debated at political party conferences here in The UK over the last few years. In years to come, those of us still around may wish to hang our heads in shame if we didn't speak out about the absurdity of debating where society should be accepting without condition. It isn't about having a different view, it is about the global accepting everybody as an equal. That is the start of debate, not the result.

But where people question how others live, it is up to them to question their own views, not for decent society to lower its moral outlook to accommodate them. If Akenaton has a problem with gay relationships, fine. But his insistence on quoting lies and propaganda to justify his position is not nice, not clever and frankly, bordering on disturbing.

I'll happily debate why people have issues accepting ideals that had not hitherto been accepted. I can even on occasion see the perpetrator of crime as a victim nonetheless. But in this day and age, debating gay marriage is about trying to understand why the likes of Akenaton have such extreme views rather than trying to find common ground with the bugger.

By saying what you just did, and backed up by Jack The Sailor waking up and typing, all it has done has, from his last post, is make him feel that his views are worthy of consideration. All views are I suppose, but that's why we have people trained in dealing with personality disorder and to be honest, in trying to understand his stance, that's about as far as my regard for him can go on this subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 10:29 AM

Mister Lather! I haven't backed up Ake's views, If that is what you were saying. All I said is that you and he disagree. I did mock the little name game that you were playing. But only because it is childish and stupid for you to whine and complain about about being called your own name.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 04:57 PM

Crank... "Homosexuality is deviant behaviour. Plain and simple."

???

Your behaviour is deviant, intolerant and disgusting. You are seriously fucked up. Unless you are just being a troll and then it's worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:41 PM

In my opinion, for what it's worth, two guys going at each other anally is just nasty and gross. Creepy too.
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:44 PM

Please don't feed the poop poodle any more turdy treats.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM

There you go again, Jack. Pottie mouth.
Your Mum would be mortified to hear her little boy talk like that. Mortified.
(:-( O)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:55 PM

I'll try not to do so, JtS. But, if it barks something intelligent or funny, should I still ignore it or am I allowed to compliment it?

Hahahahaaa... just shittn ya, buddy. Like that is gonna happen very often. Hehehehee... minds me of the line from the old song, "Hank, why do you crank the way you do?" >;-D

Anyway, I really don't care about anyone's sexuality within the confines of respectful behaviour and the topic has been done to death so... gnightgnu.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM

Trudeau was right about one thing. "The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA (wearing Akenaton's hat)
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 09:06 PM

From the CDC:

"In 2009, black women accounted for 30% of the estimated new HIV infections among all blacks. Most (85%) black women with HIV acquired HIV through heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women was more than 15 times as high as the rate for white women, and more than three times as high as that of Latina women." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/)

Those of you who support legal marriage for black women are the real bigots. Don't you care about black women? It is your knee-jerk-liberal support of marriage rights for black women that is leading to the HIV epidemic. If you promote monogamous marriage for black women, it will make black women marrying seem "normal", and that will lead to more black women having sex, and more HIV among black women.

And this is all backed up by CDC statistics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 09:15 PM

TIA... I am SO glad I checked back on this thread one more time. Thank you.

That is the best post I have ever read. Bravo!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:56 AM

The CDC statistics use a slightly different population profile to the HPA figures for The UK as you would expect. One similarity though is the alarmingly higher rate (and not exactly falling) amongst heterosexul women.

Part of the commentary in their annual report for 2010/11 (the most up to date I have to ready hand) suggests a drop in gay infection incidence over time that matches increasing c society acceptance as equal stakeholders.

So, both sides of the pond, methinks it is the bigots who need to ask if their odious views drive responsible lifestyle apart?

Hello Sailor! Never said you agreed with him. I may sometimes wonder which planet you are on with some of your more irrational comments on other threads but don't confuse accepting his view with being willing to debate it. Either way just encourages him by giving his position a veneer of respectability.

I don't have any hang up whatsoever with my name. It's Ian Mather. I just changed it to Musket (an old school nickname of dubious origin) when someone involved with the government regulator I advise and carry out work for googled me and found my Mudcat posts. Considering I occasionally send myself up, polarise my views to make a point and generally poke sticks at people to flush out sanctimonious drivel, I wouldn't always stand by every last comment or stance.

If you love me as much as you seem to, you might cut and paste the above in order to denigrate anything I say on any subject in the future you disagree with.

Anyway, you started it ages ago by getting precious over my comments re the geographical location of Dumbfuckistan.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:49 AM

I dunno. I thought this whole gay liberation thing was something that came out of the '60s sexual liberation/free love movement. Turns out now that all the gays want to do is settle down and get married. Bless.

A couple of women I know have just embarked upon same-sex marriages. I'm as happy for them as I would be for anyone else. Why would you not be?

As it happens, a number of ex-girlfriends of mine have subsequently become lesbians. My take on it is that after me, no man could possibly measure up so really the poor things were left with no alternative.

I'll get me coat.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM

Tia....you really are a silly girl/guy.

At a rough estimate, how many "Black" women do you think there are in the good old USA?

2/3% of the population(MSM) account for over 70% of new hiv infections.

Dont play with me on figures!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM

Aye, playing with figures is your party piece.

You say that a rabbit is going to appear out of a hat and massage the figures till it pops out, to the joy of your sycophants all sat in a circle clapping.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:01 AM

It seems to me that Akenaton put his finger on the main issues in his post of 02 Oct 12 - 03:21 AM. It's a pity he won't debate any of them.

There are many questions concerning the effects on society of the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy...

Monogamous sex, whether hetero or homo, is safe and healthy. Promiscuous sex, hether hetero or homo, is risky. Traditionally, one of the defences against promiscuity has been marriage.

You can't have it both ways: you can't complain that gay promiscuity causes health issues and then object when they want to form stable relationships to avoid it.

there are many questions regarding the re-definition of marriage, both religious and secular...

This is about civil marriage. What the different religions do is up to them.

but to some people it all boils down to one word, equality.

This word requires to be examined and its true meaning determined.
Does it mean rights for all regardless of how we behave and how our behaviour affects society and ourselves?


No, but it should mean equal rights for people who behave the same way. Why shouldn't all people who wish to form stable relationships and have these recognised by the law have the same rights?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM

No, no, no...please. Let's do play figures!

Like these from UNICEF:

"In Swaziland, as in many African countries, women are the backbone of the communities; they maintain the household, generate income, and shoulder the burden of caring for sick family members. This stabilizing role played by women is fast eroding as the HIV pandemic takes its toll. **Women between the ages of 15 and 49 are reported to constitute more than half of all infections.**" (http://www.unicef.org/swaziland/hiv_aids.html)

Don't you care about Swazi women? If we allow Swazi women to get married it will make sex with Swazi women seem "normal" and exacerbate the HIV epidemic among Swazi women, right?









And BTW, I must agree with you. These are completely silly arguments. (And that is exactly my point....Ouch).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM

Howard....perhaps you haven't noticed, but I have spent years debating the issues that you mention....there have been several very long threads on the issue of homosexual "marriage", in which I notice you have not been a participant.

Perhaps you could find the time to read them before you state that I am unwilling to debate any of them. I have always only been against legislation which helps to promote homosexuality as a safe and healthy practice....It patently is not so.
I have quoted the male homosexual health figures on numerous occasions
The low takeup rates for homosexual union/"marriage"
The fact that homosexual unions/"marriages" in general terms only last a fraction of the time that hetero marriages do etc.

These statistics point to the conclusion that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and indeed the figures for sexual partners are many times higher for male homosexuals than for heteros.

These debates always end with the pro "gay marriage" side falling back to their default position of "but its just not fair".

I have drawn to their attention that other sexual minorities(like those who practice incest) are routinely deprived of rights, even if they agree to be sterilised......but no answer is forthcoming.
The whole sorry charade is media driven.....homosexuals being flavour of the decade.

You mention that marriage would put a brake on homosexual promiscuity, but that is not neccessarily true; I know several married people who are not strictly monogamous......what applies the breaks on masculine predatory sex, is the extended family structure.

Children are the key....in general terms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:28 PM

The fact is, homosexual behavior is NOT deviant to them!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:18 PM

"masculine predatory sex"

I think this phrase was just used as a synonym for homosexuality.

Wow. Homosexual relationships can't possibly be consensual.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:43 PM

>>>That's Mr Musket to you. (Or Dr Mather, Mr Mather or plain Mather, even that twat for all I care. ).

But calling me Ian infers a familiarity that is just not appropriate. <<<

or

>>> I don't have any hang up whatsoever with my name. <<<

Which of these is true? Please pick one and stick with it. LOL

BTW, You mean "implies" not "infers"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM

I can understand that some people will, in any thread mentioning homosexuality, inevitably begin discussing anal sex. I don't know why so many other people join in. I don't know why people like arguing the same shit repeatedly, and often, at length.

You have men who have sex with men, and you have Black women, probably who also had sex with men. I think we can blame men for spreading HIV. If some people blame male homosexuals, it's logical to just blame ALL men.

Personally, blaming either group seems fairly stupid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:28 PM

It's all your fault.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM

"masculine predatory sex"

I think this phrase was just used as a synonym for homosexuality.


Pretty evidently it wasn't. Read the first half of the sentence that came from.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM

Tia...I'm sorry, but you come across as being a little dim.

Is this a debating tactic?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

Sordid.
(:-( o)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM

Okay, so are we saying that "promiscuous" and "predatory" are synonyms?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:19 PM

TIA is coming across as bright enough. Your tactics are being reflected back at you. Is it you who is dim?

"what applies the breaks on masculine predatory sex, is the extended family structure."

I don't understand this, do cousins of Gay men go to the bars and tell potential sexual partners that their relatives are "playas?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM

Haha.
Sorry back atcha good fellow.
Calling someone dim when you run out of rational arguments is definitely a debating tactic.
In fact, there is even an official name for it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM

You may be saying that, the possibility had not occurred to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM

You are a funny man ake! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM

Mr McGrath seemed to understand nmy meaning well enough?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM

Your meaning is nonsense. If McGrath "understood" nonsense then bully for him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:50 PM

Maybe its the difference in nationalities....Goodnight Jack :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:06 PM

ake... "Tia...I'm sorry, but you come across as being a little dim."

UnFUCKINreal. You actually posted that for everyone in the world to read for eternity?

Are you really that brain-dead?

Not that *I* or anyone else who read this thread NEED an answer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 11:46 AM

Hello Sailor!

You can call me Ian all you like. Akenaton however cannot. It would mean I was comfortable with his familiarity. I am certainly not. When I said I have no hang ups with my name, I was referring to members of the human race as evolved.

I suggest people read his last longer post a few posts above where he explains his stance and view.

I doubt I have anything to add to it. He describes homophobic bigotry so well, you'd think he had inside knowledge of the condition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 07:05 PM

You are being pretty childish Musket. If you don't want him to call you "Ian" why don't you be polite and simply ask. "Please don't call me Ian." You are attacking ake personally for honestly and civilly expressed opinions. Banter is fine but it becomes tedious when the other person does not banter back. Half banter is no banter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 03:07 AM

Hello sailor!

You are obviously far more mature and rational than I am.

He may be putting his views in a civil manner, but the views themselves are far from civil.

As I said before, by trying to be rational in debate with him, you inadvertently give him a veneer of respectability. I try to see other viewpoints on most subjects but where people try to justify despicable bigotry with twisted "facts" rather than good old plain ignorance, I give no quarter. You see, the problem is, he isn't just a fat headed idiot in the pub with a tabloid hangin out of his back pocket. No, he appears to be intelligent. My refusal to even try and see his view is possibly because he would not see reality if it hit him in the gonads. Spouting homophobic views and trying to influence people with lies is not free speech, it is abusing the concept of free speech.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

His acting rationally gives his opinions a veneer of respectability. Your attacks and petulance give yours the stench of irrationality. I agree with you for the most part on gay rights but he seems more reasonable. You may think you are calling him names to defend what you believe are rational ideas. But clearly it is not working.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM

Problem is, my seafaring friend..

If we don't attack and denigrate those whom prefer two tier society, we end up with apartheid South Africa, The USA up till recently etc. It was people saying no, there is no place in society for having less rights based on creed, colour, sex etc that started the road to equal society.

I don't have rational ideas. Society does. I am merely reflecting them. If you think he is being reasonable, I suggest you have a good hard think before putting such thoughts in the public domain. I am sure you are a nicer person than that...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM

If it wasn't so pathetic, I could just about manage a laugh.

What fucking irony.....it's exactly as Little Hawk said!

You're a brave man Jack, to champion the right to express an opinion on this forum. Knowing you for all these years,I would "suggest" that you need no one to tell you how to think!   Ian loves liberty until it conflicts with his version of the truth....I took the time to respond to Howard's invitation, now he has disappeared into the ether;
If my stance is built on lies and bigotry how come no body can point out the lies or bigotry in these pages.

All we ever get is "It's just no' fair mister" and a heap of abuse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM

I dont need to. I just read your posts. I am not spouting a truth, not having versions of anything and not putting an opinion versus any other. I am reminding you and others that equality is the reality so why say otherwise? If you don't think equality is the reality, you are not grasping reality and expressing a view of how things should be in your mind. Fine, but opening your mouth or typing upsets people. decent honest people. Just remember that. If a gay Prime Minister made you second class for not being Gay, you might legitimately complain. But till that day, stop celebrating the stigmatising of others.

You are saying that a legitimate lifestyle choice should not be encouraged and then come up with spurious statistics that do not stand up to scrutiny when applied to your hypothesis. I spend time in a professional capacity these days looking at clinical evidence based guidance, as health and social care providers in England are regulated on reflecting such guidance and I cary out inspections and assessments for the regulator. There is nothing nowhere in any UK published guidance that acknowledges a single part of your "they are all promiscuous and spread disease" stance. You and your mates at The Daily M*il exacerbate a problem that should not even be there in the first place.



See? he quotes decent honest contributors such as Little Hawk and Jack the Sailor, and by doing so he feels propagating his version of reality is legitimate.

No fucking surrender. Get back under your stone and on the way, issue an apology to the people living their lives, not interfering with yours, whom will remain stigmatised whilst ever hate speech is entertained by shallow people.

Fuck you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM

You know, in all this, er, "discussion," I have yet to see someone say, "A homosexual act harms me because..." and fill in the blank. You may get weirded out by seeing it. Don't look. How many people are unpleasant to look at for any number of reasons? Are they touching you inappropriately? Are they kissing you? Are they enticing you into their "cult?" Of course, not. Unless you are predisposed to being enticed. And aren't you free to be enticed into whatever cult you choose?

No, through all the arguments I have heard or read, I have yet to hear someone state exactly how they are hurt by a homosexual act. Alright, I can hear you sharpening your swords. No, this doesn't include minors, the mentally handicapped, or people whose minds are chemically diminished. And it does not include force or any form of coercion. These are the same terms that apply to heterosexual sex, and they are quite reasonable. So don't try to "red herring" this one by using children or animals, or any other absurdity. You know exactly who I am talking about and what the parameters are. So...How are you harmed?

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 03:13 PM

I wish we could discuss morose marriage in depth for a change. ;-) After all, it's a lot more common than gay marriage.

Musket - You still seem surprised by the fact that Akenaton is an intelligent person. And not a religious fanatic. And not a rightwinger. And not a drooling yobbo covered in swastika tattoos.   Gosh! What a surprise! You'd be even more surprised if you read many things he's posted here about other subjects than this particular one, and discovered that he's got many other good qualities too, and is quite politically progressive in a number of respects, and totally opposed to, for example, the Religious Right in the USA. I don't think you comprehend his position on gay-related issues...nor why he takes that position. It's not that he hates gays. It's not that he wishes to persecute gays.

There's no reason why Akenaton should not have "a veneer of respectability" on this forum. He is a respectable person.

Your desire to categorize him as a "bigot" reminds me of how some people will characterize anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government about anything as an "anti-semite"....or anyone who objects to something Obama has done during his presidency as a "racist"...or anyone who criticizes anything Hillary Clinton does as a "woman-hater", "sexist", etc.

It's similar to the Inquisition labelling someone whose opinions they didn't like a "witch". The accusation, once made, cannot be disproven to the one who hurled it. This doesn't make it true.

saulgoldie - I've never felt that any homosexual act harmed or threatened me, and I couldn't care less about other people's wish to engage in same, if that's their choice. Nor to marry if they want to. I simply don't care one way or the other. It's a non-issue to me. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even object to someone marrying their dog...as long as it was clear that the dog was in agreement with the arrangement. ;-) If they could find a church to sanctify the arrangement, I wouldn't mind that either. Their choice, not mine...cos it's their life, not mine.

What I do object to is cynical politicians using certain highly emotional wedge issues to divide and conquer the public by continually harping on those issues in an exaggerated fashion and setting people against each other. And that's what's been going on around gay rights for quite some time now, as well as around a number of other "hot button" issues that get people all worked up. It's calculated. It's manipulative. It gets far more media attention than it deserves...and that was the plan all along.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 06:56 PM

Ian....I have said it before and I say it again,you are becoming irrational.
" I am reminding you and others that equality is the reality so why say otherwise? If you don't think equality is the reality, you are not grasping reality and expressing a view of how things should be in your mind."......Do you know what these words convey to me?   The rantings of a religious fundamentalist....isn't that ironic?

"I spend time in a professional capacity these days looking at clinical evidence based guidance, as health and social care providers in England are regulated on reflecting such guidance and I cary out inspections and assessments for the regulator."

If the above is true, I fear for the National Health Service, and the poor souls who are the subject of your "inspections and assessments" ...I "suggest" that you see a doctor.

Saul...trail your red herring somewhere else, we are discussing bad legislation here, not whether we can be "harmed" by the sexual behaviour of others.
One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour.

Now unless Howard returns from the outer reaches, I shall draw a line under this. Thank you to the good men and few, who were prepared to stand up to the Fascism of the "silencers". Good night and may Aton protect you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 07:19 PM

"One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour."

As are many heterosexuals harmed by their sexual behaviour - it is their behaviour that is causing the harm, not their sexual orientation. Why is that so hard for you to accept?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 11:08 PM

LH: Your desire to categorize him as a "bigot" reminds me of how some people will characterize anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government about anything as an "anti-semite".

Sorry, Little Hawk, that's a really, really bad analogy. In fact, it demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you want it to. It is demonstrably true that many people who disagree with the Israeli government are not anti-Semites. Those who say otherwise are ignorant boobs who make assumptions about other people based on their membership in a group. On the other hand, it is demonstrably true that, both legally and ethically, gay people should enjoy the same civil rights as everyone else. People who say otherwise are ignorant boobs who make assumptions about people based on their membership in a group. So the people you are defending in the first part of the above quote are just like the people you are castigating in the second part.

You say you don't care about civil rights. I'm so sorry for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM

Yeah Littlehawk. Pointing out where others may agree with him on othe matters makes his stance on homosexuality ok. The Kray twins loved their old mum. [insert other examples of "surely can't be that bad"]

Ok I'm a fundamental lunatic who it isn't worth debating with because I am so far up my own arse I refuse to consider the merits of hating a broad section of society based on their choices in love and companionship.

I'm comfortable with that.

I'm reminded of Arlo Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant having to discuss father rape And all kind of groovy things, based on those he was sitting on the bench with.

This thread is about gay marriage. Everybody seemed to be discussing gay marriage till he came on board with his well worn prejudice and hate. I don't frankly care that he may have views on subjects that may resonate with mine. I don't care that he may disagree with a stance of mine on a subject that could make me think and alter my view. (I have altered my view on many subjects through being informed by debate, contrary to what you say.) But acknowledging bigoted hate is too big a price to pay to pretend to look reasonable. I'd rather be seen as forthright and stubborn.

Bigotry is a term banded around to describe anybody who disagrees with you. However if you wish to see it in pure dictionary form, try to imagine yourself as a gay person reading his diatribe. In fact don't try to put yourself in other's shoes, read them as the reasonable person you undoubtably are.



Sorry if I refuse to see the merit in encouraging him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 04:21 AM

Whether or not the law catches up, society is moving on. People are increasingly talking of gay couples being "married" - "civil partnered" is too cumbersome and somehow too impersonal. I have noticed that reports of one of police officers killed in Manchester have referred to her intended civil partnership and how she was enjoying planning her wedding - the word wasn't enclosed in quotes or used ironically, and I suspect the papers were simply reporting the words used by her friends and colleagues.

I suspect for most people it isn't an issue. For those for whom it is an issue, the issue is homosexuality rather than marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:07 AM

Ian Musket Mather Blather. Look below to see what a reasonable argument looks like.

>>>"One thing is crystal clear, very many male homsexuals appear to be badly harmed by their sexual behaviour."

As are many heterosexuals harmed by their sexual behaviour - it is their behaviour that is causing the harm, not their sexual orientation.<<<


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:10 AM

Howard...Homosexuality has been with us for ever....it is not an issue as you say, it is a fact of life,as are various other minority sexual practices.

However, legislation to promote homosexual practice as "safe and healthy", certainly is an issue; and although "most people" on Mudcat or in certain sections of Western society may support such legislation, "most people" where I live are against the re-definition of marriage to accomodate a sexual minority no matter how powerful or well represented they may be politically.


In the UK, all "rights" are contained within the Civil Union legislation......Tho' taking the very poor civil union rates into consideration, I reiterate my view that homosexuality and monogamy go together like chalk and cheese.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:36 AM

That is a weak argument. As I understand it, marriage rates in the UK are at historic lows. It does not logically follow that mixed sex couples should not be allowed to marry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 09:19 AM

Ake, you didn't even pretend to address what I said. OK, let me rephrase it. Exactly how are you harmed if two adults of sound mind and clarity of thought and free from coercion get married?

If someone steals from you, they have caused you material harm. If someone punches you, they have caused you bodily harm. If two people get married, you are harmed exactly how? Remember, no animals, minors, force, or people of diminished mental capacity. They are all red herrings, and you know it. And...go.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM

Saul, my stance is that homosexuality is an unhealthy practice and should not be promoted as "safe and healthy" by legislation to make it part of mainstream society, in the same way as we presently proscribe people who practice incest.
I dont understand what you mean about homosexuals "harming" me personally. Of course most of the "harm" is done to male homosexuals themselves, by their generally hedonistic lifestyle.

As far as the general public are concerned, it is the "institution" of marriage and the family structure which many see as being harmed by re-definition to include to people who were never intended to reproduce....in the the eyes of my friends and neighbours here...and indeed the whole country...the marriage template is mother /father/ children/ and extended family.
Should people within that template chose not to reproduce, or sadly, be unable to reproduce for medical reasons, that is fine, but the template remains, and any attempt to alter it weakens the "institution"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 11:42 AM

"....homosexuality is an unhealthy practice..."

Homosexuality is neither of those things, it is an innate sexual orientation. Anyone, hetero, homo, bi, trans etc. is capable of engaging in unhealthy practices hence, by your logic, it can be said that heterosexuality is an unhealthy practice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 11:52 AM

"Homosexuality" is not a practice. Unprotected and unsanitary sex are practices which are unhealthy whether it is same or different sex couples or groups that engage. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about a married couple doing their thing.

Guy's and girls give each other diseases. Guys and girls do kinky things. Marriage tends to decrease the risks substantially.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

If we are concerned with everything people do that is unhealthy, then we must broaden our list of concerns much more widely than just with homosexuality. How about skydiving, motorcycle riding, getting a tatoo, eating any of a variety of substances that pretend to be called "food," playing soccer, playing cricket (whateverthehell THAT is), doing gymnastics, falling in love, or, or, playing the banjo? How about striking a match? How about talking on cellphones...anywhere??!!! Are we supposed to protect everyone from these by making them illegal, or at least making the participants subject to persecution, ridicule, and deprivation of human rights?

Protecting the institution of marriage? Well, haven't people and our ancestor species been doing something resembling marriage for millenia? No? Well then, how did you get here? And if it is all that strong, why is there so much infidelity and divorce? If the "institution of marriage" is so fragile that it must be "protected" from homosexuals, then it is weak, indeed, and should fall anyway.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:59 PM

So I take it that a chosen lifestyle is unhealthy.

Ok. Why? You are making a mental leap that all gay people are as you say hedonistic.

This thread is about gay marriage. Sorry if a state of love and mutual desire to settle down as a couple doesn't fit your statement of unhealthy lifestyle. Between my marriages , I had a hell of a time thanks to Internet dating. You could say heterosexual hedonism. I would.

So, and I am trying to be civil here, could you either name something uniquely homosexual that is unhealthy or kindly shut the f... Sorry, I am trying to remain civil.

Here's a statistic for you. Of all rapes on The UK that were reported between 1998 and 2010, over 99% of the victims were women.

Unhealthy hedonistic bastards strike again. Pity they weren't homosexuals eh Ake?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:15 PM

"Of all rapes on The UK that were reported between 1998 and 2010, over 99% of the victims were women".

Yep; we need to do something about the western cultural practice of allowing women to go out in public without a male family member to chaperone. Look what allowing this to be accepted as normal and mainstream has led to!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:42 PM

"/// should not be promoted as "safe and healthy" by legislation to make it part of mainstream society


Not only is is not "a practice"... it is not "being promoted as healthy"

It is being recognized as one of the several human sexual orientations! What is healthy or UNhealthy is a separate issue.

Sorry Ake, but no one here believes that your concern is merely about health, but is your simply your cover story for a basic 'aversion' to homosexuality. It is not clear whether you have admitted that to yourself, or have really convinced yourself that 'health' is the issue.

You have been asked several times whether *IF* health problems were solved, you'd relent... but you mostly dance around that question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 05:16 PM

About those who are overly concerned with what other consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes, I have grave suspicions as to what motivates their concern.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:32 AM

Is incest an "innate sexual orientation"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM

Ian.....HIV rates in UK/USA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:38 AM

No. Incest means you are too lazy to go outside of the home where you were raised to find a mate. It is the sexual equivalent of couch potato.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:51 AM

Bill... Do you believe that printing your posts in bold script and casting aspertions on my motives, give these posts more gravitas or make them seem more sensible?

If you do, you are sadly mistaken....and will soon find yourself in the company of Don T and Dont F, who are among the inhabitants of the "slightly deranged" Mudcat annex.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:56 AM

Hi Jack...what are you doing up a this hour?

I think you are being a bit unfair, it may be genetic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 06:26 AM

UK. Falling amongst homosexual men, rising in heterosexual women. Source - Health Protection Agency (HPA) Annual reports, consistent since 2002 to latest publication covering year 2010-11.

That said, the rise is from a baseline of rising in line with population numbers and Townsend deprivation scores.

USA, I don't have any figures to hand, I would have to get them the same as anybody else. UK figures are ready to hand near my desk. Are you saying USA figures, (and there are many USA figures to go by, WHO use an amalgamation of them) are not reflecting a similar picture? I would find that odd if it were.

So, even when being civil and trying to see where you are coming from, the facts fail your prejudice. Even if they did coincide with your preconceived views, the answer does not lie in your second class citizen model.

So perhaps it would be best if I stopped this short excursion into being civil with you. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:33 AM

"Is incest an "innate sexual orientation"?"

Incest is not a sexual orientation it is a sexual deviation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:41 AM

Aren't the two interchangeable?

Doesn't some peoples orientation deviate from the normal path?

Ian. you are clutching at straws.
20% of new hiv cases amongst "black or white heterosexual women is a medical problem.
70% of new cases amongst male homosexuals is an epidemic.
CDC says that in major US cities, 1 in 5 carry the virus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:49 AM

May 2012 HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men
Fast Facts
•• Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).
•• Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
•• From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the
population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history
of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted
for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an
estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.
The Numbers
New HIV Infections2
•• In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new HIV
infections in the US and 79% of infections among all
newly infected men. Compared with other groups,
MSM accounted for the largest numbers of new HIV
infections in 2009.
•• Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400
(39%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest number
of new infections (3,400) occurred in those aged
40–49.
•• Among all MSM, black/African American MSM
accounted for 10,800 (37%) new HIV infections in
2009. Whereas new HIV infections were relatively
stable among MSM overall from 2006–2009, they
increased 34% among young MSM—an increase
largely due to a 48% increase among young black/
African American MSM aged 13–29.
•• Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for
6,000 (20%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest
percentage of new infections (45%) occurred in those
aged 13–29.
HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths
•• In 2010, in the 46 states with long-term confidential,
name-based reporting, MSM accounted for 78% of
estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13
years and older, and 61% of estimated diagnoses
among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.
•• At the end of 2009, of the estimated 784,701 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810, or 51%, were MSM. About 48%
of MSM living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 30% were black/African American, and 19% were Hispanic/Latino.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:36 AM

From the source quoted by Ian.

"The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 11:31 AM

The only way for Akenaton to get from health figures (whether or not they are accurate) to legal discrimination is to assume that homosexuality is a choice. This is true both in his desire to discriminate against (punish) gay people and in his stated reason that accepting homosexuality as "normal" will be bad for society. The only way it could be bad for society (if you accept that whole concept) is if it encouraged people to become gay who wouldn't have done so on their own.

Akenaton has never responded to any of the inaccuracies or faulty logic his arguments are based on (which means they aren't real arguments at all), but the issue of choice is the hook that all of his logic, such as it is, hangs on. He thinks, contrary to his own experience, that people choose their sexual orientation.

His bringing the question of religious freedom into the debate is ironic, since religious belief IS a choice and probably should be protected in some way other than by being lumped with race, ethnicity, and gender, which, like homosexuality, people don't choose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 12:01 PM

What are the health risks to a couple (of any sexual orientation) in a faithful monogamous relationship?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM

Still confused at this end.

He hasn't mentioned any public health figures from The UK yet still seems to throw the term UK into his diatribe. His USA figures are selective and drill down into groupings where there are clusters and ignores groupings where the picture does not support his preposition.

Funny that.

As he then talks about all homosexual activities being bad for the health of everybody, his prejudice shows through. Why does he use carefully doctored statistics, available on websites of Christian fundamental groups but not anywhere else to make us want to shun sections of society?

He already has Jack the Sailor saying he has the right to try and influence debate on the basis he seems more reasonable than me. What if anybody else was as gullible?

Of course, that is his aim. Why Akenaton? Just why? What gives you the right to copy and paste massaged figures and say"There, that's why we need to hate and discourage lifestyle choices, because thy are all hedonistic irresponsible people", even when all they want is their monogamous marriages to ge recognised as such (remembering what this thread is all about)

John P makes the point that you do not necessarily choose to be gay. However, don't forget that doesn't mean someone isn't comfortable and content with their sexual orientation. Akenaton has cried that this is just down to left wing governments and agencies encouraging them on the basis of political correctness. Well fuck me drunk, I must be right on after all, instead of the filthy rotten capitalist I really am, according to another interesting character on these threads.

Oh, and the legal definition of epidemic; at least get something as simple as that right if you wish to bandy figures. I am no genius and rely on consultant doctors in the field of public health for edipemiology advice, or did when I chaired an NHS body. But even I know what makes an epidemic and selective cluster figures, even if they reflected a larger picture, which they don't, do not mean epidemic. We have gone a long way since the complacency of the mid '80s and accepting a gay lifestyle by the rest of society has been one of the big success stories in combating the health issue by removing the stigma.

Hence Akenaton's stance being so utterly appalling.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM

Ian, the post referring to the source you quoted(distortedly),

pertains to UK hiv figures....a man in your elevated position should be capable of a little concentration?

Allow me to re-post for the intellectually challenged.

HPA
"The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:01 PM

dan_savage_to_tony_perkins_sure_sue_me


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:16 PM

3000 new cases of HIV, out of a UK gay population estimated to be 3.6m, doesn't seem that many to be getting in such a state about. It's considerably fewer than, say the number of new cases of TB (more than 9000 new cases reported in 2011).

But I'll ask the question again, if you're so concerned about the health threats to gays, why are so opposed to allowing them to be monogamous relationships and for these to be fully recognised in law?

By the way, not all gays seeking to get married are male - HIV is almost unheard of amongst non-drug using lesbians.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM

Howard, the latest estimate from HPA(Ian's organisation of choice), is just under 430.000 MSM in the UK and infection rates are rising steadily.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:53 PM

Smoking is unhealthy, drinking to excess, texting while driving etc. the bottom line is this: Who I marry is none of your f*****G business.

In no way does it threaten traditional marriage. The control freaks are jumping at shadows.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM

Howard, you have noticed.

His figure are extremely selective. Not only that, they fail to take into account the statistic I mentioned above. It is a bit like saying they cured cancer tomorrow and the day after, The Daily M*il leading with "Heart disease. Biggest killer"

Tell you what. Let me hypothetically say OK Akenaton, your cluster figures represent the overall picture. After all. I am we'll used to meetings with politicians whom presume tabloid interpretations require action rather than HPA figures.

Even then his solution is not tenable in the 21st century, at least not in polife society.

So do me a favour Akenaton. Don't try to win the figures argument because even if you did, you fall at the hurdle of solution. You can't tell a stakeholder in society that society disapproves of your right to a peaceful private life.

If your (or those whom you get your figures from) figures painted the picture, NHS health promotion budgets would have to be seen to reflect doing something about it. In reality, health promotion is rightly targeting the HIV issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 03:58 PM

Sorry to double post(pressed the wrong button).

There are approx 9000 cases of TB reported annually in the UK, from a population of 64,000,000.

Please stick to percentages.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM

"Smoking is unhealthy, drinking to excess, texting while driving"

Kendal, you are correct, and all of the above have been criminalised in one way or another in the UK.

Next?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:09 PM

Ian...There are no winners associated with these terrible figures, only losers and most of them are homosexuals.
Of course that is of no importance when set against the survival of "liberal" ideology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:29 PM

Losers occur when society finds excuses to marginalise them.

Liberal ideology is about living together in harmony. Or so I'm told. Wouldn't know, living in my ivory tower.

Using your warped logic, parents over the age of 45 have a marked increase in giving birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome, so let's stigmatise fucking in middle age eh?

Or would that make too many people "liberal" whem they oppose such an idea..

Let's not encourage poor people to have televisions. After all, they'll only use them to watch lowest common denominator daytime telly, thus leaving less budget for high brow programmes for clever important people like you.

Let us not encourage gay people to marry. Obviously, it is better if they are promiscuous hedonistic poofters. That way, it's easier for you to point and blame.

Let us welcome idiots having computers and half a brain. Then we can see the state of society should dangerous idiots have their way. Jack the Sailor appears to have a point after all....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:45 PM

Ian....Homosexuals are many times less "marginalised" today than they were twenty years ago, yet hiv rates are many times higher amongst them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but do not parents of Down's Syndrome pregnancies have the option to abort the feotus?

I never watch television.(hardly ever), I am not "clever", I have had limited education.

Whether you own or merely borrow the computer you use, is none of "my fucking business"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:03 PM

"......but do not parents of Down's Syndrome pregnancies have the option to abort the feotus?"

Not if the self-appointed "guardians of morality" and "right to lifers" have their way.

And the same "guardians of morality" would also deny same-sex couples the right to form legally recognized stable relationships, which would be a strong incentive for the reduction of promiscuity.

There is something hypocritical about your claims of concern about the spread of HIV and your opposition to gay marriage, Ake.

There is a fundamental contradition there.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

"There is a fundamental contradition there."

Ahh........but is it "folk"????

Who left the fuckin' gate open?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM

You're dodging the issue, Ake. And clumsily so.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:53 PM

"..printing your posts in bold script and casting aspertions on my motives..."

One was a simple failure to properly do HTML...was meant to be only a couple of words.

The other... ah, the other....I ...and others..still have my doubts about your motives, since you STILL avoid a truly direct question about them. I don't read minds, and I wish this was merely a debate about facts - but people have been disputing your analysis of the relevance of certain statistics for many months, and you still seem to be comfortable with glibly asserting that it is merely 'health' issues that cause you to pursue this reasoning.
Why would anyone NOT cast aspersions on such a superficial analysis? HIV/AIDS is a serious issue, and at one time it was spread 'more' thru homosexual partners, but this is no longer true.

In any case, it has been pointed out that many, many gay people are in long-term, careful, non-promiscious stable relationships...yet you STILL wish to object to them having the same rights as others... and you seem to define attempts to obtain those rights as "promoting an unhealthy lifestyle".
You need to review and reconsider a definition of 'promoting'.


ummm... dare I ask again whether you'd continue to object to homosexuals being married and having rights IF the "health issues" were solved tomorrow?

Check A for yes and B for no:

A.

B.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:14 PM

I came back to see where this million post thread is at and I read...

From:akenaton - PM
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:12 PM

"There is a fundamental contradition there."

Ahh........but is it "folk"????

Who left the fuckin' gate open?
***************************************************************

Who left the gate open INDEED! Ya gotta be shittin me? I can't tell you how funny that strikes me. I am chuckling consistently. Thanks for the laugh at your own expense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 09:48 AM

Folks, all the myriad flaws in Akenaton's reasoning have been pointed out to him literally hundreds of times over the last few years. Are you really expecting him to suddenly come up with responses to you? One of the things about bigotry is that there is no defense for it. He doesn't have the answers to your questions because those answers don't exist. Akenaton has, for years, put forth his unethical ideas, been soundly refuted in 100 ways, waited a few days in silence, and then put forth the same ideas again, all without ever having to respond to anyone, other than to tell them they are stupid liberal sheep.

I think he has proved that he's not going to get any better at this. Give up on him. Since his particular form of bigotry is tied in with his sexual orientation, he probably can't help himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 11:09 AM

"Give up on him."

well... that might be a plan!

I am reminded of a story.

A biology professor was trying to get his class to follow some of the details of a chapter on reproduction by having them read parts aloud. When "Miss Jones" was asked to read she kept substituting, when she came to the word 'pregnant', "unwell". After a minute, he stopped her and asked: "What was the woman's condition, Miss Jones?"

"Umm...she was 'expecting'."

The professor sighed: "Miss Jones, the word is "pregnant" P-R-E-G-N-A-N-T....your mother was 'pregnant', your grandmother was 'pregnant', and by the grace of God and the help of some young man, someday you too, will be 'pregnant'!"

Well, Miss Jones gasped and ran out of the class in tears. But the incident was reported to the Dean, and the professor was ordered to apologize...in class! So, a couple days later, the professor came in, sat his books down and announced:

"The other day I made a mistake when correcting Miss Jones. I now wish to retract what I said...I do not believe Miss Jones will ever become pregnant."


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

There's no way to change some folks' mindset... so....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:59 PM

Sorry Don...you're right, that was a stupid joke....apologies.

But I am not trying to dodge anything, I keep getting asked the same questions and I think I am answering them adequately.

Howard and Ian were trying to distort the figures, so I quoted direct from CDC and HPA. I may not be well educated, but I am not stupid, I can spot games people play, a mile away.

Bill I have answered your question many times.
I am against legislation to bring forward homosexual marriage mainly on health grounds. I have advanced facts to back up my stance many times, surely I dont have to go through it all again.

I am also anti on the grounds of damage to the very important family structure......details above.
So in conclusion, if the hiv rates among MSM were to drop to anything approaching hetero levels, I would still be against the legislation.
I have stated this many times before.....why is it so important to you?

On "equality" the only issue the pros can bring forward, I notice that no one has addressed the position of people who wish to live as man and wife with a close relative.

There have been cases when these people have offered to be sterilised, so that there would be absolutely no health problems, yet they are denied all "rights" even civil rights insurance rights etc which are now available to homosexuals.
They have to live a secret life, always in fear of prosecution, yet the "liberals" look the other way.....I smell hypocrisy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM

Only one question for you Bill....respectfully.

Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:10 PM

ake... "on health grounds"... that is exactly your own arguement that you deny.

Sigh... another million posts won't get you to understand. When someone argues illogically against their own arguements ya just can't teach them their arguements are inane. I'll check back later, maybe. I doubt if any of this crap will change... in a million posts. It would take some intelligence and some modesty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM

"Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?"

Yes, Ake, I would agree with the statement.

As to the "why," homosexuals are not allowed to form legally and socially recognized stable relationships. If they were, there would be a measure of social pressure to form such relationships, the same as heterosexual couples with the concomitant social pressure against promiscuous behavior.

That is the fundamental contradiction in your position. Decrying the amount of HIV infections among homosexual men, you would deny them a legal and social means of mitigating the situation.

I don't think it is because you can't see this, it is because you refuse to see this. And this raises questions about why you refuse to see the obvious.

I have mentioned the church that I sometimes go to. It not only accepts same-sex oriented people, but it has performed a number of same-sex marriages, and whether state law recognizes them or not, this church—and its congregation—does.

There was a lot of discussion of this issue a couple of decades ago, and we were warned that the congregation would deminish to a very few people. It didn't happen. I think we lost a total of three members. Out of a congregation of--what?-about two hundred and fifty or so.

By the way, this has NOT become a "gay church." It is a main line denomination. Lutheran. The number of same-sex oriented people in this church reflects the demographics of the community at large.

The first same-sex marriage ceremony was performed nearly twenty years ago, and ALL of the couples are still together, and NONE of them have contracted HIV/AIDs.

As to the "marriage is for procreation" argument, two of these same-sex married couples have children.

One of the couples adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Believe me, these kids are having—and will continue to have—a far better life than they would have had if they had been left were they were. And they are healthy, happy kids. One of them is an acolyte in the church and the other is a bit young for duties like that yet.

There are a fair number of kids out there who are wards of the state or who languish in orphanages who would be far batter off in circumstances like these two lads have.

Another couple decided they wanted to have children that were biologically their own. They contracted the services of a "surrogate mother." Fertilization by artificial insemination. The first man had a baby boy. Then the same surrogate mother (they wanted the children to be, at least, half-siblings) was artificially inseminated by the second man.

BAM! TRIPLETS!!

It's a real snort to see these kids in church on Sundays.

As to the matter of feminine influence on the boys, all of the men involved have sisters and various female friends who dote on the lads, so the boys are not in any way deprived in that department.

And as to the knee-jerk charge about the dangers of pedophilia, no way in hell! These men regard these youngsters as their children and themselves as fathers. And the youngsters themselves see nothing particularly unusual in their families and are obviously healthy and happy.

By the way, there are at least five main line churches (denominations that have been around for centuries) that I know of in this area that recognize same-sex marriages and conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, whether, as I said, state law recognizes them as valid or not.

[Let them choke on that at the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference!]

It is in the state's recognition: community property laws, inheritance laws, and things like hospital visitation rights where legal recognition becomes important. THIS is the nucleus of the civil rights issue.

No, Ake. Your objections don't wash. And although I tend to think you are a pretty intelligent guy, that you don't seem to be able to grasp THIS really makes me wonder why.

I have some theories, which I'm quite sure you don't want to hear.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 10:43 PM

Ake...this is a compliment...

It is precisely because many here can tell that you are intelligent that many are pretty sure you have a hidden agenda.

You seem way to smart to actually believe the self-contradictory argument that you cling to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM

But I keep telling you, infection rates have not decreased over the last ten years when legislation has become more "liberal", civil union, homosexual "marriage", less marginalisation etc.
They have massively increased!!

If that is the crux of your objections to my stance, then it is you who are being unreasonable.

Please stop insinuating that i am latently homosexual. This is an intellectual debate, and that line makes you all look foolish.

gnu is obsessed by "trolls"....surely this does not mean that he himself is a troll?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:54 AM

http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm

They have massively increased!!

If massively increased means stayed stable with a recent dip.
Rose gradually from 2000 in 2002 to 2900 in 2007 and back down to 2500 now looking at the graph. AIDS diagnoses slowly decreasing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:25 AM

The whole (pun?) concept(pun?) is heinous (pun?)....
(:-( 0)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:23 AM

From Jack's link.
By the end of December 2011, 53,161 MSM had been diagnosed with HIV in the UK.7 The number of new HIV diagnoses among this group has been steadily increasing since 2001 - peaking in 2007 at 2,811. It is likely this trend is due to an increase in HIV testing, although a rise in high risk sexual behaviour has also been suggested as a contributory factor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:44 AM

Yeah Keith. So there is increased testing and the increase, year to year is anything but "massive." Akeneton. Do you have another point to make or shall we consider this topic closed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:11 AM

Okay then, if we are to follow your line of logic, here is a very simple question:

In Swaziland, HIV is epidemic, and affects women at approximately twice the rate of men.

Would you favor making marriage to Swazi women illegal?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:23 AM

To return this question of "marriage": in the UK, we have had for some years now the availability of a legal "civil partnership":

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce. Wikipedia

So the objections which Ake keeps raising are irrelevant ~~ the sort of relationship he predicates 'marriage' as liable to open the way for has been, in all but name, available for the past 8 years. Five couples in my close and immediate acquaintance, all of whom had faithful & stable partnerships for years previously, have entered into such partnerships. Four of them are still together; the other has been terminated by death.

So all that is really being discussed here is whether it is appropriate to use the word marriage, in place of 'civil partnership' for such arrangements. Baleful prognostications about potential health hazards seem to me to be the day-before-yesterday's tired controversies. It is simply a matter of nomenclature with which we are concerned here, surely?

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 11:34 AM

"Bill I have answered your question many times.
I am against legislation to bring forward homosexual marriage mainly on health grounds."

You have NEVER answered the specific question I asked. You couldn't even check the "no" box.

"I am also anti on the grounds of damage to the very important family structure. That is nonsense... straight people can continue to marry in the same way... allowing gays to marry changes nothing except a few dictionaries.... and dictionaries reflect common usage, not universal truth.

(BTW... *I* have never even hinted that you were latently homosexual. I have only wondered about your basic motives, given your reluctance to approve of even the idea more 'gay rights' if the health issue were solved.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM

Jack....what you have quoted are the figures for ALL new hiv infections.

Indeed infections are falling in all demographics except MSM.

MSM hiv figures are rising steadily, and are massively higher than they were ten years ago.

HPA
"The number of new diagnoses among MSM in 2011 (2,475) is expected to reach 3,000 when all reports are received. This continues the slow but steady increase observed over the past decade. The majority of MSM diagnosed in 2011 are white (84%) and acquired their infection within the UK (84%). Analysis of data from each of the related surveillance systems strongly suggest that the continuing high annual numbers of new HIV diagnoses in MSM have been driven by an underlying high and unchanged HIV incidence"

Beware of all data from Avert.com......Stick to govt sites
CDC in USA.... HPA in UK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM

You know, all this attention on one deluded individual runs the risk of him thinking he is important. He even appears to have found a website about The HPA that like the real HPA gives out epidemiology statistics. His though seems more selective than the one I use from time to time to inform my work.

But, whether you use raw, weighted, standardised or drilled down data, even if the actual figures support the selective pickings he quotes; the mental leap he makes from it is utterly appalling. I doubt he can deduce his view from the facts. I am led to believe he deduces facts from his views.

And that sadly puts him beneath contempt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:20 PM

What is appalling Ian, are not my views, but the horrific rates of death and disease which inflict MSM.

It is beneath contempt to ignore these rates, pretend they don't exist, or even worse to distort the figures to make them look acceptable.

However you are in good company, as some websites are now presenting hiv figures without demographics...hence giving the impression that the epidemic amongst MSM(CDC's words) is under control

As I explained to Jack, HIV rates in total may be falling,but amonst MSM rates continue to rise, standing presently at around 70% of new infections.

How high must these rates get before you conceed that something is wrong and some course of action requires to be taken?

No word on the "rights" of other sexual minorities?
No answer to my question Bill?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:50 PM

I believe that if the figures for same sex couples who are married or in civil unions were broken out of the other figures, you would find a drastic decrease in the spread of HIV/AIDs.

I've been acquainted with a number of gay men, some of whom, over the years, have contracted the disease. But NONE of the gay men I know who are in the kind of monogamous, stable relationships that would be encouraged by the legalization and acceptance of same-sex marriage have contracted the disease.

Ake is mixing apples and oranges.

Further. In a frank conversation I had some years ago with a young gay man when the church my wife and I attend was considering adopting the "Affirmation of Welcome," we discussed the matter of choice versus inbred, probably genetic. He told me that he had made no choice. He always knew he was "different." Then he added: "Considering that being 'gay' opens you up to all kinds of contempt and insults from certain people, can get you dragged into a back alley and beaten up—repeatedly—and can even get you killed—who in his right mind would ever CHOOSE to be gay!??"

Point taken!

The Affirmation of Welcome which, within recent years, has been adopted by a number of churches, including Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, to which my wife and I are members.
As a community of the people of God, we are called to minister to all people in our world, knowing that the world is often an unloving place. Our world is a place of alienation and brokenness. Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by the Gospel to be agents of healing within our society.
             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. We acknowledge that this reconciliation extends to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
             Because gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons and their families are often scorned by society and alienated from the Church, we wish to make known our caring and concern. It is for this purpose that we affirm the following:

•that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities share the worth that comes from being unique individuals created by God;

•that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities are welcome within the membership of this congregation upon making a common, public affirmation of faith; and

•that as members of this congregation, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities are expected and encouraged to share in the sacramental and general life of this congregation."
Central Lutheran's congregation voted almost unanimously to adopt the affirmation.

Now, civilization waits for the laws to catch up.

Don Firth

P. S. In the coming election, Washington State's residences should vote FOR Initiative 74.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:56 PM

"How high must these rates get before you conceed that something is wrong and some course of action requires to be taken?" ake

In the past I recall your having responding to the question of what you perceive can be done about it- but I don't remember what it was. Would you give it again? What "new course of action" requires being taken?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:02 PM

Of course those in a union or "marriage" are less likely to contract HIV,(usually older men I believe), but only a tiny percentage of MSM want to remain monogamous....according to "marriage"/Union take up rates. So you have presented a moot point Don.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:11 PM

Perhaps it's that way in the UK, Ake, but not here in the US.

And only older men? No. Most of the gay men I'm acquainted with who want to see a same-sex marriage law passed are in their twenties and thirties.

An encouraging trend, I would say. And you would kill it a-borning?

Why?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:13 PM

Hello Ebbie, thank you for your courtesy.

Firstly a national medical inquiry into the reasons for the huge hiv rates amongst MSM
Compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups....almost half of MSM under 30 who tested possitive, were unaware of their status.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM

Crucial question:

What percentage of the MSM under thirty who were tested did NOT test positive?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM

The graph I was referring to was for MSM.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:23 PM

"No word on the "rights" of other sexual minorities?
No answer to my question Bill? "



To be VERY clear... I would tend to allow ANY personal arrangement of not compelled or pressured, dedicated, honest, human beings.

I would allow any pair of humans to apply for a marriage license thru normal channels. Then, any other combination (3 or more) would have to submit a detailed contract stating financial obligations, plans for raising children...etc., etc. These would have to be approved by lawyers, counselors and possibly other officials. **This is only a theory** Many of such plans would likely NOT be approved due to doubts about sincerity, schooling, finances...etc.... but they would not be prevented from applying.

For an example of what 'might' be approved, read "Proposition 31", by Robert Rimmer. (The sequel to "The Harrad Experiment")

Of course, I do NOT expect such laws to be forthcoming.... though you can bet that some such situations already exist 'under the official radar'.

So... "other sexual minorities" would have all the common rights as long as they are consenting, sane and of legal age.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:59 AM

First part of question unanswered.
Second part seems very complicated, taking into account that you and others consider...."All you need is lurve", for homosexuals?

Conclusion.....You are bullshitting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 02:25 AM

Wondered what that smell was? Trouble is, it hit my nostrils before Bill replied. So wonder where it was coming from? Can we guess, children? Yes! That's right. Uncle Ake has woke up in his chair and farted.

If you develop reasonable policies based on cluster, it is ineffective. If you base discrimitory policy on cluster, you would never be forgiven.

That, away from the hoo haa and froth of this thread is why people who use selective figures to justify prejudice can never ultimately succeed in their petty crusade.

Society, guided and advised accordingly needs to address all aspects of modern infections. The encouraging figures of lowering (and we are talking much lower) healthcare associated infections is down to tackling the cause, not shunning the victims. As this approach seems to work. I am encouraged to see that lifestyle based infections are lowering overall through the same approach. Still a long way to go but the direction is clear. HIV and AIDS grew in incidence before equality became reality and decreased once the stigma of your orientation started waning. Funny that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 02:59 AM

Sorry Jack...didn't scroll down.

Your graph shows real numbers, NOT transmission rates.
Although the annual numbers for both (hetero and homo) are about the same, this means that rates of transmission are massively higher for MSM than for heterosexuals.

Rates of infection amongst MSM have increased dramatically in the last decade.
Approx 25% of all new infections, to approx 70% at the end of 2011

HPA also say that when all the figures for 2011 are available, the real numbers will be in the order of 3000 new cases.....appox the same rise in MSM infection rates as previous years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:55 AM

HPA acknowledge in their preface to the most recent published report a marked increase in screening success and that higher new case numbers reflect an overall decrease in incident.

A bit like when a party in opposition decry the UK mortality rates for x, y or z. Failing to point out their selective cases are based on returns from The NHS that are not available in multi healthcare provider scenarios in many other countries.

Bored now. I shall see if anybody still wishes to debate gay marriage as anything other than a phrase as obvious as wet water.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:05 AM

I have been trying to, Musket ~ see my post of yesterday 8.23 am. But for some reason most seem to want to discuss HIV figures, which, in the context of 8 years of legal Civil Partnership which = marriage in all but name; which IMO has nothing to do with the case.

I repeat, surely this thread is about appropriate nomenclature for the associations entered into by persons of a certain orientation; not the baleful consequences supposed by some to result from such relationships?

I agree with Musket that that is what we should be talking about. So Ake, do shut up with your boring statistics, will you please?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:56 AM

From the article linked by JtS: " It is likely this trend is due to an increase in HIV testing".

I am reminded of the old saying, "figures don't lie, but liars use figures".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 10:41 AM

First part of question unanswered.

What do you call my last sentence?

"other sexual minorities" would have all the common rights as long as they are consenting, sane and of legal age.

You are inserting that "all you need is lurve" remark as YOUR version of what I and others have said. When you consider that many 'natural' man-woman marriages have little or NO "lurve", it becomes silly to establish that as a condition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM

Let's just concede the meaningless statistical arguments.

If the CDC and the like are Ake's trusted source, then let's quote them:

"Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination put MSM at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether MSM seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services. Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts, and bullying and violence. These dynamics make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm


So, if our *real* concern is health, perhaps we should drop the homophobia, stigmatization and discrimination, yes?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:12 PM

We are making a few mistakes in discussing continuing the ban on same-sex marriages.

In the first place, homosexuality is not a choice in the same way that "cream and sugar" in your coffee is.

In the second place, it does not matter. It is the way someone lives, period.

In the third place, the health of a homosexual marriage partner is his/her business unless we are making health care policy for all individuals, which is not what we are discussing.

Fourth, Whether or not a homosexual marriage is any kind of threat to any straight marriage, is also not the responsibility of the gay partners. It is the responsibility of the heteros to protect their own marriage.

Ake can dig up whatever stats he wants to twist, and he *does* twist them. His stats are no justification for social policy. The bottom line is that he just wants to persecute homosexuals. And that is no more tolerable than persecuting celibate people, people in sexless hetero marriages, people who do not have children whether by choice or biology, people who have darker or lighter skin, people who pray in their own way (differently from us??), people who wear plaid, people who have skin art, or people who play the Bodhran. E-N-N-Y persecution is intolerable. And this is *definitely* persecution.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM

I'd say Saul pretty well wrapped it up!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:38 PM

Saulgoldie....I quote directly from CDC and HPA....Please illustrate where I "twist" the figures they present.

The most inportant statistic is the one which states that "Men who have sex with men" account for over 60% of all new HIV cases.

This is higher than all other demographics put together!

At least my old adversary Don, has the balls to admit that this equates to a massive over representation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:45 PM

BTW....I responded above to Ebbie's question regarding what action I would recommend to alleviate the horrific hiv figures among MSM.

What action would you all recommend?....if any.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:00 PM

But Ake, you are opposed to one of the most powerful incentives to bring the figures down.

This is why I think you don't really give a damn, you just hate gays.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?

I do not hate homosexuals, my recommendations which were echoed in a recent CDC paper, would cut infections and save lives.

What would you recommend?   None of your business?, Look the other way? Let them suffer?.......Who hates homosexuals you or me?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:16 PM

"echoed" should read...."hinted at"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 06:34 PM

"...when only a tiny minority want it?"

You have statistics for THIS survey? YOU have no idea who would choose what IF they had reasonable choices.

In any case, ANY marriages would help ......


I'm curious as to why you think all these people arguing with you are doing so, and why you imagine we all can't see the... ummm... logic in your statistics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:37 AM

And your recommendations were. . . ?

And the basis for your contention that only a small minority of gays want stable relationships? Everything I've read and heard says just the opposite.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

Bill...of course I know why some people dont believe the evidence of their own eyes...."liberal blindness"....it is related to "snow blindness", but is caused by reading and believing too much of their own propaganda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM

Just seen something I disagree with.

I have no issue with bodhran players being persecuted. They've had their wicked way with us for too long. One bugger started a tempo so ruddy fast the other month that most guitarists would struggle to keep up. Luckily I didn't have many toys as a child.

Sorry, as the Akenaton theory of hate has run its course and can be seen for the shallow spectacle is it, I was looking for another angle to the debate and saw one...

Someone told me its international coming out day today. Not holding my breath but curious as to the old "ah, that would answer a few things ..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

I don't really have anything to add to this thread other than to state that being caught by your spouse typing "UK marriage annulment law" into Google is apparently legal grounds for a rollicking good shouting session.

Be warned.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 04:33 PM

"How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual (you need to show that it is if you want anyone to believe it, but let's just suppose...)

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are so worried about...even just a little bit?

Without a direct and cogent answer to this simple question, your entire "logic" will fall apart.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM

"... caused by reading and believing too much of their own propaganda."


LOLOL! And conservatives have a direct line to the fount of truth? Maybe special dark glasses to filter out "flashes of insight"?

"snow blindness"
Do you have the phrase 'snow job' over there? IT is related to a blizzard of statistics designed to obfuscate & dissemble. The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM

...and the crickets are chirping...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 02:57 AM

Just read this in the letters page in today's Indescribeablyboring;

Ian Burford (Letters, 11 October) needs to remember that the Oxford English Dictionary ("on historical principles") is not normative but descriptive: it records how words have been used. After Elton John, along with many others, marries his partner, and refers to him as his husband, I'm sure the OED in its next revision of the word will record that fact too.



Interesting, and for me slams another door in the face of bigotry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM

Ake, that was a low blow, talking about my balls. And if I had any, I'd likely slap you silly. Or is it "slap you, silly?" No matter.

OK, so let's talk about those stats. No, I'm not going to plow through them. I am sure they are cherry-picked and definitely leave many more questions than they pretend to "answer." Like:

IF homosexuals ARE the most numerous carriers and spreaders of AIDS, exactly how does banning same-sex marriage "help" limit the transmission of AIDS?

If you are going to speculate on the mindset of gay men, please show some credible information to substantiate your claim.
For instance, how many gay men do you know who are married and contracted or transmitted AIDS through being married?
If you don't know any, or even if you know 10 or 34, 0r 134 how do you know how many total fit these criteria?
If the problem is gay men, how does prohibiting lesbians from getting married help?

How many women have AIDS?
How did they get it?
Were they married at the time?
How did their heterosexual marriage "protect" them from getting it?
Did they get it from their husbands?
Where did their husbands get it?

How many more women have AIDS now than 5 years ago?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?
Would persecuting them improve the AIDS situation?
How would it?

How many heterosexual men have AIDS?
How did they get it?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?

How many men contracted AIDS through the use of street drugs?
How would you minimize AIDS in that group?

How many people transmit polio?
How did we deal with that as a public health issue? Clue: We vaccinated e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!! Not just Amish, not just Native Americans, not just celibate people, not just Mormons, not just Wiccans, not just Mensans, not just chess champions, Not just members of mate-swapping clubs, and certainly not gay-married men (because we had much less idea who they were), but e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!! We vaccinated e-v-e-r-y-f-u-c-k-I-n-g-b-o-d-y!!!

And so on. No, Ake, once again and still, the only conclusion I can draw from your ranting is that for whatever reason(s), you just plain have an irrational hatred of gay men. And I honestly cannot see why. But you do. By the way, "coming out" as a homophobe here at Mudcat is probably one of the safer places to do it. And you would like receive much support as you try to improve yourself out of this sad condition. Eh, whatever.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 07:14 PM

He was talking about your balls? Good heavens! Call up Vito and "the boys" and have him dealt with severely! I intend to do that with Spaw when he gets well, because he has said absolutely terrible things about my balls...and numerous times too!

I've had a pleasant thought here, though. If I should ever decide to become a gay man...or if the mysterious workings of Nature or Destiny should decide that for me...I have an enormous resource here at Mudcat Cafe with which I can research all possible permutations and challenges of the new role I would be taking on...meaning, of course, this thread and the numerous other threads on the same theme.

All my questions will be answered, from the Alpha to the Omega! This is a great comfort.

On the other hand, there's not much material here on the forum telling me what to do if abducted by space aliens or taken prisoner by New Guinea headhunters...

Oh, well...you can't ask for everything!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:29 AM

Saul...you have shown no indication of having "balls", either in the physical or the metaphorical sense.

I was referring to Don Firth, who had the honesty to admit that MSM are massivly over represented in the HIV figures.
For the thousandth time 2% of the population account for 70% of new infections......these figures are stark and incontrovertible.

Btw I am a stonemason/steeplejack to trade, and for some strange reason have never been "slapped" in adulthood.

Only a fool issues physical threats on a discussion forum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 12:15 PM

So true! And only a fool issues a physical threat to a Chimp, but for a completely different reason.

Seein' as how the gay humans are now gettin' their own special "pride" days to celebrate their lifestyle, I am makin' it part of the APP program to demand that "Primate Pride Day" be declared as a new national holiday...August 1st every year. Towns and cities that do not comply will be labelled as "specist communities" and will not be allowed to stock bananas on store shelves.

If there's anything I can't tolerate, it's a damned specist...a primateaphobe! They are the lowest of the low. They live on a diet of hatred. They should all hang their worthless heads in shame. I got no respect for them at all. If it was up to me, they'd have to wear a tattoo on their foreheads saying "specist scum", so everyone would know just what they really are when they go walkin' by.

- Chongo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM

Akenaton!

When in the hell did I say THAT!??

In any case, the figure, which is highly arguable, has NOTHING TO DO with the issue of gay marriage!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM

"From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM

"Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?"

Yes, Ake, I would agree with the statement."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM

Sorry Don....The question was not meant as a stick to beat my opponents with, but simply to see who was treating the debate in a realistic manner.

Of all who are involved in this thread, you are the only one prepared to admit what is an obvious truth.
The others are not willing to debate in a reasonable fashion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM

ake... "The others are not willing to debate in a reasonable fashion."

Apparently, neither are you. What a stunned as me arse thing to say. An inane statement that cannot be proven? Sounds to me like something a troll would say.

See yas when I sees yas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM

I repeat myself!

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs."

*IF* it were the case that absolutely every HIV case was a gay male, it would not mean that their rights should be different! In fact, gay males who did NOT have HIV would be a statistically safer bet to be allowed to marry.

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs." or statistics...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM

The latest figures I have seen (CDC) say the figure is 43%.

It is still more of an argument for passing same-sex marriage laws, which will encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

Anyone who can't see that has to be just bloody pig-headed, or flat-out prejudiced, or have their own hidden agenda.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 07:55 PM

I suppose reasonable debate means ducking a simple question:

"How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual (you need to show that it is if you want anyone to believe it, but let's just suppose...)

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are so worried about...even just a little bit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 11:01 PM

No, no, TIA; you don't understand! if gay people are allowed to marry, they will think that everyone approves of their conduct. Then they will practice more homosexual activity than ever, and that will lead to even more HIV infections.!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:14 AM

Careful Frogprince...

Irony tends to fall on deaf ears around here. There are those, and one inparticular who would accept that at face value rather than see how if takes the piss out of their pathetic bigotry.

Mind you, I once put it to Akenaton that he had his head in the clouds. Turns out I was more perceptive than I thought now that he has seen fit to share his CV with us...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 03:22 AM

"The issue is fair treatment, not charts & graphs." (Bill)

Why then are all sexual minorities not treated equally?
Incest is arguably safer than male homosexuality, if procreation was removed from the equation, but there are other questions regarding the future of "society" to be considered."Rights" are proscribed!

These considerations also apply to legislation on homosexual "marriage" with the added problem of very high rates of sexual infection associated.

"Rights" are not, and should not be universal, but conditional on the behaviour of the minority concerned.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 07:15 AM

Lovely word "behaviour."

It usually gets into documents with other words, such as "moral" and "judgement."

As a monogamous marriage would not be spreading any infection, you have just been blown out of the water. By talking of their behaviour, you are commenting on their lifestyle as something that should not have the same rights as a "straight" marriage.

Kindly apologise for your earlier "I have nothing against homosexuals" bullshit in this and myriad other threads.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 09:57 AM

Ducked again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 10:34 AM

Anyhow, we have the monogamous marriage situation already, & have had since 2004, only it's called Civil Partnership. All this thread concerns really is the question of whether to recognise its equivalence by actually calling it 'marriage', to which some disproportionately influential organisations like the church have certain to me unaccountable objections. All these other health/lifestyle-encouragement &c things we are going on about here are simply a rehash of all the arguments everyone went over 8 years ago when the Civ Ps were established in law.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:22 AM

At times MtheGM, the thread has been on thread as it were. I suppose the rehashed arguments are because the term civil partnership was not acceptable to bigots and equally not acceptable to decent people. The third way strikes again, I'm afraid. Bloody Bliar!

At other times, the thread has been a showboat for peoples' views on diversity in a civilised society, and for my money, society still cannot hold its head high. Too much influence by those used to not being questioned, whether that be religions or those who feel their views reflect their society. Well yes, if your society is still in a 1950s Rupert the Bear cartoon strip where Dad smokes a pipe and worries about Johnny Foreigner whilst Mum does the household chores and children dream of repeating their lifestyle. After all, anything else is "common" and "disgusting, what?."

Snag is, we all live here. The trick is not to judge others or try to stifle them, and that works both ways. I have a fairly distant relative who, if Gays are mentioned, says "dirty buggers!" His daughter has yet to tell him her "flatmate" of the last two years is a bit more than a bill and pizza sharer.

The society Akenaton would wish to inflict on us would make sad situations like that all the more common, and I think that's wrong, I just do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:28 AM

"Incest is arguably safer than male homosexuality, if procreation was removed from the equation, ..

Incest is not a 'sexual minority' as relating to sexual practices, but rather a social practice. It is proscribed (mostly) because of direct and long standing knowledge of genetic issues. Since procreation CANNOT easily be removed from the equation, we legislate against marriage between close relatives. Add to that the sad fact that much incest begins with predatory behavior and incest becomes a special category.

The issue IS: given sane, not closely related adult humans, why not allow them to marry on an equal basis, no matter which sex they are... or choose to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:49 AM

Let me add.... there are many many cases of brothers or sisters not marrying, but simply sharing a home.. (often the family home)... all their lives. They are often considered a bit eccentric, but people mostly shrug.

   Do you not suppose that 'some' of those situations are also a more intimate relationship? The law only deals with attempts of closely related M-F pairs trying to marry, or improper adult-child situations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:07 PM

Incestuous relationships do not qualify for the "rights" granted to homosexual unions or "marriage"....no matter how often you shrug Bill, and procreation can be removed from the equation....as you know very well.

Anyway, what you think is not important in this context...what the law says is important and sexual relations between close relatives even if both agree to be sterilized, is a criminal offence.....and certainly does not qualify for any "rights"

Of course these people do not have the backing of the "liberal"/ media bandwagon, to ignore any damage to societal structure or health issues.
Laws are made by politicians and they always sniff the direction of the media guff.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM

Would two brothers who indulged in sexual relations be committing a criminal offence?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:39 PM

The social plot thickens.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 03:37 PM

"Incestuous relationships do not qualify for the "rights..."

Yes..I realize that, and I am not suggesting they should- I am merely questioning your catagorization scheme.

Two brothers? Yes, I suppose they would be breaking the law in most places, but I imagine they'd seldom be noticed.... two sisters even less.


YOU brought up incest as a presumed "sexual minority"... I don't consider it part of this debate, since incestuous marriage is already against the law for reasons other than HIV/AIDS.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM

I can't see how two brothers would be breaking the law but even bringing it up, or bringing up incest, is not germain to the thread. Merely an attempt to illicit response perhaps? Thread drift is a deflection?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:46 PM

I tried, but I could only take so much, and then I scrolled to the bottom.

Ake - Shut up, would you? I have friends here who's views differ widely from mine yet, on a personal level I value them greatly. I've not hung around the 'cat a lot in recent years, but, in internet terms, I think we we had a relationship once, right? For the rest of you going "hurhur", that means he called me names cos he's Scottish & I'm a dirty Sassenach, and I called him names because I'm English & he's just an ignorant Sweaty Sock... ;-)

Ake is not an ignorant hate-filled bigot. But Ake, you are sounding like a right bleeding idiot here. Yes, I've got the idea that you don't like the idea of gay marriage. I think we've all got that idea by now. If you're repeating it for the 14th time (and you are), you're wasting everyone's time. Especially your own.

What two (or more) people get up to in private is no-one's business but their own. So long as it's consensual. Quibbling about pointless distinctions in wording is, well, pointless. What does it matter whether it's called civil union or marriage? I don't doubt that it is possible to arrange a "marriage" ('twixt whoever) in a solictor's office & to be sueing for divorce before the ink is dry on the certificate! So what price marriage? Really?

My neighbour is in jail on a gun charge. Not because he's gay, but because his evil cow of a wife stitched him up. I've a couple of very good friends, male, who have been together for more than a decade. I don't know if they want to get married, but if they do, why shouldn't they? How would their marriage be less valid than the godawful fuck-up that Graham has patiently suffered (yes, Ake, there is a daughter involved. Gods help the poor little lass)? I cannot conceive (pun)!

Then there's Muppet. Whilst I largely agree with his views in this thread, he has yet again shown himself to be an intolerant, arrogant troll. You can agree with Muppet. Or you can be wrong. He may be a doctor (of course, we've only Ian Mather's word for that), but he's just as capable of being a narrow-minded ignoramus as anyone else!

As for Guest from Sanity, I will take it on trust that every single one of the rest of us is incurably insane. Because if he is sane, I think that's not a place any of us want to be!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 04:59 AM

Raedwulf.....you know I think you are the "bee's knees", even tho' we are about to be divorced.

I see what you mean....I do get fed up answering the same question continuously, but sometimes there are issues other than equality to consider.
Out of respect for you, who I have previously offered to adopt, so that you qualify to wear the kilt and develop a little national pride, I will shut the fuck up......till the next time.

My very best wishes......we could do with seeing you more often on these pages.....A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 08:43 AM

"I do get fed up answering the same question continuously..."




Except the one you've been studiously ducking of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:23 PM

Ake, I'm a disreputable quarter Scottish (the other 3/4 probably isn't any more reputable ;-) ), so I 'm probably entitled to wear an anonymous tartan anyway. As proof of my partial Scottishness, I will pick up the cudgels & fight a losing battle... :p

Go on, then, what issues other than equality are involved in marriage? It can't be children. That argument has already been demolished. People have children in wedlock. They have children out of wedlock. They have harmonious or disastrous relationships, married or not, that children have nothing whatsoever to do with. So what's this other issue? You might have already mentioned it but, I'm sorry, I lost the will to li... read about 2/3 of the way up the thread! ;-)

P.S. Trust you to exagerrate. I only told you to shut up. I didn't tell you to shut the fuck up. That's pure Scot's that is. Just cos you're wrong & you know it... :p ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:37 PM

Olive Whatnoll would have probably said, "Shut yer fecking gob!!!" She says that to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with her about pretty much anything at all. She regards such people as worthless chaff. That means, of course...almost everybody, with the possible exception of the Queen. Olive would certainly not talk that way to the Queen! She might even be prepared to yield her own opinion briefly in the Royal presence...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:48 AM

Raedwulf.. Get a tablet and lie down, there's a good chap.

Disagreeing with you does not make one a bigot. Agreeing with someone does not make one confused.

I don't know who Muppet is, but I suspect you are trying out a new toy. Wit is not a toy for children to play with, as it has sharp edges. Don't worry, I have friends who are doctors (in the medical sense as opposed to blokes like me in the philosophical sense) who could put you together again.

I am very intolerant, very arrogant and very whatever else I am called. I need a thesaurus and send it you for Xmas. There is a difference between disagreeing (I like beer, my mate hates the taste of it) and having views that are unacceptable to society's general conscience, (intolerance, advocating the death penalty in the 21st century, breaking the law, using the possessive apostrophe when indicating plural...)

I am not disagreeing with Akenaton. I am questioning whether his views are hurtful to a lot of people. Free speech comes with responsibility. (Image of Frank Skinner pointing to his head and saying "Keep it up here.")


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:35 PM

Well, I'd ask you what tablet, Muppet, but you've just admitted to not being a doctor after all. I'll repeat this one last time for the terminally stupid & the wilfully blind (both of whom are you) - you can disagree with me as much as you want. It is the way you express it that is the problem. Oh look, you did it again.

Happily, I don't acknowledge you to be an arbiter of society's general conscience (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean). We do not agree. I regard your opinion as valid, I just don't agree with it. You, however, sneer, smear, belittle, and try very hard to be clever (I do hope you've a good supply of elastoplasts). So which one of us is the intolerant one, then? Go on, show me a bit of logic that demonstrates that it's me, just because I hold an opinion you don't like. Muppet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:47 PM

We have a member called Muppet, who is not Musket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 06:07 PM

Yea......but "he's" not an authentic "muppet".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:21 AM

The worrying thing is that Musket is a PhD; one who has researched a topic exhaustively and produced the results in a thesis in which clarity of expression and argument would have been a prime consideration, whatever the content -- would have been de rigueur with any self-respecting board of examiners in any respectable university. He couldn't possibly have got it approved for the higher degree if he had approached his study with the illogicality & confusion apparent throughout his contributions to this thread ~~ could he? One hesitates to contemplate any academic institution where such exiguous standards could have been applied!

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:33 AM

I admit I am not a homophobe, I admit I dont like celery. I admit I dont run marathons. Mind you, I never said I was / did. Just like I never said I was a medic. If raedwhatever wishes to debate rather than lob crude bricks as an alternative to argument, fair enough but the bloke behind this Musket or Muppet silliness is in danger of forgetting what this debate is all about .

Questioning one's academic credentials in a website forum where such things are irrelevant (I was once asked a question regarding my field and mentioned the findings of my thesis and some thick twats love to point like the school bully when they are exposed as confused idiots in a debate ever since.)

If you support stigmatising gay people and wish them to not be alkowed to be married then at least say so rather than wanking at your keyboard waiting for an opposite view. If you fsil to understand, dont expect me to dumb it down for you. And no, I cant be arsed to coreect the small keyboard and big thumbs on my new phone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM

My last post would have been better placed,perhaps, on the Too Obese To Execute thread, to which I refer all who would like to see Musket's confusions, irrationalities and non-sequiturs more amply demonstrated.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM

But you didn't.

Seems like your confusion to me, rather than my own.

My confusion is how anybody can be in favour of murder and defend it as a rational viewpoint. Just as people think they can be in favour of discriminating against Gay people and still expect to be seen as respectable.

If you want to defend any of that, go ahead. But as you talk bollocks on most subjects, I doubt I would be swayed by your ramblings on that one either.

If anybody would like to see MtheGM ramblings, I suggest you go on just about any ruddy thread..... I doubt there is any hope for a MtheGM modified.

I only use secateurs for pruning thank you very much. And judging by the quality of debate on these subjects, a trimming of the herd might be a good thing. Most rational contributors got bored a long time ago leaving idiots and yours truly, who has a huge fault. I can't help trying to confuse them with facts. Both funny and sad at the same time. Ah well, at least this is only bullshit land. At least I don't have to avoid getting into weird conversations with them in the pub.

Which academic institute would deem to disown giving you half a mind? And did they or you ever find the other half?

By the way. A PhD can be a higher degree, or it can a degree. It is only a higher degree if you have a bachelors or masters to begin with, and neither are a prerequisite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM

Thar she blows. I mean, There he goes.   On & on about "murder" and doesn't even know what the word means: or anyhow can't distinguish between figurative and literal use.

No point saying any more about this last bit of maundering mumbo-jumbo. I leave it to Catters to decide which of us can express himself with some clarity and which is continually getting entangled in, and tripping up over, his verbal shoelaces.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:14 AM

MtheGM

Are Catters likely to be inclined to invest their time and energy to decide whether you or Blather has won a debate on this subject?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM

Don't expect so for a second, Jack;

... or did you somewhat undermine your own point by troubling to post the question?!

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:38 PM

I'm just saying that the name calling is between you and Musket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:41 PM

Well, whatever your point, I am sure you mean well.

So thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM

I don't read most of what he says or what is addressed to him. Though I agree with him more than not. He is simply too abusive. It is just is not amusing to see two people call each other stupid and too much work to sort it out.

I would not be talking about it now except that I am loading a computer and I am waiting for large files to download. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Gda Music
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM

To return to the thread.

A heterosexual legally married couple are involved in a serious motor accident resulting in them both being found dead in the car. If in the event there is no medical witness to establish the time of their deaths, I`ve heard that in English law the male would be deemed to have died first thereby allowing his estate to be added to that of his dead wife.

In the event of those same circumstance occurring but to a different permutation of "married" couple, I just wonder if the present law has that eventuality covered, or maybe it has yet to be tested?.

GJ


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM

"A heterosexual legally married couple are involved in a serious motor accident resulting in them both being found dead in the car. If in the event there is no medical witness to establish the time of their deaths, I`ve heard that in English law the male would be deemed to have died first thereby allowing his estate to be added to that of his dead wife. "

That is a very strange and almost nonsensical law.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM

The point of the law is to remove confusion over the inheritance of property. The Law of Property Act 1925 provides that in the circumstances described the deaths are presumed to have occurred in the order of age, so the younger is presumed to have survived the elder. According to HMRC where the deaths are of husband and wife or civil partners and the elder died intestate, the intestacy rules apply as if the younger spouse or civil partner had not survived the elder.

So yes, the law (nonsensical or otherwise) has caught up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:43 PM

So if it goes to the younger, regardless of gender then GDA's point is moot?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 04:30 AM

That depends on whether you're using 'moot' in it's UK or American sense. It does mean that same-sex couples are treated no differently by the law in this respect.

This discussion has rather lost track of the fact that (in the UK anyway) a civil partnership grants substantially the same legal rights as marriage. The question is, or should be, a purely semantic one - should same-sex couples be entitled to call their union by the same name as the rest of us? For some, this is a question of equality. For others, the word "marriage" has a special significance, although it's hard to discern exactly what that is. My involvement in this discussion has been a genuine attempt to try to get them to explain, in terms which are not either irrelevant or circular arguments. So far I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 06:47 AM

Precisely, Howard. Scroll up & you will find that my point, and my experience, have been identical to yours.

So now, how about someone addressing the topic ~~ what difference would the word marriage make? ~~ rather than any MORE rehashing of all the moral arguments that got flogged to death leading up to Civil Partnerships being established eight [count them - 8!] years ago.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how knowing that there is a gay married couple somewhere in the world harms me. I also want to know how it would threaten my marriage. Sheeit! Myself and my wife can do that plenty well by ourselves. And I am hardly going to lose sleep thinking about somewhere there being a gay married couple.

I have plenty of other things on my worry-about-it list that are far more important. Starting with military and environmental threats to humanity, increasing poverty among regular people as opposed to the wealthy, the appalling lack of medical care for many people, and the possible death of folk music. (However, if said death takes with it banjos and bodhrans, it may be a wash. Oh, and bagpipes. Them thangs ain't no damn good!) Gay marriage doesn't even make it onto my radar.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:20 AM

Good news! I just read in this morning's paper that another federal court has struck down the Defense (sic) of Marriage Act. I think this is the second time, and it was struck down for a different Constitutional reason. This means that when it gets to the Supreme Court, the anti-civil rights crowd will have to make their case on two fronts. If I'm remembering correctly, the first case said that the government has no compelling reason to deny the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law and the second one said that, according to the Constitution, all states and the federal government have to recognize legal marriages from any other state.

Unfortunately, I don't have any reason to assume that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:32 AM

Gay marriage doesn't even make it onto my radar.

The only reason it makes it onto my radar as something to worry about is because people who want to legislate morality need to be stopped. People who think we live in a land where the majority rules need to be educated. People who claim to love the Constitution but then want to deny equal protection under the law need to be ridiculed. And the theocrats need to lose their tax-exempt status. If you want me to keep my nose out of your religion, you need to keep your hands off my laws.

I am amused in a horrified way that the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of American are so vociferously anti-gay from a "morality" standpoint, given that both these organizations have engaged in massive child-rape conspiracies. And they want me to let them legislate morality??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM

Perhaps I was not clear. What I meant was "As something to worry about, gay marriage is not on my radar." Of *course* I think it should be legal. In that regard, it *is* on my radar, along with the Republican "war on women."

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM

No, Saul, you were clear. My comment was an augmentation, not a disagreement.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:46 PM

I have not read all of this thread because tehre is such a load of bollocks on it.

The English law of non-consummation is simply set out here

http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php

Argument about possible change is here

http://protectthepope.com/?p=5293

US (presumably state) law on the topic may differ. Krinkle as usual was (at least as far as I read) simply spouting ignorance and prejudice.

Some simple comments on US state laws and links to further material here

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml




Please fellas - stick to the facts!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM

In, perhaps, a parallel development, a UK court has awarded damages of £3,600 on the grounds of unlawful discrimination to a gay couple who were refused a double bedroom in a B&B by the owners on allegedly Christian grounds.

Nick Griffin of the BNP called this state heterophobia - but he didn't stop there.

Read more here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219993/Nick-Griffin-Twitter-rant-gay-B-B-couple-investigated-police-tweets-home-address

Oh, poor Dick (short for "dickhead") - if he goes to jail he'll probably find a lot of his members (if there are still any left) in there to greet him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:46 AM

"We have a member called Muppet, who is not Musket."

Thank you for reminding me, Jeri? (How are you, sir?) I don't think, though, that anyone will confuse my responses with any opinoin of the gentleman in question.

"I'm just saying that the name calling is between you and Musket."

Sorry, Jack, that's incorrect. There are at least three people who find Muppet's presentation execrable. I'm happy to put myself forward as speaking for us all without consultation, not least because I'm fairly sure I've disagreed with both MGM & gnu in the past, and they'll tell you if they don't agree with what follows. Engaging in a shouting match might be a bit juvenile. I'm sure you'll tell us we should walk away. But, assuming you choose not to, if you hurl words, and the other party throws bricks what do you do? In the metaphorical sense, which the internet is, you pick up the bricks and you throw them back, surely? That's all that MGM, gnu and myself have done.

His opinion doesn't matter. He's as entitled to that, as we are to ours. That's just words. But his sneering ad hominem? That's a brick. Or does his alleged PhD make him special make him special somehow?

(I also acknowledge your next post, which makes your position reasonably clear. I just, not surprisingly, think you're challenging the wrong person. I agree with Muppet sometimes. But not with the way that viewpoint is all too often expressed.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM

I must admit, Richard I'm a little bit ambivalent about that judgement. I can see both sides of the argument, even though, maybe in part because, I am neither homosexual nor christian. The argument "You are running a business, therefore..." is obviously valid. The position "This is also our home..." I can also recognise. Putting myself in other people's shoes, I think I would act as follows...

IF "my partner & I would like to book a room..." Oh, I'm sorry, we wouldn't wish to cause offense... OR "You'd like to book a room? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is also our home, and whilst I wouldn't wish to cause offense..."

Amongst reasonable people, it doesn't strike me that this should cause a problem. Every coin has two sides. I am entirely of the belief that a person's sexuality is of no concern to anyone but themselves. But I am also of the belief that no-one should be allowed to force their beliefs on someone else. Not surprisingly then, I am resistant to any mainstream religion trying to claim the moral high ground. It does, though, also cut the other way. Ooo-er! ;-)

If "Mr & Mrs" turned out to be "Mr & Mr", I think the B&B would have real grounds for complaint. If the B&B had accepted the booking but turned the couple away on the doorstep, I can understand the couple having real grounds for complaint (which is what I understand in the case that Richard has linked). If the B&B is not a B&B, but a hotel then they can be in no position to make such discrimination.

But there must be respect on both sides. If it's just "You must accept what I am and I don't fucking care what you think", how have we advanced?. What's the difference between that point of view and the Crusades, the various Heresies, the Inquisition?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM

The trouble is if you are going to be part of the hospitality industry, even on a small scale, you have to be hospitable. By choosing to run a B&B you lose a lot of discretion over who you invite into your home, including people who may not share your beliefs. If you aren't comfortable with that then perhaps you are in the wrong business.

If a Christian couple were refused a booking by a B&B there would be similar outrage, and quite rightly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 11:10 AM

Well, according to Rand Paul, the B&B owners have the right to choose whom to accept and whom to turn away, just as the clients have the right to choose another place to stay. Such is his sense of "Libertarianism." And according to poppa Paul, the sick have the right to choose whether to have health care or to die.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM

Most of the Hotels I book into have a sign saying "We have the right to refuse service to any customer."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 01:45 PM

A discussion of the "right to refuse service" issue


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM

Howard, that's where we diverge then, I think. For such a small scale business, I do think they should retain the right to ask for whatever. There are, after all, so many other choices for the consumer. SaulG, I think, is being sarcastically flippant, but his first sentence does hold a lot of common sense.

If you are a small enough business to be (potentially) on first name terms with your customers, and if you find your customers' beliefs conflict with your own, should you not be allowed to decline their business? If you are a large enough business that your individual customers start to become "the customers", that you no longer have a personal connectin with them, then, I think, you no longer have the right to discriminate between them.

I realise that my proposition is imperfectly worded; I'm no lawmaker, I've no desire to make it more watertight. My point is that people should be allowed to apply common sense on the small scale, and should not be castigated if that common sense is not to others' tastes. Common sense is often, if not always, a subjective quantity. On the small scale, though, everyone has many choices. To be refused service, from whatever business, for whatever reason, should not be a reason to go to court. Unless it has been agreed & then refused as per my remarks above, of course!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM

I don't know the particulars, but the gay couple made a reservation, accepted by the B&B for two and showed up and did not get what they reserved. I think that is wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM

As noted, Jack, on that basis, I entirely agree!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM

?? What 'identity' do you want? Are you for or against the new vote?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM

The gay marriage bill passed in Washington State in the recent election.

For those who keep insisting that "gays don't want to get married, they want to be promiscuous and spread HIV/AIDs," this past Sunday was the first day that same-sex couples could be married legally here.

There were HUNDREDS of marriage ceremonies all over the city of Seattle. How many in the state as a whole, I haven't heard.

I heard some interviews of just married people on the radio. Frankly, it was pretty damned touching! Lots of really happy couples out there!

####

Be it noted that in the recent election, Washington State also legalized marijuana, to be licensed and taxed by the state.

Some wag pointed out that the gay marriage law and the marijuana law were two coordinated issues, insisted upon by Christian Fundamentalists. It says in the Book of Leviticus that if two men lie together as man and woman, they shall be stoned.

So—legalizing both gay marriage and possession of marijuana makes it possible to fulfill the Biblical injunction. . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM

Don: in the UK the position sounds different to your Washington State case, if I understand you correctly. We have permitted civil partnerships between gays for a good few years now, which are pretty much marriage except in name. However, there are also a few other constraints like they cannot be celebrated in churches. This new law will tackle the issue of whether it can be called marriage and open the path to allow churches which want to to conduct the service.

In my view the whole thing is a complete mess and we should have gone for, or had the arguments about, gay marriage in the first place. Introducing this odd stepping stone of partnership causes no end of uneccessary complications. What, for example, of the gay couple who wanted to marry but instead took what was on offer and had a civil partership? Do they 'upgrade' to marriage now? What is the role of civil partnerships when a marriage is available: are they two legally distinct things, and if so, what are the ramifications? If there is some continuing difference why should hetrosexual couples be denied civil partnerships? The more I think about the messier the whole thing gets, even without the problems for the churches and the way the established churches are more restricted than all the rest


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM

I don't know all the ins and outs of the matter, but I believe civil partnerships have been possible in this state for some time. Many of the couples who were married this past Sunday were already in civil partnerships, but as I understand it, there were two issues involved. There are certain things about marriage that touch on matters of inheritance and joint ownership of property. Some, but not all of this is covered in civil partnership.

Among other things, should one of the couple be hospitalized, a spouse has rights, such as visitation, availability of information, and such, that a civil partner does not have.

Also, many same-sex couples, some already in civil partnerships, want the ceremony and the recognition that goes with marriage, the announcement to and the acknowledgement of their friends and family that a state of marriage, not just a legal document, now exists between the two.

As to the matter of churches:   with the multiplicity of denominations in the U. S. rather than a "State Church," and with radically different beliefs regarding the issue, there are some churches (a fair number, in fact) that don't have a problem with it, and are ready and willing to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I know about a half-dozen same sex couples who have been married in the church that my wife and I attend. The minister informed them, of course, that the religious ceremony had no legal status in Washington State, but they wanted the church ceremony anyway. The recognition of family and friends and the world at large.

But now all that has changed. These folks are now legally married.

As to the churches, if a given church or denomination is opposed to same-sex marriage, they are not required to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

As of this coming Monday (Dec. 17th), my wife Barbara and I will have been married for thirty-five years. As to the matter of "defense of marriage," someone is going to have to explain to me in detail how the marriages of Jamie and Eric, and Paul and Philip, have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM

Its all about the word.   "Liberal activists" and a few homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage so that they can be the same.

Unfortunately, the health statistics associated with their lifestyle and human biology determine that they are not the same,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:54 AM

And you object to the improvement in those health statistics which would inevitably follow the establishment of stable monogamous relationships because...............?

I know "monogamous" isn't quite the right word, but it gets the point across.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM

I'm really confused by yesterday's news. I know that no religious body was to be forced to hold same sex marriages but I was really surprised that it is to be made illegal for gay marriages to take place in the Church of England or Church in Wales - and that it is almost being put forward as a progressive move. In other words any denomination can opt in excepting for English and Welsh Anglicans!Probably an unlikely scenario but what if the Scottish Episcopal Church decides it would let individual parishes go forward with same sex marriages if desired? There are some pro clergy amongst the said church which is Anglican and in communion with the CofE. You could then have the absurdity of English and Welsh Anglicans travelling up to Scotland to get legally married in the Anglican Church here!! Help out local hotels I suppose!! A pink lining in every cloud.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bubblyrat
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM

I think that gay couples who encounter perceived "discrimination" when declined the use of a double room in any "B&B" or small hotel ,on religous / moral grounds ,according to the religion / beliefs of the proprietors , should have the common decency to accept the situation and shew some respect for other people, instead of getting agressive and making a big fuss about it .How selfish !!
There are still many,many people "out there" who feel that marriage is an institution for dedicated ,committed ,heterosexual couples who wish to formalise and legalise their relationship ,particularly with due regard for the future status of their issue. For those of a different sexual orientation,who wish to "secure" a same-sex union ,there are already tried-and-tested Civil Partnerships ; allowing these good people to actually Marry will ,I fear ,ultimately solve nothing and cause much distress to a great majority.Is it REALLY worth all the fuss and bother ??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM

Who'd be a politician? The bigots in Parliament need to be able to vote for something so we have a compromise between decent society and promoting hate. They are even going to revise The Equality Act.

Revising The Equality Act also requires renaming it as it will no longer signify equality. It will mean that pathetic bigotry is legal so long as it is in the name of state sponsored superstition. If the object of the exercise is to make religion even more irrelevant, the government are carrying out their policy spot on.

What's next? Old men in pointy hats replace elected politicians? Some idiot looks in a gilded old book and says, Yep, Akenaton is right, his outrageous health conclusions are based on fact not hate, and if the figures don't add up it's because God says we don't understand... Strange bedfellows, atheist bigots and old fools in dog collars.

Bubblyrat might even start showing some respect for others and not type such crap as that one above. The Gay couple should accept the situation?????   If I shit on your lawn, don't ring the police or council, accept my right to do so and don't be so selfish. I read that one twice because it was so close to parody and irony... Then I found it was genuine. Oh dear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 11:36 AM

I`ad that Trevor, the dancing teacher, in my cab the other day. I did admire `is stripey pink blazer.
`e said, "Oh, `allo luvvie. Could you get me down, (if you know what I mean), to my cottage in Chelsea please, Jim. I`m running late and I`ve got to get dolled up for my wedding."
I said, "Blimey Trev. We don`t want to upset the `er indoors to be, do we?
`e said, It`s not an `er it`s an`im. We decided to do the decent thing and turn our back on the cruel world."
I said, "Sounds okay but you be careful to `oo you turn your back on!!"

Whaddam I Like??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:11 PM

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle

Scroll down, and I doubt there will be a dry eye in the room when you finish looking at these photos.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM

Musket, if you do not believe the homosexual heath figures produced by CDC and HPA......attack them, not me.

By the way, as you claim to use HPA, you will have noticed that the number of new infections amongst male homosexuals for 2011, is an all time high, well over 3000.
Almost 70% of new cases of hiv are amongst male homosexuals, who make up only 2/3% of the population.

The amount of misinformation being presented to the public by the NHS and other bodies is disgraceful. The latest infomation note from the NHS on hiv, makes almost no mention of the link between homosexuality and hiv, simply stating that there are more heteros suffering from hiv/aids worldwide than homosexuals...

To mention factual health figures now appears to be viewed as bigotry or discrimination.......bad news for homosexuals I'm afraid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:46 PM

Unabashed happiness is contagious... and inspiring.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM

Am I going to waste more keystrokes pointing out that Ake is just looking for ways to torment homosexuals, which is the very definition of "homophobic?" No, I am not. To hell with it.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM

I must say I find the latest pronouncement by Parliament to be most strange. At first, they were suggesting that all Churches should perform gay marriages. Now we have the proposal that Churches should not be forced to do so. Then the odd statement that under no circumstance may the Church of England or the Church of Wales be permitted to do any such thing. Why this sudden turnabout? As the Queen is the Head of the Church of England (and Wales) might she perhaps have put her Majestic foot down and refused to sanction it? (Secretly, so as not to bring down on her Royal Head the wrath of the hopeful gays of the Nation?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 04:46 PM

From the PBS News Hour:

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, there's a big disparity in this country, Ray. There's -- 12 percent of the American population is African-American. And of the new infections, close to 50 percent of them are among African-Americans.

Sadly, among African-Americans who are gay or bisexual men, they're still the leading proportion, if you look at the slice of the pie of people that are getting infected. There has been less among injection drug uses, but an increase among heterosexual transmissibility, which accounts for the increasing percentage among women in the United States.

But, still, men who have sex with men is still the largest fraction of the individuals who are -- get newly infected. And there's a great disparity racially in that, with African-Americans bearing the brunt of the burden.


This said, what does it have to do with gay marriage? This conversation seems to have gone off the rails.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM

Ake continues to roar out his bag of statistics, but NEVER HAS responded to the question of why he opposes promoting stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, which WILL put a big dent in those statistics.

His only response has been to assert that gays don't WANT to get married. This past Sunday's spate of weddings in Seattle shows just how bloody wrong he is.

No, HIS problem lies somewhere else. . . .

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM

Don.... Homosexual Civil Unions have been available in many countries for quite a few years.....Civil Union encourages monogamy?

Why then has there been no large dent in the current hiv/aids figures for male homosexuals?

In my view young sexually active homosexuals have no time for "marriage" or monogamy. Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour.
This would make sense as males of any species are genetically programmed to be promiscuous and the moral balance being the female child bearer and family structure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM

Don Firth: "Ake continues to roar out his bag of statistics, but NEVER HAS responded to the question of why he opposes promoting stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, which WILL put a big dent in those statistics."

...unless they don't know their ass from a hole in her 'round'!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM

So if, as you say, that's just the nature of things, then why are you so opposed to same-sex marriage, which encourages stable relationships and would cut the statistics over time?

There is a considerable difference between civil union and marriage. There is nothing that says heterosexual couples have to get married. They, too, can apply for civil unions, so why is it that so many hererosexual couples choose to get married?

If you keep same-sex relationships in a sort of second-class catagory, such as allowing civil unions only, it tends to keep them "in the closet," at least socially. Whereas, the events of this past Sunday here in Seattle, and the public joy, NOT "in the closet," more than amply demonstrates what I'm saying.

One of the big things about marriage is that it is not just a legal contract (which is all that a civil union is), it is a ceremonial announcement to society in general that this relationship—a state of marriage—now exists between these two people.

No, Ake. The world is moving forward apace. If you choose to remain in the Dark Ages—well, that's your decision, I guess.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, GfS, marriage, be it between same-sex or heterosexual couples, is NOT JUST about sex.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:00 PM

"The world is moving forward apace"....:0) I'm amazed that anyone still believes that to be the case.

Around, i see all that workers, brothers and sisters fought for during my lifetime, being systematically demolished.

The bread is being stolen from our children and we are offered the cake of homosexual "marriage rights"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM

"Around, i see all that workers, brothers and sisters fought for during my lifetime, being systematically demolished."

Not true - one of the things that was fought for is equal rights for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and while that is yet to be fully realized significant progress has been made and one of the markers of that is the growing acceptance of same sex marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:40 PM

461 posts? This is the year 2012. 2012!

How can anyone be so fucking ignorant? It's apalling. It's unblievable. It's soooo sad*.



*Trolls excluded. Void where stupidty and ignorance are accepted or required by law or by social pressures foisted upon the weak of mind and moral character.

PS... 461 posts??? Ya gotta be shittin me! Un fuckinreal!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 08:03 PM

Equality???......We have huge sink estates where the youth are unemployable, not because of sexual orientation, not because of ethnicity, but simply because of where they live and the underclass to which they belong.

Equality is a fucking myth.....grow up!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 08:29 PM

Ake, how does this relate to the question at hand?

When I said the world is moving forward apace, I didn't say that things are perfect. I just said that this is a step in the right direction (whether you think so or not).

Bit by bit.

One of the problems with wild-eyed fanatics is that they want everything RIGHT NOW! Well, unfortunately, the world, it seems, doesn't work that way.

Again, why are you so adamantly opposed to ONE of those steps in the right direction?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:07 AM

Don Firth: "P. S. By the way, GfS, marriage, be it between same-sex or heterosexual couples, is NOT JUST about sex."

I know...it's about using the reproductive system for reproducing....ooops maybe the term 'reproductive system' and 'reproductive organs' should be deemed politically incorrect' terms, because it's not in line with the party's propaganda.

Not 'just about sex' at all.....any child could see THAT!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:29 AM

"Again, why are you so adamantly opposed to ONE of those steps in the right direction?"

Because in my view it is a step in the wrong direction.   Bad legislation.

It is a token gesture towards an equality which does not, and will never exist under this money orientated system.
Our system only works if it continues to produce extreme inequality, something it does very efficiently.

There are many valid arguments "against" bringing homosexuality into the social mainstream.......but only one "for", the mythical equality agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:34 AM

Hey, Ake..you're still around...hello, and regards to you and family.

Guest from Sanity


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 09:19 AM

Oh hell. Goofus & bigot britches saying hello to each other.

One thinks he has hit the target whilst the other misses the mark. Their shots land in the same field all the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:29 PM

Hey Musket....Neither one of us are 'bigots'...that's what fucked up politics does to your thinking..you can't even take in another point of view, without attaching it to someone 'hating' someone else.
That sucks..I thought being 'liberal' was above that....apparently not!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

Hey! Maybe these two guys ought to get married!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 07:08 PM

On BBC Question Time tonight, Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry".

Will Self deflated like a punctured balloon as Hitchins illustrated the hypocrisy of the "liberal" agenda.   On homosexual "marriage", immigration or religious belief, Mr Hitchens explained to the audience the "liberal" game plan of lies, distortion and false accusations of racism, bigotry and homophobia......for simply advancing an alternative to the "liberal" viewpoint.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

Ake said: "Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour."

Nonsense! It is only that the promiscuous ones are in the spotlight ... those type often flaunt their lifestyle and like to be seen in silly parades and at bars...etc.

As Don F. & I and others have pointed out, the ability to consider a simpler, stable lifestyle reduces the former group. And... no matter what you believe... there is NO reason to deny those who ARE in a stable, monogamous relationship a legal form for it, just as heterosexuals have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 08:25 PM

On BBC Question Time tonight, Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry".

Will Self deflated like a punctured balloon as Hitchins [sic] illustrated the hypocrisy of the "liberal" agenda.   On homosexual "marriage", immigration or religious belief, Mr Hitchens explained to the audience the "liberal" game plan of lies, distortion and false accusations of racism, bigotry and homophobia......for simply advancing an alternative to the "liberal" viewpoint.


Well you weren't watching the same programme as me, then, achy Tony. Hitchens demonstrated, not only in that debate but in every debate on the programme, what a complete and utter bigoted twat he truly is. He seems to think that a self-regarding polemical outburst automatically indicates truth, and, on more than one occasion, his furtive looking-round for approval, caught well by the cameras unfortunately for him, showed it abundantly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:19 PM

Whenever someone starts attacking me on the basis of my "liberal agenda," I know I'm dealing with a person who's operating on an agenda of his own, which generally involves restricting someone else's freedom.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM

I didn't watch the program, and don't know what it was about.

As so far as 'attacking you on the basis of liberal agenda'..look, you may not know it, but when some Bozo starts unthinkingly spouts off the mantra of horseshit, on which the 'liberals' use for their rationalizations, it's easy to spot, (or smell) a mile away!..only thing is, to you it's 'normal reasoning'....you're just used to it!..like bad breath, B.O, or the smell of your own farts!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:57 PM

I didn't watch the programme either; but it is obvious what is happening here: both of you found convincing the arguments of the one who embraced the side of the argument you support yourself, and absurd the one which opposed it ~~ a most common phenomenon in all argument and debate, as Socrates, according to Plato, demonstrated just a few years back.

The other thing that clearly happened is that each side convinced by means of what literary critic John Gross described as the practice of a noted predecessor in that genre, F R Leavis, as his "air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been vigorously asserted".

So one of you perceived Peter Hitchens as the triumphant demonstrator because you agreed with his stance from the off, and vice versa for the other of you with regard to Will Self.

Absolute par for the course. Hardly advances the main argument, though, does it?!

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM

Geez, Louise, the contortions some of you will go through to try to deny equal access to marriage and the rights it confers. Are you too busy trying to imagine what the sex life of a gay couple looks like to lose track of the 98% of their lives that are dedicated to loving and caring for a partner in everyday life?

Seems this thread has run its course. And then some.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:22 AM

at way point did liberal (supporter of freedom) become a term of abuse?

I think to be liberal is quite a good thing. freedom is what our fathers fought for - so that we wouldn't have eejits making arbitrary decisions and judgements about how we should live.

The churches must be crazy. they're all empty as it is - the mainstream ones. They stand some meed to be excluding and disaffecting people, whole sections of the community.

I think you need to ask yourself, does this reflect the reality of the lives of my gay friends - all these statistics. Ake?

Because you do know gay people, they are very numerous - and people who maybe you don't know very well - some of them will be gay. If they've heard you saying this stuff, I would imagine they must be pretty guarded when they talk to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:44 AM

"Peter Hitchins reiterated the points made by Sanity and myself regarding "liberal bigotry"."

Though to be truthful the fact that Peter Hitchens agrees with you is hardly going to impress anyone who is liberal minded. I saw the programme and it was a bit more boisterous than usual but I wouldn't say it was any more thoughtful. Much of it consisted of Hitchems and Self squabbling. Hitchens in particular was his normal arrogant bullying self and Dimbleby on several occassions had to say to him "look this programme consists of more than just you speaking"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:11 AM

"The churches must be crazy" Though to be fair they have their own agenda and as far as marriage in church goes their beliefs need to be taken into account. Not so much on the question of marriage itself though! In Scotland for instance a majority of weddings are already non-religious!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:34 AM

In regards to my last post:

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:38 PM

I didn't watch the program, and don't know what it was about.

As so far as 'attacking you on the basis of liberal agenda'..look, you may not know it, but when some Bozo starts unthinkingly spouts off the mantra of horseshit, on which the 'liberals' use for their rationalizations, it's easy to spot, (or smell) a mile away!..only thing is, to you it's 'normal reasoning'....you're just used to it!..like bad breath, B.O, or the smell of your own farts!

GfS


..the same thing is true about a lot of the so-called 'Conservatives', as well..it just smells a little different, but equally as unpleasant.
My comment wasn't particularly aimed at the homosexual issues...but the way the 'left' have championed bad science, is the 'odors' of which I speak!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:52 AM

Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history.

Except, of course, by those who favor totalitarian regimes.

Why then, do people of a relatively free country use it as an insult?

One must conclude that they do not consider individual freedom to be important.

Of course, liberalism is in good company. Many people who use "liberal" or "liberal agenda" as an insult tend to discount scientists when they warn about human-caused global warming. We are told that scientists (about 97% of them) who say such things have a "liberal agenda."

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:32 AM

Don ~~ I think people are reacting against the self-righteous, sometimes rather over-emphatic & bullying, tone taken by certain self-proclaimed 'liberals', 'progressives', &c, rather than to the actual social philosophy that the term 'liberalism' originally defined.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 04:23 AM

Bill...My remark,"Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour." did not apply to "gay parades" or any such like nonesense, but to the homosexual heath figures which have been at th heart of all of my post on this issue.

The health figures show a massive over reprsenration of male homosexuals in hiv/aids, and most other STDs. To explain this phenomenon, would meant that there is either something intrinsically unhealthy in sexual intercourse between men, or that male homosexuals are massively more promiscuous than heteros?

If either of these views are correct, legislation to bring a sexual minority with such an abysmal health record into mainstream society, rather than investigate or take steps to improve the present situation,is bad legislation.

There are many other points concerning familiy structure ect which call this legislation into question, but still all we get from the so called liberals is the myth of "equality".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM

You have that about right MGM.....but the culture is slightly more insidious and dangerous. The "liberal agenda" is really an attack on free speech and rationally, it is driven by the profound philosophers who make up the broadcasting boards, newspaper editors, and the leaders of most of the mass media.

"Orwellian" describes it perfectly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM

Liberalism, as espoused by Will Self, seems very intolerant.
He said last night that anyone with any doubts about gay marriage was a homophobe, and anyone with any concerns about the level of immigration, (ie every political party and most of the population) must be racist.
He actually said both those things.
Anyone who disagrees with their current philosophy must be a bad person.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM

I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe. There can be absolutely no other reason for opposing it, no matter how you dress up your excuses in tradition, the sanctity of procreation, etc.

And Michael. Before you patronise us who troubled to watch Question Time, might I suggest you watch it yourself on iPlayer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM

Having now watched Question Time on i-player, I am somewhat at a loss. After reading the above comments, I was obviously going to be watching out for certain things. I did not, however, observe Dimbleby at any point inform Hitchens that the programme was 'not just about him talking', or any words to that effect, as quoted above. I didn't see anything approaching the exclusive conflict between Hitchens & Self described above, particularly in the opening 'gay marriage' question & discussion. I did not notice Hitchens 'glancing furtively around for approval' as fancifully described by a poster a few back. One question indeed, alone of the whole panel, he afforded simply the one-word answer 'no', in reply to whether he agreed with something or other ~~ the deserving or otherwise of the obloquy the Oz DJs are getting, I think it was. I got the clear impression that the two young lady MPs, a junior misister & a shadow ditto IIRC, both hogged & interrupted far more than any of the other participants.

It was all another example to me, taken in conjunction with comments above, of hearing and seeing what one's predispositions condition one to hope & expect to see & hear.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

Steve ~~ Believe it or not, I had already done so before I read your last post ~~ with results rubricated immediately above.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM

I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe

So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:23 AM

Me: I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe

Keef: So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption.


My statement makes no declaration that "they all must be", neither does it make any assumption. I did try, with my bit of reasoning [q.v.]to put the onus on opponents of gay marriage to demonstrate that their stance is not homophobic, which is exactly where I think the onus should be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM

Steve,"There can be absolutely no other reason for opposing it, no matter how you dress up your excuses in tradition, the sanctity of procreation, etc."
So they must all be ......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to gay marriage who is not a homophobe
So they all must be?
Or most?
That would be a bigoted assumption."




No it would not. Because what Steve Shaw stated is a tautology. Try this test...substitute any other group of people and the word for those who shun an fear them. For example:

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to whites marrying blacks who is not a racist"

Is that a bigoted assumption?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:10 AM

OK, here is a question for everyone, including the trolls. *Especially* the trolls:

In society's treatment of homosexuals, we should
a) "allow" them to have all the rights enjoyed by heteros, and live as "normal" people.
b) deny them some, but not all rights (specify which ones).
c) deny them all the rights of heteros.
d) shun them and make them live outside of society, like in the woods or under bridge overpasses, eating out of dumpsters.
e) beat them up.
f) imprison them.
g) kill them.

OK, then. Let's here it.

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:31 AM

In Britain we have never had laws against inter-race marriage.
It has been happening for centuries.
The idea that marriage is for male to female only is truly ancient.
That does not mean it can never be changed, but please do not pretend it is not a deeply ingrained cultural issue for some people other than homophobes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:32 AM

Given that they are in fact perfectly normal people (unless of course somebody can explain exactly how and why they differ from the other humans on this planet), the only reasonable answer is a).

Unless of course you are of the persuasion which discriminates against people who are black, or ginger, or live in trailer parks, all of which, like sexual orientation, are involuntary products of circumstances of birth and/or heritage.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM

No it would not. Because what Steve Shaw stated is a tautology. Try this test...substitute any other group of people and the word for those who shun an fear them. For example:

"I have yet to meet anyone opposed to whites marrying blacks who is not a racist"

Is that a bigoted assumption?


"Tautology"? It was a statement of fact (unless you disbelieve me, which you are quite entitled to do). I have yet to meet an opponent of gay marriage is who not homophobic. When I said that, I went to on to reject the usual reasons given for opposition, that marriage, traditionally, has always been between a man and a woman, that marriage should have the potential for offspring. I reject those claims, first because they usually emanate from a religious context (which is always suspicious to say the least) and second because they make a comfortable curtain for homophobes to hide behind, Pilate-like, saying with a shrug, well, that's how it is and we'll have to live with it, I suppose. When I type "I have yet to meet..." you would be entirely wrong to read that as my possessing any certainty in this matter. I'm open to persuasion from good, honest people who can supply good, honest, persuasive, agenda-free reasons why two men or two women should not get married and call themselves married.

By the way, I can guarantee that, by any definition of racist you care to choose, anyone who opposes the marriage of a black person and a white person, in principle, because of their skin colour (I do try to avoid traps) is racist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:45 AM

Steve doesn't do reason keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:01 AM

Really? What do you think that last post was, achy, Scotch bloody mist?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:04 AM

In society's treatment of homosexuals, we should
a) "allow" them to have all the rights enjoyed by heteros, and live as "normal" people.


We have already achieved this.
They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the right to enter in to a civil partnership with someone of the same sex.

Like everyone else they do not have the right to marry an underage person, a close relative or anyone of the same sex.

All those three limitations should be subject to scrutiny and change, but there will be people who will have valid objections to any change.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:07 AM

There ya go, achy, an object lesson in "reason" from Keith. An object lesson in intolerance, too, while you're at it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:12 AM

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

"Points have no dimensions"
"Wait a minute...aren't you making assumptions about all points? You Sir are a bigoted anti-pointist!"

Or something like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM

an object lesson in "reason" from Keith.
Thank you Steve.
An object lesson in intolerance, too

No. It is liberal and tolerant to respect the deeply held convictions of others.
It may be necessary to overrule them, but not to assert that they must be bad people and their views dismissed.
That is illiberal, intolerant and bigoted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:38 AM

Keith, your post was accurate...right on the button, but as i have found it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people.

They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.
You and I are on different sides of the political divide, but we do not see important social issues as party political.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:41 AM

You and I are on different sides of the political divide

*splutter...*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:43 AM

Tautology was not meant as an insult nor to belittle your personal experience. It simply means that it is self-defining and cannot possibly be bigoted.

OK. But let's call it a gambit instead. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:48 AM

Okay, let's have the grownup discussion...

You (akenaton) asked "How can marriage be an incentive to stop the promiscuity, when only a tiny minority want it?"

Let's suppose your "tiny minority" statistic is factual.

Why would you deny marriage to this tiny minority? Wouldn't this help solve the health crisis you are worried about...even just a little bit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:20 AM

Tis my belief that Cameron is in such a untenable situation with this coalition that he is pulling every stroke he can to divest himself of the post of PM by espousing contentious policies such as homosexual/lesbian marriage, nuclear energy shilly-shallying, HS2, taking on Brussels, forced green policies et al. Come the next election he will be happy as Larry to see someone else wrestle with the above. Blair seems to have personally flourished since being out of office.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM

And can it be said at all that married heteros do not "stray?"

Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance, which is really the heart of this. Perhaps because it demands an honest self-assessment, which some here adamantly refuse to do?? I think that refusal speaks volumes.


Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM

""They are acting out their political fantasies, to the detriment of reason, common sense, and the wellbeing of those they claim to support.""

Then, O wise Scot, tell us do how a homosexual marriage diminishes heterosexuals' marriages?

Then tell us how allowing homosexuals to establish monogamous relationships is likely to increase their health risks, when every facet of reasonable examination strongly suggests the opposite?

You have consistently ducked this question with the comment that gays don't want to marry, obviously untrue given the number who queue up to marry wherever it becomes legal.

Come on 'fess up canny lad. The idea that all gays are by nature promiscuous is largely the invention of nay sayers like yourself, in a weak attempt to label what you call "These people" (you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that we are all known to you, at least as fellow Mudcatters) as politically motivated destroyers of the status quo.

You are too intolerant to allow that we believe in what we say because we believe it is right, not politically, but in honest humanity.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:30 PM

""Oh, whatthehell. No one even came close to directly addressing my question about the acceptance vs non-acceptance""

I rather think I did Saul, while cutting off at the pass all the objections I foresaw as inevitable.

Acceptance is the only possible answer to men of conscience (which, I believe, is all but a vociferous few here).

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:51 PM

". . . it is almost impossible to have a grown up discussion with these people."

Apparently, Ake's idea of "a grown up discussion" is one in which he pontificates, and everyone else nods and chants, "Yessir, yessir, three bags full!"

Marriage, which used to be mainly a matter of increasing the tribe (which was the primary reason for the prohibitions against same-sex relationships in Biblical times), was later redefined to make it mainly a matter of property (a man's wife was considered "chattel," as were her possessions, including, often, a dowry) and inheritance. Within the past century, the place of women in society has, by itself, redefined marriage. And none of these redifinitions has brought about the destruction of society.

So that argument is spurious.

And as to the argument that same-sex relationships, male relationships in particular, are responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDs, is a reason to oppose same-sex marriage is self-contradictory. ONE (but not ALL) of the means of spreading HIV/AIDs is through promiscuous sex, regardless of the gender of the participants. Marriage encourages stable, monogamous relationships, so it cuts down on the spread of venereal diseases.

I have known a same-sex couple who have been in a stable, monogamous relationship for twenty-eight years! And other couples who have been together for long periods of time and to all intents and purposes, ARE married. Except legally, which would give them the same rights as other couples.

This past Sunday here in Washington State, they were able to have an official, legal, marriage ceremony, which made their relationship official and announced its existence to the rest of the world.

A very happy and much longed-for event for both them and their friends!

There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny same-sex marriage.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM

Well said, Don. It seems that those opposed to gay marriage, in or out of a church, are opposed to homosexuality itself. But it exists, there are gay people out there, they fall in love, they want to formalise their relationships just like anyone else, and gay marriage (as any marriage) does indeed stabilise society. Why all this hate and unkindness? It's as mad as trying to prevent black people or disabled people from marrying in church. Imagine the hoo-ha if someone suggested banning them! Everyone has the right (and should be encouraged) to marry the person they truly love. So let them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM

So many well said posts. I laud them all.

"There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny same-sex marriage."

Well, yeah. But there are gonna be more posts from those peeps who simply troll and have nothing to say in response that has any true value and they will simply be repeting themselves with inane arguements so why not just stop posting? Let the ignorant trolls post themselves up the ying yang. Who cares about trolls and ignorants and bigots?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:31 PM

I think you're right, gnu. It's hopeless trying to help them understand. They never will turn into kind and accepting folk. They take pleasure in winding the rest of us up. But at the end of the day, they'll end up bitter, unhappy and lonely. No-one wants a vicious troll for a friend!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM

Not only are there gay people "out there", there are gay people in here - hello!!!!!

And it is all too apparent that a (reassuringly) small number of Mudcat regulars have implacable and deeply condemnatory views about homosexuality. In various threads, at various times, I have attempted to put an alternative view, based on the actual lived experience of a gay man.

But it never works. So while I am genuinely pleased to see you well-intentioned hets trying to sway These Particular People, you really are wasting your time. You might as well try and get a rhino to walk a tightrope.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM

Tia....you obviously have not been paying attention, I have explained my position regarding the homosexual "marriage" legislation many times on these threads and why I am unable to support such legislation. It has nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, or the colour of anyone's skin. Male homosexuals are now, in the eyes of most experts, suffering the effects of an epidemic. In some major US cities 1 in 5 homosexuals carry the hiv virus. In such an epidemic, it is impossible to "solve the health crisis...just a little bit"; real and urgent action is required immediately.....pretending that the crisis does not exist is not an option...and that is what the legislation does, it promotes the homosexual lifestyle with its very high rates of promiscuity, as safe and healthy....healthy enough to be brought into mainstream society and given very young children to bring up...a disgraceful social experiment.

The health agencies are only too aware of the crisis but are hindered by Rights legislation from tackling the problem at source. They are now hinting that compulsory hiv testing and contact tracing should be conducted in "problem areas"...this would mean all the inhabitants of inner city areas, whether or not they are "at risk" Expensive and time consuming. 2/3% of the population(homosexuals) account for almost 70% of new hiv infections, making them by a huge percentage the largest "at risk" group....it is this group that should be targetted if we are serious about understanding and eradicating the link between male homosexuality and hiv/aids.

To stick heads in the sand and pretend there is no heath crisis in the homosexual community, is rank stupidity and unbelievable cruelty, for although early death rates are falling, aids remains a life sentence for many young men....and to teach our children that while these rates of disease continue,homosexuality is a safe and healty lifestyle is to live in a land of PC madness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM

". . . promotes the homosexual lifestyle. . . ."

This makes the assumption that someone who's heterosexual is going to think, "Gee, homosexuality sounds like jolly good fun!! I think I'll go down to some gay bar and get laid!!"

Yeah, sure!!

When asked if being gay was a matter of choice or if people were just born that way, a gay acquaintance of mine said, "Considering the fact that being gay can subject you to all manner of slurs and insults, and can get you repeatedly hauled into a back alley and beaten up—or even killed!—who in his right mind would CHOOSE to be gay?"

You say you can't support such legislation despite the fact that same-sex marriage promotes stable, monogamous relationships, which, in turn, would reduce promiscuity. In addition to many other things, some aforementioned, this strikes me as both counterproductive and mean-spirited!

For those who are pathologically opposed to gay marriage—as some folks here make it quite plain that they are—the worst thing they could imagine is if medical science were to come up with a vaccination against HIV—or a cure for AIDs—or both!

That COULD happen any day now.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:06 PM

Well, achy, your veneer of "respectable" and faux-measured comment is ultra-thin and cannot disguise your homophobia. In Africa, where HIV/aids is far more prevalent than anywhere else, it is not a condition primarily of homosexual men. Far from it. To read your post, one might come to the conclusion that, if only we could wipe out homosexuality, we would rid the world of HIV/aids. You claim to be a siren voice who is bravely ditching PC. Well you're bravely ditching common sense and reason as well, not to speak of a large body of obstinate facts, unfortunately. Try the following for size. Why do you think we have massive rates of teenage unwanted pregnancy here? Why do we have a shamefully-high abortion rate in this country? Why is there so much death among teenage boy drivers? Why do we have HIV/aids in this country (at relatively low levels, actually)?

Well let me give you the wrong answers:

*Because teenagers are irresponsible shaggers-around.

*Because girls don't know when to say no, and, anyway, abortion is easy to get, so no problem. A lifestyle choice.

*Because teenage boys are all testosterone-fuelled, hubris-filled, immature little bastards.

*Because gay men are obsessed with unprotected bumming around with whoever they can get their hands on.

Now let me give you the wrong solutions:

*Stop teenagers going out at night and force them to do the respectable thing and get married if they do get pregnant.

*Don't let boys drive cars until they're 25 and even then restrict them to Cinquecentos.

*Ban abortion and make the guilty little whores have their babies and get them adopted.

*Make homosexuality illegal, as it's filthy and disgusting anyway, and castrate repeat offenders.

Now the right solution: education, old chap, that's what. We are so bloody bad at it in this country when it comes to sex and personal relationships it isn't true. It's a willy in a fanny (in diagrammatic form, of course) but only for making babies (I know: I was involved in it in secondary schools for 25 fruitless years in which spinster senior teachers, school nurses and vicars with moral agendas couldn't keep their noses out). The same applies to boy racers. There was a thing on telly last night about showing volunteer teenage drivers how inexperienced they were, and the guinea-pigs showed impressive and humble responses to their eye-opening lessons. But we don't bother. Birds and bees are for mums and dads to deal with, and they were educated even less well. Then, just like you, we moan and groan about the moral laxities of any of those groups we choose to focus on. Well, achy, the thing is, it's all your fault and mine why kids grow up all wrong sometimes. And I'm certainly not including growing up gay in that, unlike you. In terms of education, gayness is the great unmentionable (with a very few honourable exceptions). Thing is, old chap, it's the self-same people who do all the bloody moralising and moaning and condemning who also try to put every possible obstacle in the way of good, open, moralising-free and well-integrated education programmes. Next time you pass a Catholic school, nip in, pretend you're a prospective parent and ask how much they teach their kids about contraception and safe sex. Don't even bother asking what they teach about homosexuality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:51 PM

However you see it...I'm a bit skeptical on policies formed on the shoulders of bad science....and if you belief bad science, and policies built upon them, then it could be said that your rationale is in decay from the beginning premise.....and really, do you want to be dogmatic on a false premise, and then be surprised if you meet opposition??????
those who knowingly promote policies built upon bad science and false premises, have breached their own credibility..and can be easily dismissed.....no matter how 'popular' it is to tolerate their act!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:02 AM

When you notice that Akenaton writes gay marriage as gay "marriage" you don't really have the heart to read any further.

If you did you would find distortion and convenient solutions to match his preconceived views.

Goofus on the other hand tries to tease out hypocrisy in other people's posts whilst giving Akenaton respect.

So, now they can both be dismissed out of hand, back to gay marriage.

Old men in pointy hats tell us marriage belongs to their imaginary friend. Very easy to dismiss my comment there as a rant against religion but if you find such institutions irrelevant, their claim is somewhat insulting. Yet be insulting back and as Corporal Jones reminded us, the fuzzy wuzzies don't like it up 'em.

I got married three years ago in a hotel. No church nonsense or hypocritical incantations but a bloody good time. By their reckoning I am not married then either? Fuck 'em.

Jesus had two dads and he turned out ok. In fact according to Christians he turned out better than any person ever could. Which says it all really...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:05 AM

Not a rant against religion Musket.
The pointy hat reference makes it specific to Christian churches, who of all churches have no problem with sexuality.
All congregations have openly gay couples, and we have gay priests and bishops.
The Methodist church I often attend has its second gay minister in