For the homosexuals:

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Oh yeah, this thread.

All that is wrong about Poly in one perfect, spiteful package...

First that this thread by a known homophobic poster is even allowed to exist says a lot about the views of the moderators.

Secondly, as usual it decends into spite and bile between posters, but then given the sheer ignorance of the subject matter that is hardly surprising.

Thirdly, it is interesting that when you remove certain nasty rivalries by hounding out or generally making the place so bad that people don't want to post here anymore - new ones quickly become established to fill the void...

Is it any wonder why this site is slowly dying, when nasty threads like these are allowed to be posted with the encouragement of the moderators?

Talk about Circle Jerk...

ZOMFG Moby

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I addressed you in the civil and friendly manner of "dude" - perfectly acceptable for internet discussions.

I don't recall asking to be addressed as 'dude'- and in any case, your memory appears to have convenient gaps in it.

This is how you've addressed me:

all-knowing as you appear/pretend to be...

While you aren't as coarse as EoN (thanks for the backhanded compliment...)

and according to you I have (along with my apparent or pretended omniscience and coarseness) a

really annoying condescending attitude.

Which you think has nothing to do with finding some things:

offending

Riight.

Now:

You made snide remarks about that (being addressed as 'dude'), claiming it is used by hicks and hillbillies and what not.

I can't see where in my post I've used the terms 'hicks' or 'hillbillies'- two terms which are frequently used in a pejorative manner.

Those are your words, not mine. As for being snide, clearly there's a dearth of humour in Israel at the moment....

What ever your age or importance, do you think it shows anything other than patronising attitude?

Look, let me suggest you look carefully at your 'advice' and 'suggestions' to me about my posts and my attitude, and before you start accusing other people of being

all-knowing, snide and patronising

you indulge in a little introspection.

However you are confusing popular sexual behaviour with basic sexuality.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I was talking about social-sexual 'norms' that were artificially imposed on human behaviour.

You erroneously link reproduction of the species with heterosexuality, this supposedly being the natural norm for humanity as a species in your opinion.


If that were the case, and heterosexuality was only about reproduction, then any 'abnormality' or 'defective' variety of heterosexuality would surely have some kind of disability relating to reproduction ?

I'm aware of large numbers of heterosexuals, male and female, who have problems with low sperm counts, infertility and inability to conceive.

I'm not aware of any studies that claim to show that gay men or lesbians are intrinsically defective because of their sexuality, when it comes to reproducing.

Gay activity in other species is rare as far as I know, and bi-animals are most probably non existant.

Right:

Bonobo chimpanzees:

Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females.

Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed).

And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates.

Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee.

A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years.

So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.

http://brembs.net/bonobos.html

Importantly:

Bonobos become sexually aroused remarkably easily, and they express this excitement in a variety of mounting positions and genital contacts. Although chimpanzees virtually never adopt face-to-face positions, bonobos do so in one out of three copulations in the wild. Furthermore, the frontal orientation of the bonobo vulva and clitoris strongly suggest that the female genitalia are adapted for this position.

Another similarity with humans is increased female sexual receptivity. The tumescent phase of the female's genitals, resulting in a pink swelling that signals willingness to mate, covers a much longer part of estrus in bonobos than in chimpanzees. Instead of a few days out of her cycle, the female bonobo is almost continuously sexually attractive and active.

Consider that in the Nineteenth Century when the study of animals in the wild and in the captivity really intensified, in many Western countries male-male same sex activity was punishable by imprisonment and hard labour. In some, lesbianism was simply ignored- What could two women possibly do with each other sexually ?, was the incorrect assumption. One that has persisted to this day.. thus, the cultural or societal norms of the scientists and observers led them to not see what was obvious:

The rather unscientific homophobia of scientists is largely what kept the data buried, Bagemihl says. "Over the years, some scientists have used double standards when observing sexual behavior in animals," he says. "If they couldn't tell the gender or genders of the animals involved, they would assume the pair were of opposite sexes. When observed, homosexuality has been dismissed as aberrant, unnatural, even criminal."

Homosexuality in nature was excused in many ways. "They said the animals were just practicing," Bagemihl says. "Or that [oral-genital stimulation] was for nutritional value. Or that they were only doing so because of the absence of the opposite sex in captivity."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_1999_Feb_16/ai_53877996

It's laughable to think that supposedly rational, intelligent scientists could say to themselves that 'animals were engaging in criminal behaviour'.

But even scientists can be prejudiced.

I'm glad seeing it slowly being fixed

In 1996 I went to attend the funeral of my partner's oldest friend. In the small town where he lived, there were two hotels, and in the one we had prebooked, we were told that we could not occupy a double bed in a double room.

At any time this would have been offensive, but the evening before our friend's funeral, it was particularly unpleasant, since this 'policy' of the hotel had not been mentioned when we booked in advance.

It really isn't ancient history I'm talking about.

No, actually I was referring to gender - one's perception of being socially male / socially female.

It's both a social/cultural and mental thing.

One may present physically as male or female and yet be fully aware that one is mentally not the sex one appears to be.

Which is again entirely separate from the gender roles which occur or are expected of one in different cultures- in parts of Afghanistan it is a man's duty to do food shopping in the market.

In many parts of Africa, women frequently do the most arduous farming.

In the West neither of these necessarily apply.

I think you underestimate my importance.

Possibly you missed out 'self-' ?

This is the only way that gay people will be accepted as normal in the future - if the current generation will have enough proper information to pass to their children.

Yes, that's what's been missing- sufficient information.

Annoying, and perhaps insulting.
But still reasonable.

I seem to have missed out this sliding scale of 'reasonable' levels of annoyance and insult for gay men and lesbians.

Could you give me an indication of what sort of scale exists for other groups- Jews, Israelis, Christians, Muslims, ethnic minorities of dark complexion, heterosexuals ?


Or is it just that you've deemed lesbians and gay men to have a greater gift for toleration ?

You're welcome to keep being offended if you like. You seem to like it

And who was it who wrongly complained about:

snide remarks

?

Physician, et cetera.

Yes, we all know that only certified biologists are entitled to discuss such topics.

That's not what I said. Here's what you said about your expertise on non-human sexuality as observed or occurring in nature:

Gay activity in other species is rare as far as I know, and bi-animals are most probably non existant.

See ?

Similar, only qualified political scientists and observers are free to open politics threads, and only military folk are allowed to post in the Iraq threads.

Depends on the level of expertise assumed and the kind of comments being made.

Like MrFun, I have rather more experience of being gay than EoN does.

I also have rather more knowledge about the history of acceptance of same-sex activity in different countries, religions and cultures- because I have found through repeated experience that only such knowledge cuts through the misconceptions and lies of the bigots.

I'm certainly not a trained biologist, but I've found it 'necessary' to keep abreast of discoveries and advances in fields relating to human and non-human sexuality.


After all, when misguided or ignorant people claim again and again that homosexuality is 'unnatural', it's quite useful to show them to studies that demonstrate that not only is it natural, but that it appears to be an intrinsic part of the species' life.

The calm rational explanation is perfectly good for 90% of the general audience who have little previous knowledge or predisposition against gays / jews.

Really ? And just where did you pick up this (rather optimistic figure in my view) of 90% ?

Answering questions may not educate EoN, but it might educate me or 5 other people reading this.

If you felt you needed educating about homosexuality, you could easily have p.m.ed any of the gay men (I don't know of any lesbians posting on Poly).

It wouldn't have required your lecturing me on posting deficits as you saw them, or EoN's wilfully ignorant assumptions.

Yes, I think that simply attacking people who dare say something about gays is a good way to promote tolerance.

I wasn't aware that I was ment to be 'promoting tolerance'.

I'm also certain that by attacking gays from a position of ignorance, EoN definitely wasn't.

Yes, cause everyone knows that this thread was a start of a public campaign to ban gay people form poly.

I've no idea what this is meant to mean, or how you came to say this from a reading of my post.

And questions asked about homosexuality are important and will lead to more tolerance, not less.

Do you belong to some optimists' club ?

Yes - you do have to explain yourself,

Err, no, I don't. Not on this site, and not on any other.

I didn't intend to attack you.

Really.

So you just wrote and posted accidentally, :

all-knowing as you appear/pretend to be...

While you aren't as coarse as EoN

That's a neat trick, getting your fingers to 'accidentally' attack people while your proclaimed intentions are otherwise!

I told you in a civil manner that you post with an attitude that makes your posts not fun to read,

No you didn't. See above.

you get severely agitated

Your words or impression. Not my actions or manner.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

You, by the look of things.

You shouldn't be dismissive, period.

Again, that's just your opinion. I don't need to pay any attention to it.

I try not to be dismissive even in posts on subjects where I am alot more informed than other people.

Bully for you.

Then I don't get where the argument of "there's people being killed, so I won't respond to silly questions about gay people" comes from.

I've no idea where that argument comes from either- it's not one I've made. Perhaps you're:

putting words in (my) mouth

?

But there's a larger audience than just EoN.

And ?

You have contributed to it.

Charitable of you to share, but inaccurate.

I take no responsibility for anyone else's errors. What's mine is my own, thanks.

You should look into your part as well.

Right after I do my laundry and feed the cat.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Being the hugely condescending and patronising individual you take me for, I'll settle for my own clearly superior judgment, based on my vast experience.

Proved my point

Well, you weren't doing so.

I did not realize your style was a requirement in English literature studies

Studying literary style and stylistics without being aware of one's own would be rather difficult. Tutors do comment on one's writing, by the way...

Though I do see it quite common with PhD type folks who are very sure of themselves.

Uh huh. And what are you studying for your PhD ?

I'm sure you'll be glad to think of yourself as a liberal-arts KH / Asher

I endeavour not to think of Asher at all. I certainly refrain from thinking of myself in terms of 'Asher'. Egads...



As for KrazyHorse, I'll miss his input in the History Forum and Off Topic.

I had great admiration for his skill in deciphering photographs of historical events and his interest in Canadian and First World War history.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ming
HEY... discuss the topic and not the posters...
Last warning!

Molly... I highly recommend you check your PMs.

And discuss the topic, and NOT THE POSTERS!

[Ben Kenobi]

As opposed to whom- the Pope ? That's the only person I know of who believes they're infallible.

The thread isn't about the disadvantages of living in Islamic countries in the 21st Century.

I'm sure if you want to start a thread about that, you can.

No, but the thread is about "countries with capital punishment for gay men. Which I believe was the list you mentioned earlier. If you don't like the list, fine, but don't claim it's a threadjack when you brought this topic up. I just made the connection as proved by the list between the first principle and Islam.

The devil is in the details. Why trust someone who brings in an inaccurate list of unknown provenance and starts a debate on something which isn't the main topic of the post ?

Remember what the Bible says about 'bearing false witness' ....

You calling me a liar? I already mentioned that the list is on wikipedia. Look for a picture that says, countries and the legality of homosexuality. It's all there and I did say it was from wikipedia a few posts up.

I suggest you quit digging yourself a deeper hole.

I'm certain I'm rather more au courant on the subject of homosexuality in Islam than you, and definitely know more about its historic expression in Islamic countries.

Which is why you are calling me a liar for saying that all the nations with capital punishment for gay people are islamic?

I was unaware that I was under some kind of compulsion to produce this list- but at the top would be Iran.

Hey, you mentioned the list, so I was curious if you would provide it.

You just didn't read my post correctly. Good luck with that editing... ....looks like you may need it.

Thanks molly. Glad you can offer another poster glad tidings rather then bile and bitterness.

[MOBIUS]

Same old Poly...

[Ben Kenobi]

Did I suggest that 'Christians' were executing gay men and lesbians 10 years ago ?

There is no difference between christians and muslims wrt intolerance for gay people no? I'm just trying to point out that there is a substantial difference.

Were Christians killing each other over their differing forms of worship or belief and/or ethnicity in the 1990s ? Yes.

Whereabouts? The troubles?

Uh huh. And the Reverend Ian Paisley is a well-known critic of Roman Catholicism and a Presbyterian.

Which, by the way, is a Protestant sect.

Which is why you mentioned the pope first no? Look we all know you decline every opportunity to slag Christianity because you love and respect it's practicioners. You have a special love for Catholicism and her papa Ratzi too.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

Fair enough.

But I'm looking at the founders as a whole, which includes Jefferson.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We hear all the time of the first principle, but never the second. Why is that? Yes, the state should not establish one religion over another, but nor should the state infringe on the practices of a religion or prevent the religion from practicing their beliefs.

[Patroklos]

Did I suggest that 'Christians' were executing gay men and lesbians 10 years ago ?

No.

Yes, that is exactly what you did. And given your little rant about nitpicking and how important it is you have now discredited your whole arguement.

Double standards

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm sorry you found the answer I gave so soporific. Which other person who imagines they're infallible did you have in mind ?

No, but the thread is about "countries with capital punishment for gay men.

No, it isn't. The title is:

For the homosexuals: If you could change the gene, would you remain homo or become hetero?

Please, where is the mention of countries with capital punishment for gay men ? Or where is the supposed contrasting of Christian and Islamic states with respect to the treatment of homosexuality ?

You brought up Islam, not me.

Which I believe was the list you mentioned earlier.

Then your belief is misguided.

If you don't like the list, fine,

Liking the list is not relevant. I dislike people who hijack a thread to further their own agenda.

but don't claim it's a threadjack when you brought this topic up.

I didn't bring up the subject of Islam. Or Islam versus Christianity. Or the difference in attitudes between Islam and Christianity with regards homosexuality.

I'll repeat- this is exactly what I said:

I could list a large number of countries where homosexuality (and homosexual 'acts') is outlawed and punishable by death or imprisonment.

A large number of 'countries'. Note, no mention is made of any state endorsed religion or political system.

I just made the connection as proved by the list between the first principle and Islam.

Firstly you misread and misinterpreted what I posted- as far as I can tell.

Secondly, you posted an inaccurate list of unknown provenance purporting to show Muslim majority countries with the death penalty. Does the death penalty apply to homosexuality in each and all of them ?

You didn't seem very clear on that.

You calling me a liar?

Me ? I didn't say liar, did I ?

Thou sayest.

If you present a list alleging to show Muslim or Muslim majority countries where the death penalty supposedly applies to homosexuality, or homosexual acts, and it includes an obvious glaring error with the inclusion of a well-known Buddhist country, then how can you expect me to take you at your word ?

The onus is on you, if you choose to provide such a list, to ensure that you aren't deliberately or accidentally disseminating false information.

Sri Lanka is not an obscure country, and the civil strife between Hindu Tamils and Buddhist Sinhalese has been international news for decades.

It's all there and I did say it was from wikipedia a few posts up.

After you were questioned about it, and its most obvious error pointed out to you. You gave no such source when you first mentioned it, and as I just said, if you choose to start bandying such lists about with some strange Islam-bashing agenda, then the onus is on you to make sure you get your facts right- wherever you happen to find them.

I suggest you quit digging yourself a deeper hole.

I suggest you take a course on fact-checking. And proofreading.

Which is why you are calling me a liar for saying that all the nations with capital punishment for gay people are islamic?

Where exactly, in my own words, did I say that ? Proofreading....

Hey, you mentioned the list, so I was curious if you would provide it.

Is that so. I am still unaware of what compulsion there was upon me to provide a list. I had not promised to.

You chose to interpret it in some bizarre fashion as me discriminating in favour of Islam. Still don't get where that comes from.

Thanks molly. Glad you can offer another poster glad tidings rather then bile and bitterness.

Mmm. That just sounds so sincere.

There is no difference between christians and muslims wrt intolerance for gay people no?

Which particular Muslims did you have in mind ?

As I've said, of the two of us, I suspect that only I've been to a majority Muslim country. You're making the mistake of assuming that the pays legal is the same as the pays reel in Muslim dominated countries.

It isn't...

I'm just trying to point out that there is a substantial difference.

Of course you are. How many more inaccurate, unattributed sources of information were you thinking of introducing to bolster your argument ?

Whereabouts? The troubles?

Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia, Uganda...

Which is why you mentioned the pope first no?

Could you just quote my own words ? It would save me having to correct your mistakes. In reply, this is what I said, in the order I said it:

Which religious and Christian supporters of democracy in the West did you have mind ?

The Reverend Ian Paisley ?

The German Catholic bishops who joined the Nazi Party ?

Note, the Presbyterian who campaigned to 'Save Ulster From Sodomy' comes before the German Catholic bishops who joined the Nazi Party. And before the mention of that wonderful example of democracy, openness and liberality, the Vatican City State.

Proofreading....

Look we all know you decline every opportunity to slag Christianity because you love and respect it's practicioners. You have a special love for Catholicism and her papa Ratzi too

Oh my. The sarcasm course wasn't effective then.

If you're attempting to be ironic, then may I suggest you show some evidence of this alleged intemperate eagerness on my part to

slag Christianity

.

Because again, if you're suggesting that is what I do at every opportunity, then may I remind you about what I said concerning bearing false witness ?

But I'm looking at the founders as a whole, which includes Jefferson.

I'm looking at Jefferson as the person who drafted the Declaration of Independence, as as someone who took pride in divorcing politics from religion.

I have yet to see any proof from you that the Founders' arguments for independence from the British Empire or the text of the Bill of Rights depend largely or wholly on explicitly Christian values or ideals.

It's one thing to make wild claims, another to back them up with reasoned argument.

We hear all the time of the first principle, but never the second.

You can assert that, but I don't believe that's true for a moment. Can I suggest that if you want to make a thread about the belief systems of the Founding Fathers and what you think shaped them, that you do so.

Yes, that is exactly what you did.

Patroklos


Someone else whose proofreading needs improving; Obi Gyn said this:

I'm sorry, the point I am trying to make is that Christianity has different beliefs on freedom to worship

To which I replied, exactly and in my own words :

It does now. Only taken 2000 years to get that way. Not bad going for the peaceful religion.

To which Obi Gyn replied:

So 10 years ago Christians were executiing gay people?

Apparently you imagine that when 'Christianity has different beliefs on freedom to worship' this bizarrely transmutes my reply:

It does now. Only taken 2000 years to get that way.

into some false claim that Christians(!) in Obi Gyn's words, not mine:

were executing gay men and lesbians 10 years ago

Well, it seems that not only your spellchecker needs more use, so does your proofreader.

[Q Classic]

If they executed all gays and lesbians 10 years ago, we'd have fewer gays and lesbians today.

[b etor]

no, we'd just have more closet gays and lesbians today.

[Q Classic]

I'm surprised someone your age still can't do math.

If, in 1997, there was a global population of 100,000, and 15% were homosexuals, and we executed them all, 15,000 would be dead.

Postulating a 5% growth rate for the population over 10 years (5% is rather large, I think?) on 85,000 people leads to a new population of 138,500 people--or, 50,500 new people.

Only 15% of those 50,500 new people are gay--or, only 7,575.

15,000 > 7,575.

Fewer gay people today than 10 years ago, had we killed them all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Which changes what? Either way, if it's something that can be cured, the question still stands.

Maybe the real disorder to be cured is the obsession of some with who boinks who via what orifice?

As for the person that voted the cure shouldn't be used on future generations, I think you're being awfully selfish.

"Being used on" is a world of difference from "being available to," even for a meaningless hypothetical.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that it's better to be homo than hetero.

Why not? Whose standard of "better?" Based on what?

If you don't want to change, fine, but don't force future generations to go through all the ridicule and obvious setbacks homos endure.

You mean don't force future generations to put up with ignorant bigoted asswipes? Yes, let's search for a cure and eliminate those.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We hear all the time of the first principle, but never the second. Why is that? Yes, the state should not establish one religion over another, but nor should the state infringe on the practices of a religion or prevent the religion from practicing their beliefs.

So fundamentalist mormon polygamy, salafist calls for martyrdom operations against kafiri, mass sham marriages of strangers to enable immigration of supporters should all be allowed because they are practices of a religion or practicing their beliefs?

What about someone founding the Church of the Glory Holy Sodomite and declaring buggery as a means of getting closer to God?

If you study American legal history, and go beyond quoting the Free Exercise Clause in the abstract, you'll find there's quite a substantial body of law. Any so-called "religious practice" can be limited or prohibited, so long as there is a valid public policy interest as the basis for that limitation.

There's absolutely no evidence for the view that the Founder intended the Free Exercise Clause to act as license to circumvent the law by packaging any activity as a "religious practice."

The intent was pretty narrowly limited to prohibiting the state from disenfranchising or prohibiting specific sects or denominations. That's why we have things like the Scientologists, Rajnishies, and folks like Jimmy Swaggart and good ol' Fred Phelps founding their own churches when their original denominations bounced them.

[Ben Kenobi]

So fundamentalist mormon polygamy, salafist calls for martyrdom operations against kafiri, mass sham marriages of strangers to enable immigration of supporters should all be allowed because they are practices of a religion or practicing their beliefs?

They are permitted to preach Jihad even in the US, aren't they?

I guess my point is even if they are permitted to practice their religion, they are not permitted to do so in a way in which infringes against the rights of others. It is not right to murder someone, because that is preventing his free exercise.

Polygamy is another matter, the defense of the law against polygamy explicitly affirms the Christian teaching of marriage. The state argued that it had a responsibility to defend and uphold marriage in barring bigamy and polygamy. Once that is done away with then you have a real question as to why the US ought to be banning those who practice polygamy, who consent to enter the relationships.

What about someone founding the Church of the Glory Holy Sodomite and declaring buggery as a means of getting closer to God?

It has already been done. I have no problem with churches being set up to affirm gay people, they are welcome to do so, and I have no more right to bar them from saying so and practicing their faith, then I have to bar Christians from rejecting homosexuality.

If you study American legal history, and go beyond quoting the Free Exercise Clause in the abstract, you'll find there's quite a substantial body of law. Any so-called "religious practice" can be limited or prohibited, so long as there is a valid public policy interest as the basis for that limitation.

There are restrictions and regulations around the gathering, fire codes and whatnot, where the gathering is restricted for safety reasons. I would be very interested to see additional examples by which the free exercise of religion is regulated for 'valid public interest'. I don't see the founders saying this at all. They are saying that just as men are free, they ought to be free to worship in the manner of their choosing.

There's absolutely no evidence for the view that the Founder intended the Free Exercise Clause to act as license to circumvent the law by packaging any activity as a "religious practice."

Oh no, as argued above. Polygamy is an interesting case though.

The intent was pretty narrowly limited to prohibiting the state from disenfranchising or prohibiting specific sects or denominations. That's why we have things like the Scientologists, Rajnishies, and folks like Jimmy Swaggart and good ol' Fred Phelps founding their own churches when their original denominations bounced them.

Yes, but we are seeing infringements on freedom of religion up here in Canada, and some pretty serious ones. I don't believe the state has a right to ban speech within the church, if they don't like the speech. We've had pastors up here charged with hate speech for saying that the bible teaches homosexual acts are sinful, whereas folks are definitely allowed to preach jihad in mosques openly.