The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 06:58PM

lazygal wrote: »

But why do loads of other religions have marriages that are indistinguishable from 'Christian' marriage if Christian marriage is so unique? Whats the difference?

Its not unique. I'm not saying its unique. I previously used the term 'Christian' in relation to marriage, to communicate the level of commitment etc. Your marriage does not undermine it, because you essentially are in a marriage that is monogomous, is Male - Female etc. If people were allowed married horses, MY marriage itself would not change between myself and my wife. Marriage as an institution would be undermined in the state though. It would no longer be the place the state recognises as the institution that nurtures the future generations etc. It has never been simply a contract between people who testify their love. Thats why its a complete red herring to hear people yob on about, 'The state have no right to tell people who they can love'. The fact is, they don't! The state recognises marriage not because it wants to get involved in peoples love lives or because it thinks its lovely. It recognises it as the base for child rearing etc. It doesn't care if you love your husband or wife.

lazygal · 01-05-2013 07:13PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not unique. I'm not saying its unique. I previously used the term 'Christian' in relation to marriage, to communicate the level of commitment etc. Your marriage does not undermine it, because you essentially are in a marriage that is monogomous, is Male - Female etc. If people were allowed married horses, MY marriage itself would not change between myself and my wife. Marriage as an institution would be undermined in the state though. It would no longer be the place the state recognises as the institution that nurtures the future generations etc. It has never been simply a contract between people who testify their love. Thats why its a complete red herring to hear people yob on about, 'The state have no right to tell people who they can love'. The fact is, they don't! The state recognises marriage not because it wants to get involved in peoples love lives or because it thinks its lovely. It recognises it as the base for child rearing etc. It doesn't care if you love your husband or wife.

The state doesn't care if you can have children though, you don't get asked at any point if you're having children when you go through the marriage process. Infertility doesn't mean your marriage is invalid, people who chose not to procreate aren't considered unsuitable for marriage by the state.

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 07:32PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups#Anti-LGBT

Which groups out of that list would you classify as innocent of the accusations of being anti-LGBT and bigoted in nature? I've glanced through a few of them and the case for them having a hateful agenda seems legitimate, I even recognise many of the groups from prior statements that they have made.

A couple of them endorse quarantining people with aids and the death penalty for homosexuals. Others portray them as predators.

Edit: Checked entire list and none of them seem unwarranted. Each of their claims was far more far reaching than simply being opposed to gay marriage. Most seemed to desire for gay people to be treated as second class citizens or criminals. I'm really wondering how you could doubt that these organisations preach hate.

Dr Michael Brown would be one. And yes, there are certainly hate groups on their lists, no doubt about it. Some really vile organisations. Thats what makes their labeling so dangerous and perplexing. In fact, a gay activist not too long ago walked into the FRC and opened fire on the basis of the SPLC labeling them a hate group.

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 07:40PM

lazygal wrote: »

The state doesn't care if you can have children though, you don't get asked at any point if you're having children when you go through the marriage process. Infertility doesn't mean your marriage is invalid, people who chose not to procreate aren't considered unsuitable for marriage by the state.

You are correct, but thats the exception, not the rule. Children indeed don't make a marriage, but its why the state got involved in marriage. Put it this way, the states recognition of marriage is not based on sentimentality, or its interest in who's loving who.

JimiTime · 01-05-2013 07:53PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Which is exactly what the polygamous marriage argument is when talking about homosexual marriage, the 2 have absolutely nothing to do with each other except that people who disagree with gay marriage, even thought it has nothing to do with them, like to use it as a scaremongering tactic

Are people really too stupid to see that the arguments for gay/'equal' marriage can be used for all these other marriages? And that in light of marriage being redefined, that there would be great inconsistency, and lack of logic in not allowing incest couples and polyamorous couples 'equal' marriage?

What I suspect, is that rather than argue against this rather obvious truth, people will see the lack of logic, but rather than see it as a good argument against redefining marriage will move to, 'Well why should be stop incest and polyamourous kids access to marriage'. If this is the path people want to go down, then fine, but stop pretending that redefining marriage wont kick the door open!

Corkfeen · 01-05-2013 08:09PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Dr Michael Brown would be one. And yes, there are certainly hate groups on their lists, no doubt about it. Thats what makes their labeling so dangerous. In fact, a gay activist not too long ago walked into the FRC and opened fire on the basis of the SPLC labeling them a hate group.

Every single one of the groups that I linked to are in fact hate groups. Brown(not a group btw) has very similar claims to yourself, mainly because you appear to base many of your claims on his book. While he is free to voice his opinion , it is hateful. He views this new found 'tolerance' of gay people to be part of an evil agenda. Saying that being gay is okay is liberal propaganda of some variety.

He'd prefer for homosexuality to hide away from public consumption and all progress for rights for gay people to end immediately, perhaps even regress. He endorses groups like NARTH and condemned repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' policies in the Army as it would make the military part of the propaganda machine. To say he is not homophobic is absolute rubbish.

There's also this weird thing where he directly linked homosexuality and paedophilia. Why is it necessary to draw a link between the two? Paedophilia is ultimately separate from homosexuality yet it doesn't stop him using it as a pitchfork against the evil gay agenda. He's a figurehead for people to justify their homophobia and condemn progressiveness. I'm grand with the SPLC pointing out such figureheads.:)

Also he's classified as one of the thirty figures on the radical right. How exactly is that untrue? For a man who objects to the propaganda machine, he is very much a part of one.

https://secure.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/summer/30-to-watch#.UYFpJLWG1Bl

Zombrex · 01-05-2013 08:40PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The legal framework of your marriage is from the Christian west. We just call it marriage, the same as mine. I don't say 'I'm in a Christian Marriage'. I'm simply married. It is understood what this is. Whether you are a Christian or not, marriage is what it is as informed by the years of Christian influence.

Well that is nonsense, Christians adopted marriage customs that existed long before the Abraham religions emerged. To claim modern marriage as Christian is like saying language or maths is Christian. If two Hindus get married you would know exactly what happened, you wouldn't be puzzled about how that works when they ate not from a Christian culture.

But even if it was true you didn't explain how it is undermining Christian marriage. You just explained that it is different.

NuMarvel · 01-05-2013 08:43PM

JimiTime wrote: »

You are correct, but thats the exception, not the rule. Children indeed don't make a marriage, but its why the state got involved in marriage. Put it this way, the states recognition of marriage is not based on sentimentality, or its interest in who's loving who.

It's more likely that the state got involved in marriage because of property rights, rather than children, but let's say you're right. Even if it was a case that the state got involved because of children, that's historical. Marriage today isn't just about that, and is available to infertile couples, elderly couples, as well as couples who have no business being parents.

Never mind the fact that there is nothing stopping gay and lesbian couples being parents in the first place.

JimiTime wrote: »

Are people really too stupid to see that the arguments for racial/'equal' marriage can be used for all these other marriages? And that in light of marriage being redefined, that there would be great inconsistency, and lack of logic in not allowing incest couples and polyamorous couples 'equal' marriage?

What I suspect, is that rather than argue against this rather obvious truth, people will see the lack of logic, but rather than see it as a good argument against redefining marriage will move to, 'Well why should be stop incest and polyamourous kids access to marriage'. If this is the path people want to go down, then fine, but stop pretending that redefining marriage wont kick the door open!

Change one word in your post, and that's exactly the argument used by people against interracial marriages. You're not going to get many people to see the "logic" in an argument put forward by racial bigots.

Mickey Dazzler · 02-05-2013 01:34AM

I have spent a considerable amount of time reading over this thread and was not at all surprised to see the usual Boards.ie ultra liberal agenda coming to the fore.

Any sort of criticism of gay marriage is seen as some sort of act of hate.

Well I don't hate anybody but I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage and what this will mean for the family of the future. The vast majority of gay men I knew including family members live lives that are completely incompatible for marriage and certainly incompatible with child rearing.

I know many people who are genuinely repulsed by the idea of two men having penetrative anal sex and all the health risks that sort of congress entails. But they do not wish to rock the liberal apple cart so keep quiet. Well I believe its time people stood up for what they believed in and put a stop to this lunacy.

I am entitled to my beliefs however unpopular they might seem.

JimiTime · 02-05-2013 01:36AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Every single one of the groups that I linked to are in fact hate groups. Brown(not a group btw) has very similar claims to yourself, mainly because you appear to base many of your claims on his book. While he is free to voice his opinion , it is hateful. He views this new found 'tolerance' of gay people to be part of an evil agenda. Saying that being gay is okay is liberal propaganda of some variety.

He'd prefer for homosexuality to hide away from public consumption and all progress for rights for gay people to end immediately, perhaps even regress. He endorses groups like NARTH and condemned repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' policies in the Army as it would make the military part of the propaganda machine. To say he is not homophobic is absolute rubbish.

There's also this weird thing where he directly linked homosexuality and paedophilia. Why is it necessary to draw a link between the two? Paedophilia is ultimately separate from homosexuality yet it doesn't stop him using it as a pitchfork against the evil gay agenda. He's a figurehead for people to justify their homophobia and condemn progressiveness. I'm grand with the SPLC pointing out such figureheads.:)

Also he's classified as one of the thirty figures on the radical right. How exactly is that untrue? For a man who objects to the propaganda machine, he is very much a part of one.

https://secure.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/summer/30-to-watch#.UYFpJLWG1Bl

You should email Dr Brown. He's quite personable, and will also put you in the picture as to the truth of the matter in relation to what he ACTUALLY stands for. If he is on the list, then every true Christian should also be on the list. It seems that 'hate' is now defined as anyone who has a moral objection to homosexuality.
His church was picketed late last year by a local LGBT group due to people like the SPLC giving out the 'info' they do. In a wonderful witness of his Christian heart, he ended up inviting the leader of this group into his home for dinner. Exchanging respectful dialogue. The activist actually ended up on his show apologising, saying they were greeted with love by Brown and his congregation, and that while they are is disagreement, he could not call the man or his congregation hateful.
Thats the spin in this insidious agenda. Terms are being invented, others redefined, in order to vilify dissenters. Its very effective.

The article in question,that allegedly calls homosexuals the same as paedophiles, does nothing of the sort. It aims to bring attention to the fact that GLSEN want children in school, to have a part of the curriculum that celebrates gay historical figures (As in, not simply teach Oscar Wilde, but accentuate the fact that he was gay, while leaving out that he was also a pererast. If its seen as relevant to talk about his sexual preferences, why are they not sharing the preference for young boys etc), but asks why this must be taught while leaving out the part that many of these icons were also pederasts. It was written in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky case.

.........the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”

During a radio interview earlier this year on the Rick Amato show, Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud stated, “I happen to think that a good school teacher, when they’re teaching literature, would mention that Oscar Wilde, when they’re teaching his work, would mention that Oscar Wilde was locked in an asylum because he was gay.”

Would they also mention that he was a boy lover and that he wrote about his passionate sexual encounters with young teens no older than some of the boys allegedly molested by Sandusky?

As noted by Jim Kepner, formerly curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, “If we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, [and others]. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.” (There is, of course, dispute about the sexuality of some of these men on the list, but if, in fact, they were homosexual, they were also pederasts.)

And remember that SB 48, mandating the celebration of LGBT history in all California schools for all children in all grades, is now law.

The outrage over the alleged pedophile acts of Sandusky is only matched by the gay silence over the alleged pedophile (or pederast) acts of Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, and others.........

You'll find that most of Browns objections in this field are to the agenda afoot, and that his interactions with homosexuals etc, are far from hateful.

1ZRed · 02-05-2013 01:46AM

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

I have spent a considerable amount of time reading over this thread and was not at all surprised to see the usual Boards.ie ultra liberal agenda coming to the fore.

Any sort of criticism of gay marriage is seen as some sort of act of hate.

Well I don't hate anybody but I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage and what this will mean for the family of the future. The vast majority of gay men I knew including family members live lives that are completely incompatible for marriage and certainly incompatible with child rearing.

I know many people who are genuinely repulsed by the idea of two men having penetrative anal sex and all the health risks that sort of congress entails. But they do not wish to rock the liberal apple cart so keep quiet. Well I believe its time people stood up for what they believed in and put a stop to this lunacy.

I am entitled to my beliefs however unpopular they might seem.

Bar the rest of the absolute nonsense in that post that I won't even bother to address, This sums it up the best

I know many people who are genuinely repulsed by the idea of two men having penetrative anal sex and all the health risks that sort of congress entails.

How is two men having anal sex any different to a man and a woman doing so, or do you believe health risks like HIV is a "gay disease" only?

JimiTime · 02-05-2013 01:48AM

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

I have spent a considerable amount of time reading over this thread and was not at all surprised to see the usual Boards.ie ultra liberal agenda coming to the fore.

Any sort of criticism of gay marriage is seen as some sort of act of hate.

Thats part of the insidious nature of the agenda, and it worked/is working.

Well I don't hate anybody but I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage and what this will mean for the family of the future. The vast majority of gay men I knew including family members live lives that are completely incompatible for marriage and certainly incompatible with child rearing.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but TBH, my life before I had kids was incompatible with child rearing, and my life before I was married was incompatible with marriage. It doesn't mean that you necessarily wont abandon the former things in order to be married and have kids etc. Again though, I don't know what you are referring to specifically? So what I'm saying may be irrelevant.

JimiTime · 02-05-2013 01:58AM

1ZRed wrote: »

How is two men having anal sex any different to a man and a woman doing so, or do you believe health risks like HIV is a "gay disease" only?

I happen to be disgusted at the idea of both. The thought of penetrating a woman in the orifice she defecates from turns my stomach. The thought of a sexual encounter with a man would add an extra layer of ickiness to such an act. For me anyway, but whatever you're into I suppose. I'll never uderstand such a desire.

As for the HIV question. Obviously, heterosexuals can get it too. However, The stats from the States do indicate that homosexual men are the most high risk demographic in terms of HIV, and other STI's. I heard a shocking stat in the recent past, that about 3% of the population identify as homosexual, but that 90% of new HIV cases are from homosexual men. Thats a 3% demographic making up 90% of the new HIV cases. While it is not confined to homosexuals, those stats certainly seem to be indicating that its still a homosexual issue.

1ZRed · 02-05-2013 02:03AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats part of the insidious nature of the agenda, and it worked/is working.

Did you ever care to see that in fact you are the religious agenda?

Ye don't seem to want to listen to facts or logic just to see your beliefs and baseless ideas pushed on everyone just because ye don't like them.

I also find it so ironic when religious people moan and complain that they can't say anything against gay marriage without being branded a homophobe or bigot.
Ye are such victims and you should be freely allowed to discriminate without being called out on it because anything else would be really unfair.

1ZRed · 02-05-2013 02:17AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I happen to be disgusted at the idea of both. The thought of penetrating a woman in the orifice she defecates from turns my stomach. The thought of a sexual encounter with a man would add an extra layer of ickiness to such an act. For me anyway, but whatever you're into I suppose. I'll never uderstand such a desire.

As for the HIV question. Obviously, heterosexuals can get it too. However, The stats from the States do indicate that homosexual men are the most high risk demographic in terms of HIV, and other STI's. I heard a shocking stat in the recent past, that about 3% of the population identify as homosexual, but that 90% of new HIV cases are from homosexual men. Thats a 3% demographic making up 90% of the new HIV cases. While it is not confined to homosexuals, those stats certainly seem to be indicating that its still a homosexual issue.

It's not that high and I'd like a link to support your figures and I will retract my statement if I'm wrong. (Not all STIs are higher for gay men, you're wrong there)
The rate of HIV is higher for the gay population but the rate of HIV is actually rising highest in the straight population who are having riskier sex, like unprotected anal sex, whereas gay men have it engrained in them that we should refuse unprotected sex.
80% of gay porn coming from major studios support the "say no to bareback" campaign, that features at the start of the video.
At a contrast. I nearly exclusively see unprotected straight porn.

Take my mates as a real world example. Out of the lads who've said they had anal sex, none have said they used a condom. The pregnancy risk wasn't there so they didn't see the urgency. Idiotic, I know, but it sums up why those statics show a big rise in straight people being diagnosed with HIV.
IIRC, RTE covered HIV in Ireland about a year and a half ago and backed up that new HIV cases were rising very quickly in straight people versus gay people.

You'd actually be very mistaken for thinking it's a predominantly homosexual issue and not just a universal issue for all sexually active people in the world, and emphasising it as that could do more harm if the seriousness of the disease is lessened and straight people are less conscious of it and don't practice the appropriate measures to avoid infection.

JimiTime · 02-05-2013 02:21AM

1ZRed wrote: »

Did you ever care to see that in fact you are the religious agenda?

Yes. I've never pretended or hidden what my agenda is. Thats the difference, I don't deny my agenda existing. Before we even get into the nitty gritty of the LGBT agenda, we must a lot of the time argue that it exists in the first place such is the denial of it by so many people.

I have many agenda's, and many of them are heavily influenced by my Christianity.

Ye don't seem to want to listen to facts or logic just to see your beliefs and baseless ideas pushed on everyone just because ye don't like them.

The only thing baseless is that sentence

I also find it so ironic when religious people moan and complain that they can't say anything against gay marriage without being branded a homophobe or bigot.

The complaint, is related to the dishonesty and insidious method being employed to vilify any dissenting voices.

Ye are such victims and you should be freely allowed to discriminate without being called out on it because anything else would be really unfair.

No issue on being called out on anything, I just wish it could be done honestly, instead of the weasel words and unwarranted vilification.

JimiTime · 02-05-2013 02:57AM

1ZRed wrote: »

It's not that high and I'd like a link to support your figures and I will retract my statement if I'm wrong.

Just googled there. It seems that its San Fran that has the 90% stat not the whole of the US. The US figure is still a massive

http://www.aidslifecycle.org/hivstats.html

In San Francisco...

An estimated 800-1,000 people will become infected with HIV this year.
More than 18,000 people have died of AIDS since the epidemic began in 1981. 27,592 currently live with HIV.
90% of new infections are among gay men and other men who have sex with men.
Gay men who use methamphetamine are 2-4 times more likely to be living with HIV.
Non-Hispanic whites account for 54% of cumulative HIV/AIDS cases, followed by African Americans at 13% and Latinos at 12%.

USA
Gay and bisexual men continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, accounting for an estimated 53% of new HIV infections, and is the only group for which new infections are on the rise.

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

According to this, 77% of new male incidences of HIV are from Male to Male sex, compared to 12% in hetero men.

(Not all STIs are higher for men, you're wrong there)

I didn't mean that. I meant other STI's not ALL other STI's.

The rate of HIV is higher for the gay population but the rate of HIV is actually rising highest in the straight population who are having riskier sex, like unprotected anal sex, whereas gay men have it engrained in then that we should refuse unprotected sex.
80% of gay porn coming from major studios support the "say no to bareback" campaign, at a contrast I nearly exclusively see unprotected straight porn.

That doesn't seem to be the case according to the lancet, or anything I've read on the matter. In fact, it all says the exact opposite to what you are saying. It says that even in places where HIV is declining, it still rising in the homosexual men population.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/

.........Rates of HIV among gay men ranged from 3% in the Middle East to 25% in the Caribbean. In all reporting nations, rates were on the rise, even in developed nations like the U.S., Australia and the U.K. where HIV is declining overall.

In fact, says Beyrer, income does not seem to matter when it comes to HIV trends among MSM. In the U.S., for example, infection rates among gay men have been increasing by 8% each year since 2001, contributing to a 15% prevalence rate and putting the U.S. on par with countries like Thailand, Malaysia and some African and Caribbean nations where neither awareness of HIV/AIDS nor drug treatments are as widespread. HIV prevalence rates among MSM in Brazil, Canada, Italy and India range between 11% and 15%, while many western European countries have lower rates of around 6%.............

Take my mates as an example. Out of the lads who've said they had anal sex, none have said they used a condom. The pregnancy risk wasn't there so they didn't see the urgency. Idiotic, I know, but it sums up why those statics show a big rise in straight people being diagnosed with HIV.
IIRC, RTE covered HIV in Ireland and backed up that new HIV cadre were rising very quickly in straight people versus gay people.

You'd actually be very mistaken for thinking it's a predominantly a homosexual issue and not just a universal issue for all sexually active people in the world, and emphasising it as that could do more harm if the seriousness of the disease is lessened and straight people are less conscious of it.

Again, the Lancet piece seems to suggest otherwise, and the suspicion is that due to the anal factor, gay men being diagnosed is still rising, where other demographics instances are falling. Like I said, its certainly not just a thing that homosexual men get, but it certainly seems to be an issue with homosexual men more than any other sexual demographic.

Benny_Cake · 02-05-2013 05:34AM

If you are to be a sexually active adult, it's safest of all to be a lesbian, with zero confirmed cases of female-to-female transmission of HIV:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm

Unprotected anal sex is the reason for the increased incidence among gay men, not the mere fact that the men are gay and sexually active. To their credit, gay organisations have been at the front of campaigns to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS. There seems to be a lot more awareness about the risk factors among gay guys (in this country anyway) than among their heterosexual counterparts - I know I was pretty ignorant of what the risk factors were when I was younger.

Mickey, it's perfectly fine to be repulsed by a particular sexual activity, or by the thoughts of two particular people having sex. The question is - should personal distaste influence public policy?

aloyisious · 02-05-2013 08:32AM

On the issue of blood infections, sexual or otherwise, there's this report from the irish Independent dated 29/4/2013, a few days ago. Naturally, the source doesn't identify the persons found to be infected.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Firish-news%2Fdonors-learned-they-had-hiv-virus-only-after-giving-blood-29227697.html&ei=UheCUc7pJ--A7QbPj4GYDg&usg=AFQjCNEXBInsX7PKNa_M7FvkIDnsB1qTKQ&bvm=bv.45921128,d.ZGU

Corkfeen · 02-05-2013 09:36AM

JimiTime wrote: »

You should email Dr Brown. He's quite personable, and will also put you in the picture as to the truth of the matter in relation to what he ACTUALLY stands for. If he is on the list, then every true Christian should also be on the list. It seems that 'hate' is now defined as anyone who has a moral objection to homosexuality.
His church was picketed late last year by a local LGBT group due to people like the SPLC giving out the 'info' they do. In a wonderful witness of his Christian heart, he ended up inviting the leader of this group into his home for dinner. Exchanging respectful dialogue. The activist actually ended up on his show apologising, saying they were greeted with love by Brown and his congregation, and that while they are is disagreement, he could not call the man or his congregation hateful.
Thats the spin in this insidious agenda. Terms are being invented, others redefined, in order to vilify dissenters. Its very effective.

The article in question,that allegedly calls homosexuals the same as paedophiles, does nothing of the sort. It aims to bring attention to the fact that GLSEN want children in school, to have a part of the curriculum that celebrates gay historical figures (As in, not simply teach Oscar Wilde, but accentuate the fact that he was gay, while leaving out that he was also a pererast. If its seen as relevant to talk about his sexual preferences, why are they not sharing the preference for young boys etc), but asks why this must be taught while leaving out the part that many of these icons were also pederasts. It was written in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky case.

Why the hell should it be the duty of GLSEN to teach of the questionable beliefs of certain individuals who were gay to elementary school students. Pederasty is a really odd topic to discuss in primary school, being gay not so much. Many historical figures had questionable beliefs and none of the questionable beliefs ever get covered in school. You only really start covering the odder aspects of literary or historical figures in university.

In terms of Wilde, it's historically of more significance that he was jailed for being a homosexual especially for the fact that it pertained to his work. They don't teach about the questionable aspects of various figures that are responsible for black rights? Frankly, unless your studying something to an academic level, it just doesn't get reached because it's unrelated or inappropriate(teaching about homosexual figures is not inappropriate) , this applies both straight and gay historical figures.

Brown's goal is not as simple as you claim it to be, the language he uses implies that pederasty or even paedophilia is a major goal of the gay community. This is from the very same article.

And I haven’t said a word about gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America (see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.

Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.

To say that he is not making a direct link between paedophilia and homosexuality is bull****. Jerry Sandusky has feck all to do homosexuality but he feels the need to have him mentioned him over and over again as if the evil gay agenda is to abolish the age of consent. He effectively says that the gay community is guilty by association. In regards to the gay rights platform, as events go, it appears to be a pretty much unknown event and gay rights groups have condemned the idea of getting rid of an age of consent even though Brown pretends they haven't.

-"The 1972 Gay Rights Platform contains among its demands the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent, arguing that children as young as 8 years of age have the right to decide whether they they can enter into sexual relationships with adults," according to one pro-N piece.

A copy of the disputed platform--provided by the office of Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton)--calls for "the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent" but makes no mention of 8-year-olds being allowed to have sex with adults.

Further, officials at several nationally based gay groups said they are unfamiliar with the rights platform mentioned and that, despite the charges of critics, no one in the established gay community has ever called for the legalization of sex with children.

"To use something that some fringe political extremists in 1972 may have thought was an agenda item and compare it to today is completely misleading," said Robert Bray of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington. "That issue has never been discussed by anyone in the gay movement."
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-03/local/me-324_1_human-rights-ordinance

He is being extremely selective with the fact because he knows full well that the market he caters to, will not question them and accept them as fact. Apparently his book even draws from youtube quotes to prove the gay agenda. Yet they blame the sheer controversial nature of the book for it not being published, I think even David Icke can get published. He is a purveyor of stereotypes that homophobic people can latch onto as proof, there were figureheads like this that were utilised all forms of prejudices in the past including anti-semitism and racism.

I have no desire to contact this individual. He does very much so want to regress the current day rights of gay people(You still ignored the Don't ask, Don't tell aspect.) A moral objection is fine but he's portraying gay people as a nefarious group that have taken over society. If a person to particular lengths to portray a part of society in a specifically negative way which requires twisting of facts and demands that society should regress, it is counter to equality and therefore is hateful.

Also, it's worth noting the demographic that he appeals to, it's strange how in the comment section. A large proportion of the posters appears to gain the insight that paedophilia is the next goal for the gay agenda, strange how he doesn't find the need to correct them. I've yet to see any evidence that he isn't a part of the radical right.... His book is only credible to fundamentalists and the radical right so that he can make them feel more credible.

VinLieger · 02-05-2013 09:58AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes. I've never pretended or hidden what my agenda is. Thats the difference, I don't deny my agenda existing. Before we even get into the nitty gritty of the LGBT agenda, we must a lot of the time argue that it exists in the first place such is the denial of it by so many people.

I have many agenda's, and many of them are heavily influenced by my Christianity.

The only thing baseless is that sentence

The complaint, is related to the dishonesty and insidious method being employed to vilify any dissenting voices.

No issue on being called out on anything, I just wish it could be done honestly, instead of the weasel words and unwarranted vilification.

But Jimi you are asking to force your beliefs and ideals on people who dont believe them or agree with them.
They are not asking the same of you no matter what way you want to spin it.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 06-05-2013 01:10PM

Homosexual behaviour is a distinctly Western, metropolitan phenomenon, engaged in by a privileged minority. Buggery goes against the grain of human knowledge (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and even science) and results in a nihilistic world of emptiness, futileness and deep unhappiness. It is bad for ones health (both mental and physical) and any rational human being should avoid it at all costs. Smoking and buggery are bad for you, yet only one comes with a government health warning.

I have acquaintances who go to "boiler houses". I also have acquaintances who smoke. They know my feelings on their habits. Anyway, I'd sooner be seen with a married man than a homosexual man in polite company.

IT-Guy · 06-05-2013 01:35PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Homosexual behaviour is a distinctly Western, metropolitan phenomenon, engaged in by a privileged minority. Buggery goes against the grain of human knowledge (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and even science) and results in a nihilistic world of emptiness, futileness and deep unhappiness. It is bad for ones health (both mental and physical) and any rational human being should avoid it at all costs. Smoking and buggery are bad for you, yet only one comes with a government health warning.

I have acquaintances who go to "boiler houses". I also have acquaintances who smoke. They know my feelings on their habits. Anyway, I'd sooner be seen with a married man than a homosexual man in polite company.

The bolded bit, your post reeks of it...

If buggery is bad for you then myself and several ex-gfs should be dead! Smoking has a damaging, long lasting physical impact and to equate them with the impact of buggery is wrong. Can you specifically point out why it's bad for you other than the "I don't like the thought of it" moral claptrap above? Let's assume the people involved are consenting adults using protection shall we?

Also, John Waters, is that you?

MrPudding · 06-05-2013 02:32PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Homosexual behaviour is a distinctly Western, metropolitan phenomenon, engaged in by a privileged minority.

Really, there is no homosexuality outside of western metropolitan areas and outside of a privileged minority?

I suggest you look to some of the African nations that either legally outlaw, or are looking to legally outlaw homosexual activity and relationships. You might also want to look at some of the other non-human animals that display homosexual tendencies.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Buggery goes against the grain of human knowledge

So did aeroplanes and SCUBA gear.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

(Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and even science) and results in a nihilistic world of emptiness, futileness and deep unhappiness.

I think you will likely find that the majority of unhappiness that some gay people feel is not rooted in the fact that they are gay, but is in fact rooting in the attitude that you and your ilk display towards them.

Given how society has treated gay people in the past, and how some people, yourself for example, continue to talk about them, it must be terrifying for some when they come to the realisation that they are gay.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

It is bad for ones health (both mental and physical) and any rational human being should avoid it at all costs. Smoking and buggery are bad for you, yet only one comes with a government health warning.

I would guess that, like most things, buggery is perfectly ok when done safely. If you would like to present evidence that there is no safe way to have anal sex, either in a same sex or opposite sex relationship, then I will have a look at it. I expect, however, that you have no such evidence and that there is, in fact, a preponderance of evidence that you are talking rubbish.

With respect to the mental health aspect, I would suggest that any, or at least most, negative mental effects of homosexuality are cause by the likes of your.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I have acquaintances who go to "boiler houses".

I am not sure what you mean here. Is this like a gay sauna? I think your church approves, afterall, they own Europes largest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/12/vatican-owns-21m-apartments-rome-europe-gay-sauna-europa-multiclub-_n_2859715.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/12/vatican-owns-21m-apartments-rome-europe-gay-sauna-europa-multiclub-_n_2859715.htmlAnyway, I'd sooner be seen with a married man than a homosexual man in polite company.[/QUOTE]Meh. That say more about you and what a nasty person you are than it does about anything or anyone else. It is attitudes like yours that make me lose faith in humanity. Thankfully society will progress in spite of you and your ilk.

Get ready for gay marriage. It is coming to a registry office near you... soon.

IT-Guy wrote: »

Also, John Waters, is that you?

Nah, it is almost coherent.

MrP

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 06-05-2013 02:33PM

IT-Guy wrote: »

The bolded bit, your post reeks of it...

If buggery is bad for you then myself and several ex-gfs should be dead! Smoking has a damaging, long lasting physical impact and to equate them with the impact of buggery is wrong. Can you specifically point out why it's bad for you other than the "I don't like the thought of it" moral claptrap above? Let's assume the people involved are consenting adults using protection shall we?

Also, John Waters, is that you?

If by "protection" you mean the use of prophylactics, this doesn't negate the immorality of the behaviour. I suppose that, if you must ask, it's slightly less immoral on the spectrum of immoral sexual behaviour to engage in buggery with a prophylactic as opposed to without one.

I suppose you take pride in publicly boasting about your various sexual "adventures"? Ever thought of the effect on those who got caught up in your perversions? From your posts, it's clear that the self-centred, self-gratuitious nature of your sexual behaviour appears to extend beyond the bedroom. Not in the least bit surprising.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 06-05-2013 02:42PM

MrP.

I've heard it all before. Blah, blah, blah out of the liberal handbook of arguing on the internet.

To address your point regarding gayness in the animal kingdom: So incest is now ok?

Regarding aeroplanes and scuba gear: how do these inventions go against the grain of human knowledge?

On the adverse health affects of homosexuality: Why do people who engage in buggery care what other people think of them? (as if public standing is top of the list of someone with impulsive sexual perversions) Why don't smokers get depressed and kill themselves like homosexual people do? Oh yes, that's right. It's those religious folk and their pesky thoughts' fault. Nothing to do with personal responsibility for ones actions at all...

Regarding the rest of your post: I couldn't give a toss. The snooker has just started and my cat has just jumped up on my lap.

Have a nice afternoon. Whatever it is you get up to.

IT-Guy · 06-05-2013 03:32PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

If by "protection" you mean the use of prophylactics, this doesn't negate the immorality of the behaviour. I suppose that, if you must ask, it's slightly less immoral on the spectrum of immoral sexual behaviour to engage in buggery with a prophylactic as opposed to without one.

I suppose you take pride in publicly boasting about your various sexual "adventures"? Ever thought of the effect on those who got caught up in your perversions? From your posts, it's clear that the self-centred, self-gratuitious nature of your sexual behaviour appears to extend beyond the bedroom. Not in the least bit surprising.

The point I'm making is that in the privacy of the bedroom of two consenting adults, the term immorality is pretty much redundant. If you choose not to perform certain sexual acts because of some 'moral' concern (more like fear of the pesky thoughts of the religious you alluded to in your reply to Mr P) then that is your right. However to dictate to others what is and isn't immoral in the bedroom has all the hallmarks of the sex obsessed Catholic Church and their years of experience

I don't talk about my sex life in public but would be very willing to in your 'polite' company, I'm sure the real nastiness behind the veneer of politeness wouldn't be long showing through. If you're referring to my ex-gfs when you say "those caught up in my perversions" then the effect on them has been negligible. If any of this sounds like boasting to you then I'm afraid there's little I can do about that. Just FYI, many people enjoy anal sex as part of their sex life, not my problem if that doesn't fit into your rose tinted view of the world. I'll leave the last 2 lines of your post alone to sit and baste in their own narrow mindedness.

Benny_Cake · 06-05-2013 04:23PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

MrP.

I've heard it all before. Blah, blah, blah out of the liberal handbook of arguing on the internet.

To address your point regarding gayness in the animal kingdom: So incest is now ok?

Regarding aeroplanes and scuba gear: how do these inventions go against the grain of human knowledge?

On the adverse health affects of homosexuality: Why do people who engage in buggery care what other people think of them? (as if public standing is top of the list of someone with impulsive sexual perversions) Why don't smokers get depressed and kill themselves like homosexual people do? Oh yes, that's right. It's those religious folk and their pesky thoughts' fault. Nothing to do with personal responsibility for ones actions at all...

Regarding the rest of your post: I couldn't give a toss. The snooker has just started and my cat has just jumped up on my lap.

Have a nice afternoon. Whatever it is you get up to.

Enjoy the snooker, and don't post in this thread again.

JimiTime · 07-05-2013 08:47PM

Found this testimony quite difficult. I empathise with it so much in terms of my own shortcomings, and inner battles. It must be SO much more difficult for someone like this. Keep him in your prayers folks.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39373-a-gay-struggler-finds-assurance-in-the-lord

Zombrex · 07-05-2013 10:25PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Found this testimony quite difficult. I empathise with it so much in terms of my own shortcomings, and inner battles. It must be SO much more difficult for someone like this. Keep him in your prayers folks.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39373-a-gay-struggler-finds-assurance-in-the-lord

Do you honestly believe that your god does not want that man to find a loving fulfilling relationship with another man, a life partner a companion to share this journey with?

How can you even believe a god like that exists? How could anyone not want someone to find that? Seriously, I just don't get it.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments