Bigots On The March Again In The States

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32141605

These people would repeal all equality laws if they could. Disgraceful.

[naomi24]

Mikey, oops, ruffled feathers - again.

Jack, the pictures were irrelevant then.

Ummmm, and maybe not. There’s no doubt that some people ‘overdo’ it.

SP, thank you – although I don’t know about ‘damp’. ‘Gamp’ perhaps – being ‘geezers’ and all that. :o)

[jackthehat]

///Yet, if evolution is to be believed, such activity is exactly that, since they are unable to reproduce and thus pass on that genetic trait.///

You have seriously misunderstood something if you believe that gay people are unable to reproduce....

[vetuste_ennemi]

" I think writing a constitution and then sticking to it for a couple of centuries is just a dodgy idea, the world changes faster than the law then does) ".
Consider your knuckles wrapped, Mr. Adams. You too,Jefferson.
Thinks to sel f(re changing world), Where did all those "amendments" come from?
Asks oneself (re use of phrase "dodgy idea", is the poster for or against the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

[jackthehat]

naomi - I didn't post the pictures especially for you.

I trust that reinstates their relevance?

[vetuste_ennemi]

You ESPECIALLY, Jefferson. You wrote that crap, didn't you!

[sp1814]

Clanad

In answer to your points:

1. Gay men with HIV need to be assess against straight men with HIV...if you don't factor that in, then the figures are meaningless.

You may as well compare gay men who are smokers against straight men who aren't.

You see what I mean?

2. See point 1.

3. You're begin by talking about homosexuals, and then cite a report about lesbians.

4. I think that we can all agree that two women having sex is a marvellous (although slightly mysterious) thing. It should be celebrated and encouraged. However, I would agree that sex between two men is slightly off-putting...mainly due to the noise.

Regarding the choice thing that you believe.

Honest - I think you're wrong.

I'm not basing this on academic research - just personal experience.

[sp1814]

naomi24

Actually, I was toying with 'gamp'...I quite like that word.

The next time Steve at work starts banging on about what he would like to do with Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, I'm going to say, "Blimey, turn it down fella...you're being so gamp".

Love it!!!

[sp1814]

"Yet, if evolution is to be believed, such activity is exactly that, since they are unable to reproduce and thus pass on that genetic trait."

This is one of my favourite misconceptions...

Let's get this straight (ho ho) - heterosexuals have been creating gay people for centuries.

If you want gay people to die out, then straight women need to be careful about what they do whilst pregnant.

It's been proven that if women wear chiffon or watch Bette Davis movies whilst pregnant, then they will give birth to gay boys.

Likewise, if they ever put together an Ikea wardrobe, or look at a motorcycle whilst pregnant, they will have a lesbian child.

There is scientific evidence supporting this.

Same place as where Clanad got his evidence.

[naomi24]

Jack, oh right. Just that you referred to ‘flaunting it’ with those pictures – a subject I introduced.

SP, it’s actually a name for an umbrella – from a Dickens character, Mrs Gamp. I’m sure you can do something with that. :o)

[sp1814]

naomi24

Nope - not going there.

[sp1814]

Clanad

By the way - I should add that why I tota disagree with you views, your posts on this subject are by a country mile the most interesting that I've seen on AB's News section this year. If at any point you think I'm attacking you personally, tell me - because I'm not. I'm just attacking your standpoint!

[sp1814]

All the typos in that post are down to my stupid iPhone, not me.

[jim360]

I'm not refusing, I'm just choosing not to. What your cited study really amounts to be s saying that HIV is more prevalent among gay men than straight men. But this is a historical artefact of homosexuality taking place behind closed doors between men who were meeting in secret and before the risks were widely known -- nowadays the prevalence is much less and the causal link is hence not homosexuality but the associated behaviour at a time when it had to be hidden and so men were less careful. Attempting to use it as a slight against homosexuality is indeed a grave error of judgement and a gross abuse of statistics.

Basically I felt able to say that without too much thought because it just felt obvious that either the study was flawed or the conclusion was. I didn't feel much need to establish which -- turns out to be both, it seems.

[sandyRoe]

The 'conscience clause', which would allow discrimination here in NI won't happen. Sinn Fein have indicated they will oppose it.

[Peter Pedant]

In correspondence, Washington admitted to imperfections in the new charter but trusted to the amendment process to refine it. The Constitutional Convention was no conclave of sages in Roman togas, handing down eternal truths engraved in marble, and he wondered how long the document would last....

"For Washington, the beauty of the document was that it charted a path for its own evolution. It's very brevity and generality -- it contained fewer than eight thousand words -- meant it would be a constantly changing document, susceptible to shifting interpretations. It would be left to Washington and other founders to convert this succinct, deliberately vague statement into a working reality." Chernow: Washington

Oh Dear... Washington clearly thought the Constitution would evolve

// I think writing a constitution and then sticking to it for a couple of centuries is just a dodgy idea,// is exactly what G W thought - see above

As for a constitution set in stone - nope ( current historians agree )

[mushroom25]

sandy, sinn fein have 29 MLAs from a total of 108, which is a little shy of a working majority. plus several of the more protestant parties harbour religious nut-jobs like the caleb foundation, i'm not as confident as you of this clause not being signed into law.

[slaney]

Clanad, you quote Robert S Hogg et al and their 1995 paper - direct link here...

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Had you read it through you would have seen that the time period of this study was 1987-1992 in Canada.
And you may have missed this comment from the authors of the paper in 2001:

"Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being......
In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia"

The reduction in mortality would be even more marked now -14 years later.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full

I may have time to look at the rest of your links tomorrow - most of them aren't live unfortunately.

[Baldric]

Just for info

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gamp?q=GAMP

[jim360]

It's never a good sign when even the authors of the paper you are citing refute your claims, huh.

[Clanad]

…And this accounted for how?

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

Could be this: https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

Or it could be my misreading of the stats...