For the homosexuals:

[Mercator]

Except it hadn't really been brought up at all yet until Ben came up with that list of Muslim countries.

[LordShiva]

Molly was asked why he found the OP offensive, and answered by listing the reasons. The fact that he doesn't happen to live in a Muslim-majority country is probably a good clue as to why Muslim intolerance wasn't cited as one of them.

[Nikolai]

That is all good and well, but the discussion didn't really focus on those reasons.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Mercator

right... you're welcome to ask a 3rd party what they think of this discussion

Oh, oh... I missed that one earlier.

I vote for Molly.

BYATCH

[Mercator]

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Are you on medication ?

If not, could you possibly be less patronising ?

Unless you're working on some kind of 'tu quoque' post-modern ironic critique, I'm finding your lecturing of me on my supposed superiority complex and patronising attitude quite ironic in itself.

Did you teach your Bubbeh to suck eggs too ?

I addressed you in the civil and friendly manner of "dude" - perfectly acceptable for internet discussions. You made snide remarks about that, claiming it is used by hicks and hillbillies and what not.

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

Imagine my hurt at such a perceptive criticism. I may cry.

The gay intifada relies on irony, sarcasm and withering put downs.

Your ignorance is your problem- not thus far mine.

Which reproductive 'heterosexual' technique should be the paradigm or norm ?

Heterosexuals have harems of females for a single male- as do elephant seals and other mammals.

Some heterosexuals pair for life- as do some birds and mammals.

Some heterosexuals are promiscuous or 'unfaithful'- as are chimpanzees, monkeys, birds, et cetera.

Again, you're confusing the purely biological aspect of reproducing with artificially engendered 'norms' of behaviour in society.

It may shock you to discover that many gay men and lesbians can and do reproduce.

As you surely have met further in my post, I am not at all surprised by this little fact.

However you are confusing popular sexual behaviour with basic sexuality. The monogamous --- polygamous aspect is on a whole different axis from the [attraction to different sex --- attraction to same sex] axis.

I realize that for ages this has been used to judge and attack the gay community. I'm the last person to care for 'natural' 'normal' 'mainstream' or what ever, so I don't really use this as a means to attack, criticise or suggest anything about or to gay people.

I'm unaware however of a similarly popular tendency in the non-human species. Gay activity in other species is rare as far as I know, and bi-animals are most probably non existant.

If you have the evidence to change my view of this, I'll happily follow to another thread.

yes, and I was referring to the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Only in 1967 was homosexuality no longer deemed to be automatically 'illegal' in parts of the United Kingdom.

Even after the 1967 Act of Parliament, gay men were still not allowed to serve in the armed forces or Merchant Navy, and the Act did not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man.

It was great growing up to feel that we weren't quite as equal as some of our fellow citizens.

I'm glad seeing it slowly being fixed.

You're confusing gender and sexuality. Two different things.

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

I was not relating it to the gay issue, but giving an example of something that is often deemed physical, but is often a very social thing.

I think you overestimate your importance in the general scheme of things.

I think you underestimate my importance.

The more people get to ask and receive answers from gay people, the better they'll handle it.

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.

And what do you think the thread's title and questions were like for gay and lesbian posters ?

Annoying, and perhaps insulting.
But still reasonable.

Exactly who made you the judge of how offensive the thread is to gays and lesbians ?

The same ability I have to judge whether someone was reasonably offended or is taking things out of proportion.

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

Are you a qualified biologist ? If not, then I suggest you do some research on the existence of homosexuality amongst primates and non-primate species.

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

I've heard of some homosexuality among primate groups. My understand is that it is really really rare.

If you're interested in shedding light on this, you're welcome.

Right. A calm rational explanation will undo centuries of hate and bigotry inculcated by the irrational and ignorant, the detestation enshrined in 'holy' scriptures or government edicts, cherry-picked for convenience.

I can't help thinking that antisemites would be so less prejudiced if only Jews had sat down and had a quiet chat about with them about the basis of their prejudice....

WRONG.

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

The best way to combat anti-semitism has been integrating studies about Jews into a school curriculum. The best way to combat gay hatred has been integrating studies about different sexual persuasions in school systems, like is attempted in some places in Israel.

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

Do you think I participate in ME threads because I think I'll convince Mobius / GePap of a different point of view? Nope. But for every bit of misinformation, I try to post correcting information, or an alternative point of view.

If that is what you think, then that is what people like you think.

And the sun will rise in the west and up will be down and Muslims and Jews will settle their differences like good Christians.

Excuse me, I've spotted some pie in the sky...

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

That is why everyone loves the ADL .

That's easy- just get people to ask them ad nauseam questions about what it's like to be heterosexual.

Then discriminate against them on the grounds of their supposedly 'abnormal' sexuality, make spurious links between heterosexuality and various illnesses, and have groups of young gays and lesbians single out heterosexuals at random and beat and kill them.

That'll do for a start.

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

And questions asked about homosexuality are important and will lead to more tolerance, not less. Especially if you take a mean spirited question, and use it to explain yourself.

Yes - you do have to explain yourself, if you want to achieve a better standing in society in the future. Even though it is unfair.

Of course it would be great and rosy if everyone suddenly didn't care for sexuality and all. But until that happens, you should teach people how to be tolerant. And part of that, is that every person knows stuff about gay people.

Who's zooming who ? Shall I remind YOU of YOUR first remarks to me in this thread ?

I didn't intend to attack you.

Well thanks, Netiquette Nanny. If that's an example of how not to be patronising and condescending, then you seriously need to work on your English comprehension skills.

I told you in a civil manner that you post with an attitude that makes your posts not fun to read, even though I think even less of EoN.

You're welcome to find a more civil way to put it, and I'll edit my post.

Funny how you have a short and selective memory. It must be a help in discussions like this- that, and placing other people's quotes out of sequence.

1) I tell you your posts are bad to read
2) you get severely agitated and reply in a condescending fashion
3) i tell you that you're condescending again
4) you call me overly sensitive

I'm not 'making a scene'- perhaps you imagine gays do that sort of thing habitually.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

I'm just having a little fun at your expense, is all.

Great, I'm sure you're having lots of gay fun

So no falafels then ?

Not with your attitude
I'm more of a Shawarma guy myself.

So what is the entitlement necessary ? A Sirotnikov level of omniscience ?

You shouldn't be dismissive, period.

I don't think I was dismissive of things you posted that were relevant to the thread's discussion.

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

I think you are wrong to think this, because I'm not doing so.

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.

Depends on the question, the way it's framed, the context, the questioner's intent...

Yes.

But there's a larger audience than just EoN.

That's your erroneous perception.

You have contributed to it.
Maybe there's a huge error of perception on my part.
You should look into your part as well.

And not because of any 'natural' inherent defect or deficiency.

Of course not.

No it shouldn't. But it does.

That would seem to be the experience of people judged to have mental or physical disabilities.

Well that's wrong too.

You should travel- broadens the mind.

So felafel, your treat?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I do hope you weren't seriously suggesting that homosexuality is a genetic defect, illness or problem. I have no misgivings about being compared in general with women, since I'd quite like to have a woman's stamina and pain tolerance.

I think that it was quite clear that I compared you to women / ill people, because you're all communities that were persecuted by a majority.

I doubt she'd find it that interesting. Being asked a rather obvious question like that in a society with a one child per family policy and a history of female infanticide might task the most generous of personalities.

Maybe she won't find it interesting.

No, because I make my own. London is an expensive city- ground rents, rates, insurance, wages et cetera.

I believe you'll find it's a reference to ironic American phraseology, possibly even originating in Yiddish culture.

Not aware of that specific phrase.
Got the gist, thanks

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

Thanks, but as someone who has studied English literature in depth, I feel I should inform you that I'm always at work on my style.

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

Though I do see it quite common with PhD type folks who are very sure of themselves. I'm sure you'll be glad to think of yourself as a liberal-arts KH / Asher

Anyways, I think our discussion has pretty much killed this thread.

[MrFun]

I'm all for open, honest discussion with heterosexuals about human sexuality, and issues concerning gays. It's an important factor in advancing equal rights for gays.

But I will not have any patience for willful ignorance, questions that are loaded with offensive slurs/blantantly disrespectul presumptions, and a lack of any ability to listen when a gay person has his turn in the conversation.

If a straight person makes an honest slip/mistake in such conversation and I point it out, and they see that they made an offensive remark, and correct themselves/apologize, then I'm willing to see where the honest, two-way conversation goes.

[ZEE]

oh, for christs sake, yall need to chill for real...

...yall call ME whiney and dramatic, then i take a peek inside THIS little gem of a thread. SHEESH!


pieceâ„¢

[Ming]

HEY... discuss the topic and not the posters...
Last warning!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Jesus Christ, your posts are long enough on their own. I can't imagine what 6 in a row look like.

I'm sorry you think your powers of imagination are so limited.

It does explain why you don't study liberal arts though.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm not perfect. I do make mistakes. At least I'm willing to admit them.

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

Now I take it you have no beef with the other 20 entries which are muslims majority countries.

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.

(Paid editing)-It's one thing I do, yes.

Again, getting one entry wrong out of 20, and have that be the entire focus of your debate is 'nitpicking' as you have no intent of discussing Islam and homosexuality together.

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 ?

You're also being misleading- your mistake was not the entire focus of my debate.

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

I bet you can't even put those two words (Islam and homosexuality) in the same sentence together!

Well gosh and gee whizz, Mr. Christian!

I bet you lose your bet!

I've been to Morocco and discovered at first hand (!) the attitude of people in the Dar ul Islam towards homosexuality!

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.

Oh wait, but you said you had a list to show.

You just can't wait to misquote me, can you ?

I said, exactly:

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

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

Which, by the way, has a bizarrely progressive approach to transsexuality:

Iranian society has yet to catch up with its religious leaders - who say transsexuality is an illness like any other for which Islam has the solution and science the cure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm

Swings and roundabouts.

So you are angry that I provided the list that you were unwilling to provide?

Firstly, as St. Augustine says, you really shouldn't make unwarranted assumptions:

Do not presume; one of the thieves was damned.

Secondly- what on earth makes you imagine I'm angry ?

I shouldn't find it funny, but the way you shoot yourself in the foot with your posts has a certain Mack Sennett quality about it.

Look Molly, you brought up the issue of 'countries that have capital punishment for gay people'

I did. Did I mention a specific religion ? Or kind of government ? I did not.

You presumed.

I decided to because I thought it was very interesting you would do that and then decline.

I didn't decline at all.

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

[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...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So 10 years ago Christians were executiing gay people?

Look, as much as you may be eager to do so, why not just quote what I say, instead of misreading it and then paraphrasing it inaccurately ?

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

No.

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

Just so long as you can have the stomach to talk about the religious mania and intolerance of Islam

You're the professional godbotherer.

You have the inside scoop on religious mania and intolerance... ...at least judging from my previous experience of your posts on gay marriage, gay adoption, homosexuality, the civil rights of lesbians and gay men...

I'm not a Muslim, nor am I an advocate of any religion. Why should I discuss the 'religious mania and intolerance of Islam' when I'm not even a professional historian of Islam- in a thread that isn't even about religion in general, or Islam in particular!

Perhaps you've misread the title, and need to check it again...

Oh wait, you actually say the opposite, which is hardly surprising, that Islam is more tolerant

Where, in this thread, specifically, do I say that ?

And quote my actual words please.

I just find it funny molly, the lengths you are willing to go to whitewash the obvious.

I find your self-delusions and mistaken presumptions quite funny. I haven't done any whitewashing recently.

Could you give me an example of my supposed paintwork ?

I said Christianity, not Catholicism.

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.

For some reason you believe that the only Christians I care about are Catholics

Either those mind reading lessons aren't working, or your editing skills are letting you down again.

I don't 'believe' anything of the sort, old bean.

I'm talking about those strange folks in America (oh wait you hate them too, can't mention 'murricans')

Oh my. There we are bearing false witness again, Obi Gyn. You will be on your knees (doing penance) for some time, won't you ?

Please indicate in this thread where I have said 'I hate Americans' . Or indicate in any other thread where I have said or implied 'I hate Americans'.

Tsk tsk.

who founded their entire nation on the principles of democracy. Maybe you've heard of them?

People like Jefferson, you mean ? Oh, I'm quite familiar with his work, and his attitude towards religion:

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.

and:

I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them.

and finally:

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.

Maybe you've heard of Thomas Jefferson, eh ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh I was curious, but I also figured you had no intent of posting a list,

You should change your nom de plume to 'Presuming Ed' then.

Now perhaps you can prove me wrong

Your aim at your own foot will suffice for now, thanks.

Maybe I should come up with a clever nickname for you Molly.

No, just stick to getting your facts right and not making erroneous assumptions. That would be more beneficial to you.

I guess I'm jost not as brilliant as you are to come up with 'Obi Gyn'.

Your post simply oozes Christian sincerity.