Thank you for your reply, Mr. MLAM. In my view, Human Rights must be applied equally and fairly to have any real meaning. I believe that you may understand this given your response to Mr. LancsLad's post. So why should Homosexuals be granted 'special rights', above and beyond the rest of us, to engage in a behaviour of which the consequenses are so clearly damaging to Humanity? Sincerely, Jon .MLAM said:
Top 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Wrong
- Thread starter Morgan Ellis
- Start date
I really don't give a damn what you think about my opinion, nor am I in any way about to fall victim to your ute little throw out the Nazi label game.MLAM said:
Yes some are worth more than others in the total package of world development. And just what do you mean by suggesting this means to save someone. I don't for a minute feel any guilt or urge to waste my money trying to solve millennias worth of problems around the wrld. Are you so bold as to suggest that we impoverish ourselves if needed in this great crusade to save everyone. If you think that please use all your money but don't ask for any of mine.
Get off your preachy little pulpit for a second , cash in all your tangible assets and spent the money in Africa if you are that committed. If you don't do that then you must agree there is a limit to what we can and should do. My limit just happens to be at the starting point.
I enjoyed a nice Fullers London Porter , thank you for asking.
MLAM said:
While some of your prose is over-the-line, you really underscored the heart of the matter here.
Curiously the "gay marriage" backers are surprisingly discriminatory against polygamists as they seek to redefine marriage to suit only themselves. The two obviously go hand in hand in terms of minority interests wanting to change tradition not for the good of anyone, but just as a means through which to make their own garbled political statement.
Want (spousal-type legal) rights? Fine, I'm all for gay relationships offering health benefits, death benefits, hospital visitation rights as family, etc.
Want "equal rights" ?? You already have equal rights. I can't marry your gay partner either. Nor can I marry those who are already married to others.
Until gays explain clearly just why they have this agenda to redefine something that has long been otherwise defined, they'll never succeed in altering the definition of marriage. And until they stop showing prejudice against polygamists then gays are as bad as the establishment they think they're trying to alter.
It is rather arbitrary that marriage has been chosen as the pre-defined element that gays are attempting to alter. If it were, say, hockey sticks or lemonade stands or french fries that gays were attempting to redefine, then nobody would afford it a second thought.
So consider if you will just how you'd feel if someone pretending to support "equal rights for gays" had just attempted to convince you that from now on he wants the union of two gay males to fall within the definition of what we now know as a hockey stick.
Then ask yourself how and why that someone decided that the union of two gay males should suddenly fall under the definition of a hockey stick, and why that someone shows prejudice toward his polygamist friends in not allowing polygamists the same right.
I don't see gays as showing prejudice against polygamists, they are trying to advance their own agenda which doesn't mean they won't support someone else's.
It's too early for the polygamist question to be resolved, progress is taken one step at a time and the gradual acceptance of gay marriage will help their cause.
Is anyone still waiting for acutus to respond to some excellent questions put to him?
It's too early for the polygamist question to be resolved, progress is taken one step at a time and the gradual acceptance of gay marriage will help their cause.
Is anyone still waiting for acutus to respond to some excellent questions put to him?
acutus said:
The activity which causes AIDS is contact where once host's infected blood or passes into another host's infected blood. Infected needles and unprotected sex are CONDUITS for the contagion...
....
Ah screw it. All you can do is call me names but you won't respond to the points I have raised more than once. I'm not going to answer your question until you take aim at any of my previous responses to you.
Svend said:Is anyone still waiting for acutus to respond to some excellent questions put to him?
Don't hold your breath. I've learned that acutus ignores the questions he can't answer.
Propaganda, I tell you, all propaganda!!!! Blame Bush!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ybro0626/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
Excess of older brothers can make you gay, study shows
RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Associated Press
Washington — Men who have several older brothers have an increased chance of being gay — whether they were raised together or not — a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation is based in biology.
The increase was seen in men with older brothers from the same mother, but not those who had stepbrothers or adopted brothers who were older.
“It's likely to be a prenatal effect,” said Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, who did the research. “This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis” for homosexuality.
Dr. Bogaert studied four groups of Canadian men, a total of 944 people, analyzing the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether or not they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted.
His findings are reported in a paper appearing in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
S. Marc Breedlove, a professor in the neuroscience and psychology department of Michigan State University, said the finding “absolutely” confirms a physical basis.
“Anybody's first guess would have been that the older brothers were having an effect socially, but this data doesn't support that,” Dr. Breedlove said in a telephone interview.
The only link between the brothers is the mother and so the effect has to be through the mother, especially since stepbrothers didn't have the effect, said Dr. Breedlove, who was not part of the research.
Tim Dailey, a senior fellow at the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies disagreed.
“We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality,” Mr. Dailey said. “We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development.”
There have been a number of attempts to establish a physical basis “and in every case the alleged findings have been severely challenged and questioned,” he said.
“If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time,” Mr. Dailey added.
Dr. Bogaert said the increase can be detected with one older brother and becomes stronger with three or four or more.
But, he added, this needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of homosexuality in men, which he suggested is about 3 per cent. With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 per cent to 5 per cent, he said, but that still means 95 per cent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.
The effect of birth order on male homosexuality has been reported previously but Dr. Bogaert's work is the first designed to rule out social or environmental effects.
Dr. Bogaert said he concluded the effect was biological by comparing men with biological brothers to those with brothers to whom they were not biologically related.
The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said.
Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay.
“So what that means is that the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference,” he said.
What makes a difference, he said, is having older brothers who shared the same womb and gestational experience, suggesting the difference is because of “some sort of prenatal factor.”
One possibility, he suggests, is a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. The mother may react to a male fetus as foreign, but not to a female fetus because the mother is also female.
It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood. Without treatment, the mother can develop antibodies that may attack the fetus during future pregnancies.
Whether that's what is happening remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis, said a commentary by Dr. Breedlove, David Puts and Cynthia Jordan, all of Michigan State.
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ybro0626/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
Excess of older brothers can make you gay, study shows
RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Associated Press
Washington — Men who have several older brothers have an increased chance of being gay — whether they were raised together or not — a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation is based in biology.
The increase was seen in men with older brothers from the same mother, but not those who had stepbrothers or adopted brothers who were older.
“It's likely to be a prenatal effect,” said Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, who did the research. “This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis” for homosexuality.
Dr. Bogaert studied four groups of Canadian men, a total of 944 people, analyzing the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether or not they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted.
His findings are reported in a paper appearing in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
S. Marc Breedlove, a professor in the neuroscience and psychology department of Michigan State University, said the finding “absolutely” confirms a physical basis.
“Anybody's first guess would have been that the older brothers were having an effect socially, but this data doesn't support that,” Dr. Breedlove said in a telephone interview.
The only link between the brothers is the mother and so the effect has to be through the mother, especially since stepbrothers didn't have the effect, said Dr. Breedlove, who was not part of the research.
Tim Dailey, a senior fellow at the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies disagreed.
“We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality,” Mr. Dailey said. “We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development.”
There have been a number of attempts to establish a physical basis “and in every case the alleged findings have been severely challenged and questioned,” he said.
“If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time,” Mr. Dailey added.
Dr. Bogaert said the increase can be detected with one older brother and becomes stronger with three or four or more.
But, he added, this needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of homosexuality in men, which he suggested is about 3 per cent. With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 per cent to 5 per cent, he said, but that still means 95 per cent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.
The effect of birth order on male homosexuality has been reported previously but Dr. Bogaert's work is the first designed to rule out social or environmental effects.
Dr. Bogaert said he concluded the effect was biological by comparing men with biological brothers to those with brothers to whom they were not biologically related.
The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said.
Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay.
“So what that means is that the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference,” he said.
What makes a difference, he said, is having older brothers who shared the same womb and gestational experience, suggesting the difference is because of “some sort of prenatal factor.”
One possibility, he suggests, is a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. The mother may react to a male fetus as foreign, but not to a female fetus because the mother is also female.
It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood. Without treatment, the mother can develop antibodies that may attack the fetus during future pregnancies.
Whether that's what is happening remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis, said a commentary by Dr. Breedlove, David Puts and Cynthia Jordan, all of Michigan State.
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
I haven't called you any names Mr. DATYdude. Please review this Thread as required. Homosexual anal intercourse produces AIDS. This is a known fact. What previous responses would you like me to 'take aim at' ? Please keep in mind that it is the responsibility of the writer to communicate their ideas clearly. Sincerely, Jon .DATYdude said:The activity which causes AIDS is contact where once host's infected blood or passes into another host's infected blood. Infected needles and unprotected sex are CONDUITS for the contagion...
....
Ah screw it. All you can do is call me names but you won't respond to the points I have raised more than once. I'm not going to answer your question until you take aim at any of my previous responses to you.
Gov't and society are right to be concerned when something is changed in order to receive benefit from that gov't or society. Marriage was instituted as a way ensure that children are born and raised to become productive members of society. Having a stable family leads to more healthy children. That is why married couple have more rights than non-married couples.
The right for gay marriage is not about what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults. If that was the case, we would not be having this discussion.
For example, incest is illegal because of its detriment to society. Why can't a brother and mother or a father and daughter get married if it's between 2 consenting adults?
x
The right for gay marriage is not about what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults. If that was the case, we would not be having this discussion.
For example, incest is illegal because of its detriment to society. Why can't a brother and mother or a father and daughter get married if it's between 2 consenting adults?
x
The issue as I see it Mr. Svend, is that we all have an interest in the behaviour of an individual or group of individuals if that behaviour is detrimental to the rest of us. Sincerely, Jon .Svend said:
Lol...
What questions would you like me to answer for you, Mr. Back Burner? Sincerely, Jon .Back Burner said:
Paying for escorts also could be considered anti-marriage, yet I wouldn't rank myself down there with murderers and rapists.acutus said:
Encouraging gays to marry and live more stable monogamous lives would also prevent the spread of AIDs, right?
How should we deal with homosexuals, acutus? Should they be put to death or just imprisoned?
A response such as this one is almost sad in its tone and content. We should insist that Homosexuals simply tell the Truth about their choice in Life, and ensure that their 'culture' of disease and death is in no way allowed to be seen as 'equal' to the Heterosexual culture of Life. Sincerely, Jon .Svend said:
No.acutus said:
Unprotected anal intercourse can TRANSMIT the HIV virus, if one of the participants is infected with said virus. The gender and sexuality of the participants are fairly irrelevant to the equation (although the likelihood of female-to-female transmission via anal sex seems rather remote). Homosexuality and bisexuality (or having a partner who falls into either group) are risk factors, as are promiscuity, intravenous drug use, and condom use (or more accurately, the lack thereof).
No matter how much you may wish it, a monogamous, uninfected gay couple will not get (or "produce") AIDS, no matter how much anal sex they have with one another.
Period.
Cloaking lies and half-truths with (attempted) eloquence doesn't make them any more true, it just makes you slightly more literate than the dung-flinging chimps at the Metro Zoo. Apologies in advance to any chimps I may have offended.
You don't like fags - we get it. You're entitled to your opinion, however vile, silly, or unsubstantiated it may be. But you have yet to advance any argument beyond your "culture of death" catch phrase and, like all good bigots, refuse to address any facts, arguments, or points that do not fit into your teeny little world view. Until you decide to actually respond to such points, you're just a sad little troll getting his kicks from the mock outrage of Ho Boarders. Doesn't sound very natural, normal, or healthy if you ask me.
Now run along and get a blow job or something (don't worry, we won't condemn you for such a unnatural perversion!) because your shtick is played out.
Infamously yours,
The Shake
