babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Homosexuality is a lifestyle that spreads disease, said Alliance leadership candidate

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Homosexuality is a lifestyle that spreads disease, said Alliance leadership candidate
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 19 December 2001 05:43 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Click.

What do you think? I tend to think there's an intended subtextual message here, myself...

[subject heading edited in interests of journalistic balance]

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 19 December 2001 05:46 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Grant Hill has not said that homosexuality is a disease. He has said that it is physically unhealthy, much like smoking is. That's not the same thing as a disease.

He has also said that the lifestyle "spreads disease". He didn't say that the lifestyle IS a disease.

I cannot comment on whether or not his ACTUAL claims are true or not, not being fluent in the medical literature. But please don't misquote the man.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 19 December 2001 05:47 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
OTTAWA -- The most recent candidate seeking the Canadian Alliance leadership defended his controversial views yesterday that the homosexual lifestyle can be harmful, saying medical science backs him up.

Grant Hill said in an interview that, as a medical doctor, he remains convinced that homosexual activity can be unhealthy in the same way smoking is.


I'm speechless...


From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 19 December 2001 05:58 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dr. Hill argued in 1996 that extending rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act to gays would encourage a lifestyle that spreads disease. "My specific problem with this bill is that it will produce and allow a promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle," he had said during debate in the House of Commons.

Dr. Hill is a social conservative but said yesterday he does not seek to push his views on abortion or gay rights on to the public.


I remain speechless...


From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 December 2001 06:16 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 19 December 2001 06:16 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post
Thankfully, I think that slowly, opinions such as these are becoming the minority. It is discouraging though, when a public figure makes statements like this.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Twilight-Cedar ]


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 19 December 2001 06:43 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this different in some way from the hetrosexual lifestyle that is spreading decease?
From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 19 December 2001 08:08 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The las guy tried using religion to mask his intolerance and new guy is going to use the field of medicine. Only in the CRAP.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 19 December 2001 08:16 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think corporate culture spreads disease by driving the idea that the only goal in life is to get laid as many times as possible into the minds of youth.

Actually, I don't think so, but I think it spreads STD's a hell of a lot more than any particular lifestyle choice.

Grant Hill is an ass


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 December 2001 08:59 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think corporate culture spreads disease by driving the idea that the only goal in life is to get laid as many times as possible into the minds of youth.

You mean... it isn't?

Yikes. I'm going to have to re-examine a good many of my lifestyle choices.

Meanwhile, Grant Hill remains an ass and a homophobe.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 19 December 2001 09:23 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the hell is a "homosexual lifestyle"?
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 December 2001 09:31 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
O but Loretta, it's simple. For a man, lots of Judy Garland records, flamboyant clothing, shopping, general effeminacy, poppers, serial sex in bathhouses, and appearing semi-nude in the annual Pride Parade.

For a woman, Marine-style haircuts, big boots, plaid shirts, tough attitudes, extreme feminism, and hard drinking in bars that play "I Ain't Never Loved A Man (The Way That I Love You)." And, these days, "Man (I Feel Like A Woman)."

That clear it up for you?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 19 December 2001 09:51 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You saying there are no gay football players?

And while you are at it tell Rosie Greer what you think of men doing needlepoint. The concept of Jacques Plante knitting his own underwears does erk me a bit, though.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
bandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1435

posted 19 December 2001 09:52 PM      Profile for bandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Homosexuality should become a religion so gays can have a license to spout such intolerant CRAP.
From: sudbury | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 December 2001 10:00 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Homosexuality should become a religion so gays can have a license to spout such intolerant CRAP.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
bandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1435

posted 19 December 2001 10:13 PM      Profile for bandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By this I mean many use their religion as an excuse to be intolerant of another so why not invent something like homosexualism and spout hatred against right handed people or people with funny hats or something else that has absolutely nothing to do with them or their lives at least make grant hill contrary to their faith.
From: sudbury | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 19 December 2001 10:58 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I’d be curious to see this “medical literature”. Perhaps it’s the same style of literature that Stockwell Day uses to formulate his opinions on… well, you know.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 19 December 2001 11:15 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hill says that any medical textbook is enough to come to this conclusion. No specific medical research is pointed to. Its established in the medical field, its that simple. Gotta believe him, he's a doctor after all.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 19 December 2001 11:19 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it is as you lay out, Pankaj, then that is a tautalogical argument unbefiting a man of science such as a doctor.

I'd say Hill might be daming himself with his medical degree. He's smart enough to know better.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 19 December 2001 11:24 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tommy, here is the relevant section of the article for you to peruse.


quote:
The most recent candidate seeking the Canadian Alliance leadership defended his controversial views yesterday that the homosexual lifestyle can be harmful, saying medical science backs him up.

Grant Hill said in an interview that, as a medical doctor, he remains convinced that homosexual activity can be unhealthy in the same way smoking is.

"Flop open the medical textbook and leaf through it, the data is there," he said. ". . . As a physician, remember, if I found someone who was smoking, that's a lifestyle issue. If I found someone who was driving drunk, that's a lifestyle issue.

"Stop: Whatever you say, you can never take that away from me. I can be a politician, but I will always be a doctor."



From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 19 December 2001 11:39 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suspect that being an Alliance MP is a lifestyle that spreads disease.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 December 2001 12:05 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It certainly appears to spread stupidity. Or else require it.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 20 December 2001 09:04 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder about things like this. This guy has almost sealed the deal on flushing his political career into the sewer by smearing the gay/bi/trans community. All for allowing a stereotype to fuse with a fact.

Having unsafe sex for anyone spreads stds around, but when you attempt to pin that to one group, you leave the formula open to exception everytime.

So why do people from time to time get into the spotlight and say such dumb things? Maybe it's what happens when a small minority close themselves off from the majority to the extent that the opinions of the minority are different from the opinions of the majority. But with so little outside influence, those within the minority hit a wall they never knew existed when they offer up opinions to the majority.

Oh well, who is goign to miss this guy in a hundred years?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 December 2001 09:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if he was talking about side effects from the actual act of anal sex rather than just the idea that promiscuity spreads disease. Because I've read Christian literature relatively recently where they've gotten away from the promiscuity-spreading-disease angle (because it's so easily refuted when you consider that every group, not just homosexuals, are promiscuous) and started on the "unnatural and unsafe" aspects of the actual sexual act of anal sex itself. Now I have no idea whether that's medically valid or not - I suspect it isn't considering that there are lots of gay men out there who live just fine, healthy lives despite regularly engaging in that sexual practice. But I'm just wondering if maybe that's the angle he's referring to rather than the spreading of disease.

Of course, we don't know because he just makes a claim picked straight out of the air: "Studies show being gay is unhealthy!" What a loon.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 20 December 2001 12:27 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gall Durn it!!

Promiscuous people spread disease, gay or straight!!


SHEESH!!!!!


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 December 2001 12:35 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Left and right can agree on yet one more issue.

I actually hope this guy wins because his ridiculous view will be so simple to refute. There will be no confusion on those on the right as to how stupid the alliance can be anymore.

Its just so simple, if I was born with a conditions that made me susceptible to disease anymore would I be legislated against.

There are probably an infinite amount of lifestyles that are unhealthy. The Canadian Alliance has not tried to legislate against those lifestyles.

People who use public washrooms are more susceptible to spread disease, when they support legislation that prevents public washrooms from existing then his point of view will show consistency. Untli then he is not only homophobic, he's a hypocrite

Air travel spreads illness due to the poor ventilation on planes. I don't see Grant Hill up in arms about that.

This guys hiding behind his medical credentials is cowardly. The CMA and AMA should do more to condemn him.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 20 December 2001 02:13 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Promiscuous people spread disease, gay or straight!!

Not to mention reluctant hand washers and coughers who fail to cover their mouth.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 20 December 2001 02:16 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slick, it's worse than that. Caughers who cover their mouths then put their germ-ladened hands who-knows-where.

The horror. The horror.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 December 2001 02:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Air travel spreads illness due to the poor ventilation on planes. I don't see Grant Hill up in arms about that.

Tell me about it, brother. I'd be up in arms, if I weren't flat on my back (OK, propped up in a chair to type this).

Usually I'm not Calvinist enough to believe you have to pay for pleasure. The aftermath of my holidays has me reconsidering that.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 20 December 2001 02:21 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The horror! The horror!

Oooh! Those people really get on my tits! Where the hell are the death squads? Why won't someone just get rid of these touchy feely coughers?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 20 December 2001 02:24 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We shouldn't be too hard on them. These people might be hand-washers without handy sinks.

A sink on every subway train! Wetnaps for all buses!


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 20 December 2001 02:34 PM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are a disproportionate majority of gay men who have AIDS, because the act of male gay sex is more prone to rupturing blood vessels, through which the HIV virus can be transmitted. Any gay man who is familiar with, for example, Toronto's gay community will tell you that you need to exercise extreme caution when having sexual relations, perhaps more so than if you're straight. Straight couple might simply think a condom is enough, and leave it at that, whereas responsible gay men think about the sexual history of their partner.

But to call it an "unhealthy lifestyle" is sort of tantamount to calling it a lifestyle choice, which fags tend to take offence to. So, rather than not supporting legislation that supports people's exercising of their rights, this Alliance guy - who's a "scientist" after all - should be supporting ways of making that life(style) more safe. But he's in the Alliance, so what do you expect?

But then, so's Enza...

..?
<
=

Ian


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 20 December 2001 06:33 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Alliance needs to go on a gay bender with me.
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 20 December 2001 07:59 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that it is not only the leaders, but the boyscouts themselves that are not allowed to be gay. Isn`t this like the male version of Brownies where all you do is meet in some church ^basement once a week - at the age I went to brownies most of the boys still thought girls were yucky.
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 December 2001 08:26 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To quibble a bit, in Canada it's just Scouts. Wasn't Boy Scouts even when I joined, ca. 1975.

They were still all boys then, of course. But all branches dropped that requirement about 10 years ago. There are probably still packs and troops without girls -- one requirement is that there be female leaders, which they've had trouble attracting.

But I've seen Wolf Cub packs around town that looked to be 50-50.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 20 December 2001 08:58 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My daughter is a Guide. There are plenty of all male Scouts and all girl Guides as well as the other ranks. (Levels?)

I think most of the time they are segragated by choice and when availability becomes a question then you see alot more mixing.

Although I have heard that the older kids (late teens) would like to do some mixing but there are plenty of Moms and Dads with buckets of cold water to keep them sorted out.

To be honest with you I have no problems with gay men or women teaching in school or clubs as I make it a rule to meet and get to know everyone that comes into contact with my kids. Not that I am over protective but it is a great way to socialize and it is good for the kids too. Over the years I have met quite a few people that, after they get to know me some, feel comfortable enough to tell me all about them being gay. Only one has turned out to be an asshole but it had nothing really to do with her being lesbian.

For the most part I find that sexual orientation has very little to do with what a person is like. Good people are good people and even though I disagree with plenty of people on plenty of issues, it doesn't make them any less of a good person.

I think that when sexual orientation becomes an issue, it is mostly based on stereotypes and phobia rather than fact and intimate knowledge of someone.

One last thing about language, I have found that the power that is in language can hurt and hurt plenty when that power in controled by the one saying hurtful things. But control is an illusion. When you come to understand that hurtful language loses all it's power the moment you dismiss it as stupidity, it becomes easy to deflect insults and taunting.
Often getting to understand that only comes when you see it in action.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 December 2001 09:13 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My daughter is a Guide. There are plenty of all male Scouts and all girl Guides as well as the other ranks. (Levels?)

But as I heard it, Scouts Canada said they'd admit any girls who wanted to join, but around the same time (1991?), Guides Canada said they were going to remain an all-girls organization. Perhaps they've changed the policy since. If so I'm not aware of it.

I'm sure, as you say, that there are still lots of all-male Cub packs, Scout troops and the rest.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 December 2001 10:04 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, as Ian the Second points out, anal sex is perhaps the riskiest sexual behavior relative to contracting Aids.

However, anal sex is not exclusive to the gay community; heterosexual people do this too.

Moreover, I know gay men who don't engage in anal sex, not because of the risk factors, but because it just doesn't turn them on.

So, when the "Dr." Hill suggests that the homosexual "lifestyle" is unhealthy, while ignoring the obvious facts I point out, makes it difficult to envision a thought process in Hill that isn't linked to hatred.

After all, Hill cannot plead ignorance.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 December 2001 10:45 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
My girlfriend is a Brownie leader. According to her, men are not allowed to join Guiding. Men are not allowed to be a leader in Guiding. Men are not allowed to be chaperones at a Guiding event. Men are not allowed anywhere near Guiding.

My girlfriend is quitting Guiding soon. She thinks all the attempts to make it more relevant and "modern" have just made is more "girly" and pointless. It's all about coddling the girls. She can't stand it anymore.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 21 December 2001 10:55 AM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My girlfriend is quitting Guiding soon. She thinks all the attempts to make it more relevant and "modern" have just made is more "girly" and pointless. It's all about coddling the girls.

Could it be that KbM is, himself, a good coddler? (Smart girlfriend, I'd say!)

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 December 2001 11:24 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I posted this question on another thread - it is associated with whether the Alliance`s (or our) attitude towards gays has anything to do with their (or our) attitude towards other groups.

One issue which has not been discussed in much detail is whether our beliefs concerning ADHD influence our beliefs in other area or visa versa. I noticed on Teresa`s revamped page is that she is a strong supporter of Gay rights.

I remember myself many years back reading an article in the Winnipeg Free Press about a group called "Homosexuals Anonymous" where a bunch of gay males got together once a week to pray to god to make them straight. Their goal was to actually get to the point where they could marry women! I think that article more than anything influenced my attitude toward gay rights - that it would be worse in my mind to marry a woman he could never love (worse on the woman) than it would be to marry a man he could love.

The word used to discribe this phenomenon was "ego-dystonic." I could imagine ADHDers in CHADD praying to god that they can be transformed into farmers (I`ve actually read articles stating that ADHD groups should follow the AA model). The word "ego-dystonic" also brings to mind apples (natives who want to be white), and people who are so unhappy with their appearance that they will do anything to change it.

There is also some contention in the literature that ego-dystonic ADHDers are easier to treat because they are more receptive to suggestions made from their doctors and other professionals (see quote at bottom). There is some hints that doctors encourage their ADHD patients to become ego-dystonic. Even Drew admitted that these "basket-cases" were very eager to please and tried too hard to make friends.

Am I reading too much into this whole thing? Is there a connection between Teresa`s attitude towards ADHDers and her attitude towards gays? ARe our attitudes towards ADHDers similar or different than our attitudes towards other groups?


Two Types of ADHD (Biggs "J's" & "P's")

quote:
"J's," those who prefer a more structured approach to tasks, have often worked quite hard to develop compensatory strategies to COMBAT ADD tendencies, and are quite eager to implement whatever strategies are suggested by the therapist. In effect, ADD symptoms are ego-dystonic for them, and they expend enormous energy in COMBATTING tendencies toward forgetfulness or disorganization. On the other hand, "P's" on the MBTI are those who tend to prefer a more unstructured, spontaneous approach to life ...implementing the strategies needed to improve planning and to provide structure may seem burdensome and undesirable.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 21 December 2001 11:40 AM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
vaudree, who is Teresa? What does "MBTI" stand for?
From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 December 2001 11:48 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are people who are homophobic more apt to be mysogynists, rascist, ehtnocentric and genocentric? Or is there no connection between one`s belief in one area and one`s belief in another area?

Teresa is somebody else besides babble who has a message board. The MBPI is the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory which she is very fond of. The author of the quote refers to ADHD, but she could have just as easily been talking about women, gays, natives ect.,


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 21 December 2001 12:11 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Narrow-minded people come from all sides of the political spectrum; I don't think it's an ideology that makes someone self-righteous, though some ideologies attract more people of a self-righteous nature...

As for the CRAP guy's comment, I've never heard such a pathetic attempt to cover one's own dogmatic opinions...he really expects people to believe he only feels that way because he's a doctor? Any doctor can see that smoking/drinking/drugs/unprotected sex are harmful, but not every doctor would advocate laws against such things. If a law were made tomorrow that limited the number of people that straight people could sleep with or be married to, in the name of not "spreading disease", there would be a public outcry. Every straight person isn't promiscuous, but it's a matter of personal freedom.

I have a few friends in the gay community, and from what I've heard, the fact that gay marriage isn't legal actually perpetuates promiscuous behavior, because it becomes an issue in some relationships.

So, when it comes down to it, I think this guy's "I'm concerned for public welfare" stance is bullshit, and it's a very bad coverup for yet another right-winger who wants to impose his opinion on others.


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 21 December 2001 12:11 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
vaudree, while I thank you for clarifying your post, I do take exception to the preamble ... it implies that I am homophobic and a hater of women. I am neither.
From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 December 2001 12:16 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:

As for the CRAP guy's comment, I've never heard such a pathetic attempt to cover one's own dogmatic opinions...he really expects people to believe he only feels that way because he's a doctor? Any doctor can see that smoking/drinking/drugs/unprotected sex are harmful, but not every doctor would advocate laws against such things.


But Grant Hill did not say that he wants laws against the homosexual lifestyle, at least not in the interview we're talking about in this thread. Whether or not you believe he would lobby for these kinds of laws is one thing, but in the interview that inspired this thread, Hill did not say that homosexuality should be regulated.

quote:
I have a few friends in the gay community, and from what I've heard, the fact that gay marriage isn't legal actually perpetuates promiscuous behavior, because it becomes an issue in some relationships.

This idea is becoming more and more popular amongst many in the "right-wing". Lowell Green in Ottawa has come out and said he supports gay marriage, in theory, for this very reason.

I've read more than one gay writer who are suspicious of gay marriage because they think that one of the great things about gay culture is that it's so promiscuous. Their position is something like, "what's wrong with being promiscious?!" Depending on the point of view, they have a point. Swedes can be damned promiscuous by North American standards, and they don't have huge social or health problems.

On the other hand, others might ask, "what the heck is 'gay culture'?"

Too many issues, all getting mixed up together. Makes my head hurt.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 21 December 2001 12:29 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My apologies, I thought he said he was against legalizing gay marriage... the quote I was thinking of was:

"Dr. Hill argued in 1996 that extending rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act to gays would encourage a lifestyle that spreads disease. "My specific problem with this bill is that it will produce and allow a promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle," he had said during debate in the House of Commons."

My argument is the same... smokers, alcoholics, drug users, etc. have rights, and anyone who proposed taking them away would be a laughing stock... Getting freedom is one thing, but once people have it, it becomes a "right", and the slightest infringement is seen as over-stepping by the gov't. I don't know if that makes sense; I'm all for expanding freedom of all kinds, and retaining the freedoms we have...just making an observation.


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 21 December 2001 12:32 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My apologies, I thought he said he was against legalizing gay marriage... the quote I was thinking of was:

"Dr. Hill argued in 1996 that extending rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act to gays would encourage a lifestyle that spreads disease. "My specific problem with this bill is that it will produce and allow a promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle," he had said during debate in the House of Commons."

My argument is the same... smokers, alcoholics, drug users, etc. have rights, and anyone who proposed taking them away would be a laughing stock... Getting freedom is one thing, but once people have it, it becomes a "right", and the slightest infringement is seen as over-stepping by the gov't. I don't know if that makes sense; I'm all for expanding freedom of all kinds, and retaining the freedoms we have...just making an observation.


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 December 2001 12:37 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My argument is the same... smokers, alcoholics, drug users, etc. have rights, and anyone who proposed taking them away would be a laughing stock...

But we restrict the rights of smokers to smoke in public places (especially in Ottawa!). Of course, that's not really relevant to the issue of gay rights. Being gay doesn't give cancer to the people around you.

I agree that it's LIKELY that Grant Hill wouldn't be crazy about gay marriage, but then again, he might agree that it would cut down on HIV because it would mean less promiscuity. Until it comes from his mouth, who knows?


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 December 2001 12:53 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
vaudree, while I thank you for clarifying your post, I do take exception to the preamble ... it implies that I am homophobic and a hater of women. I am neither.
I`m not implying anything I`m just trying to figure out whether beliefs held in one area are distinct from or connnected to beliefs held in other areas.

Do you think people who hate gays are more apt to hate women? Do you think people who hate women are more apt to hate gays? Do you think people who cognitively support women`s rights are more apt to cognitively support gay rights? Do you think people who cognitively support gay rights are more apt to cognitively support women`s rights? Or do beliefs on one area have no effect on one`s beliefs in other areas.

As far as marriage or common-law rights. It doesn`t matter if you are straight or gay - if you want to go from flower to flower without concern for the emotional or finanncial needs of others, of course you are going to fight against marriage rights or common-law spousal rights or even child support. We have the technology that child support can eventually become an issue. There are gays who don`t want to share, be it half their property in a divorse or their full share of taxes. Not all gays are left-wing.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 21 December 2001 12:56 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"But we restrict the rights of smokers to smoke in public places (especially in Ottawa!)."

Very true, I was referring to the Human Rights Act, but I haven't read it in detail, so I'll shutup about that...I think Hill just doesn't want to make the gay lifestyle more "acceptable", but to be gay only means that you are attracted to people of the same gender; it doesn't mean that you have to have promiscuous/unprotected sex, and if you do that's your own business anyway. And if he's really concerned about public health, I don't know what he's doing on the right... the less gov't regulation you have against smoking/drinking/corporate interests, the more people will die from avoidable health problems. Like I said, the "medical" reasons are just a cheap excuse to get people to think his way on a controversial issue.


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 December 2001 01:01 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And if he's really concerned about public health, I don't know what he's doing on the right... the less gov't regulation you have against smoking/drinking/corporate interests, the more people will die from avoidable health problems.

Well, we run into the old problems with political labels here. I don't think all people who identify as "right-wing" necessarily believe in less government regulation. I think many would love to regulate social behaviour up the yin-yang. I don't think Grant Hill ever claimed to be a libertarian, but I could be wrong.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 21 December 2001 01:30 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I don't think all people who identify as "right-wing" necessarily believe in less government regulation. I think many would love to regulate social behaviour up the yin-yang."

In some ways, maybe...I'm not too familiar with Canadian politics, but in the US the right is always talking about "decentralization" and "autonomy" --which sounds great, except in our society it means handing more power to corporations.

(btw I am not in favor of any type of government regulation.)


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 December 2001 01:34 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
That depends entirely on which "right-winger" you talk to. The Republican Party uses libertarian-speak a lot because they know it'll get them votes, but folk like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell sure aren't libertarians.

It all comes back to my intense dislike for labels like "left-wing" and "right-wing". We ain't living in 18th century France.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 21 December 2001 03:06 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"folk like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell sure aren't libertarians."

the Christian right... what I call them is "eventual conformists". All they care about is imposing their own ideals, none of which are based in politics. When are evangelicals gonna realize that our society would be a hell of a lot worse if church and state weren't seperate? They're always whining about getting prayer back in schools, and we're all going to hell because of genetic research/gay rights/the entertainment industy/etc... but two hundred years from now, no Christians are gonna give a shit. They'll have gay pastors (I mean ones that are out of the closet) and the worship leaders will dress like Britney Spears... Think about it, a few hundred years ago if someone had told Christians of the time that in 2001 we'd have female pastors, they would've said "Your proposal art an abomination that cometh from the feiry pit of hell", but now it's normal... their attempt at rejecting the liberal value system of our society is a pathetic failure, and they can hold prayer rallies all they want, it's not going to change anything.

"It all comes back to my intense dislike for labels like "left-wing" and "right-wing". We ain't living in 18th century France."

I agree, I hate those labels too, and I think they've actually lost a lot of their meaning, but it's still a fairly good way of distinguishing where someone's coming from. But yeah there are contradictions... the Christian right is an example. another would be the countless times I've had to explain to people that I'm an anarchist and a left-winger. ("But doesn't the left want more government control? Huh??....") I used to say that I'm neither of the right nor left, but then a lot of centrist poseurs started doing that, so I'd rather be considered with my comrades on the far left, and try to ignore the people who think of us as authoritarians...

(sorry for getting off topic)


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 December 2001 03:30 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Teresa is for gay rights, ADHD rights and religious freedom. She took her son out of scouts both because they did not accept gays and because they made atheists take a pledge about God. Are all those part of the same belief system (fairness to all and acceptance of human diversity) or are they all separate discrete beliefs?
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 21 December 2001 03:35 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Vaudree, you make an interesting point. In Eastern Medicine we look for patterns of imbalance which tie together many different signs and symptoms. In Modern medicine, these signs and Sx. would get called diseases or conditions all by themselves. Always worth asking the question, "Is this part of a larger pattern?". Proper holistic thinking.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 December 2001 08:15 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On Counterspin they were talking about marriage as being about children. One lady said that unlike hetrosexuals, homosexuals who adopt children are being selfish. The whole thing sounds silly to me - marriage is supposed to be about love and commitment. And isn`t parenthood also a commitment?

I posted the same quesion on another message board and here is what they have to say about it.

Hunter = holistic - one idea influencing another, everything looked at at once

Farmer = modern - each idea is discrete and has nothing to do with every other idea, everything is looked at separately


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 21 December 2001 09:22 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, me again.

My tranny friend Janet read this thread and is REALLY steamed that the unhealthy lifestyle issue did not make mention of transvestites who are gay.

She is going to try and seduce Grant Hill - she is that good looking.

I believe she is now on a mission. Won't he be surprised!!


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 21 December 2001 11:33 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's been my belief-- yes, belief-- that most homophobes are such because they are repressed homosexuals themselves.

Why else would one hate homosexuals? (there are other reasons, give me a moment) Guys like Hill and others strike me as persons who have "cured" themselves of gay "tendancies" and think that others should be able to do so also, and don't because they are "weak." Familiar argument, isn't it? The self made person wonders why others can't pull themselves up by their boot straps like he or she did. And that's an attitude not uncommon in Political Parties on the right.

Of course, I like this argument because it appeals to my sense of irony I make no scientific claims on it.

That's why I used the word belief.

A gay friend of mine is more tollerant of homophobes than I am. He asked me once how I might feel about gays if my mother left my father for a woman, or my father left my mother for a man.

Seeing how kids usually resent the "other" person in these situations anyway, maybe we should be less automatically condeming of "homophobes." I'm not saying they are right, just that sometimes we should think twice about being intollerant of the intollerant.

So, I don't think being homophobic leaves one necesarily predisposed to other forms of xenophobia, like mysogyny or racism.

I get the impression sometimes, and maybe Hill is one of these, that he's trying to cash in on homophobic tendancies in his ridding.

Londoners are well aquianted with this kind of thing, having lived under the Mayoralty term of Dianne Hasket.

It may also be a matter of "fashion" too. Religious fervour was not until recently much of a political force on the right, now it seems to be electable within that wing, one has to at least make some kind of "nudge nudge, wink wink" references to the hot button issues in that crowd. Anti-gay is one, abortion another, belief in God, Guns and the Republican way being others.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 21 December 2001 11:40 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, wait a minute.

There's scads of irrefutable scientific evidence that shows that an impoverished lifestyle spreads disease.

Shouldn't Hill be on a crusade to erradicate poverty?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 21 December 2001 11:52 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK,folks,bear with me. I'm gonna try to defend Grant Hill. Hey, even the guilty deserve a fair trial, right?

1) Homosexuality is a lifestyle.
2) A certain percentage of those involved in "the homosexual lifestyle" have chosen it, rather than a heterosexual lifestyle.(For a myriad of reasons)
3) A certain percentage of homosexuals indulge in risky(!) sexual behaviours that increase the likelihood of potentially fatal illnesses.

A simple sylogism. It's the way people like "Dr." Hill think. VERY simply.

Enough holes have been poked in this mode of reasoning by people far more eloquent than I, but my favorite is as follows :
1) Parrots are green.
2) Melons are green.
3) Parrots are melons.

Fun with logic! Ain't it a kick? Try it at home,kids! Get an adult to help you with the scissors and oh, yeah. DON'T RUN FOR OFFICE IF YOU'RE A POMPOUS JACKASS.


From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Snafu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1883

posted 22 December 2001 02:20 AM      Profile for Snafu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

1) Homosexuality is a lifestyle.
2) A certain percentage of those involved in "the homosexual lifestyle" have chosen it, rather than a heterosexual lifestyle.(For a myriad of reasons)
3) A certain percentage of homosexuals indulge in risky(!) sexual behaviours that increase the likelihood of potentially fatal illnesses.

Yep. Bullshit to those who think they're born with it. If being gay was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?


From: Somewhere Out There | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 02:39 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Unfortunately the only thing I find intollerant in all this discussion is the intollerance of debunking Mr. Hill's expert opinion simply because he is a Canadian Alliance MP.

I will take Mr. Hill's expert opinion over Svend Robinson's any day. Just look at the statistics; 46% of all new aids cases are attributed to homosexual men and the runner up is intravenous drug users which half of their figure are believed to be homosexual. Young, homosexual, teenaged boys have a fifty/fifty shot of making it past 30 years old alive. Homosexual children are three times as likely to commit suicide. This just keeps going on and on.

I don't care what individuals do in the confines of their own bedroom, but stop painting a rosy picture of something that is clearly a health risk.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 03:03 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Homosexual children are three times as likely to commit suicide. This just keeps going on and on.

Hmm, I wonder why that would be. I guess if I was gay and everyone in my society were telling me I was an aberration and that I was "unhealthy" I'd have a peachy keen outlook on life.

And Mr. Fleming, I thought you took your country bumpkin conservatism elsewhere. If I stay in my fairy left-liberal world, would you keep to your rotting tree stump?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 03:51 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Clockwork wrote:

quote:
"And Mr. Fleming, I thought you took your country bumpkin conservatism elsewhere. If I stay in my fairy left-liberal world, would you keep to your rotting tree stump?"

Just because I point out some realities you call me a conservative country bumpkin? Whatever.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 03:54 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
By the way clockwork, one reason I showed back up here is because it is probably one of the only socialist web sites left after The Toronto Star shut theirs down. They don't like reality either.

John I. Fleming

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 03:54 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I called you country bumpkin before. You keep ignoring my questions so I figure calling you names might at least get you to respond.

You live down there in Real Life Ground too? You and Chickenbum should start a club. I'd even stay away.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 04:00 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for socialist sites, you should be happy I'm calling you a country bumpkin conservative. I'm practicing my free speech.

You should agree with that.

Us homo, stupid, fucked-up socialists need to practice free speech every once and a while or else we go all Stalinist.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 22 December 2001 04:02 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why would half of IV drug users be gay? That doesn't seem very likely.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 04:14 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Clockwork wrote:

quote:
"You live down there in Real Life Ground too? You and Chickenbum should start a club. I'd even stay away."

I already have my own Conservative online forum. You are welcome to a taste of reality if you are up to it.

Ontarians Discussing Politics

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 04:23 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, no, your missing my point. I don't show up on your forums and you'd be kind enough not to show up on mind.

But thanks for the link. Maybe some other babblers will leave to join you there on Real Life Ground. It looks like they'd finally fit in. And no one will call them names.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 04:28 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It’s hard to believe the pompous pride of these left-wing Liberal liars.

(edited to say this comes from your site, Mr. Fleming)

See, this is why I wouldn't show up to your site, Mr. Fleming. I don't like being called pompous and a liar. I prefer hurling the insults, not getting them, teehee.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 04:30 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, if you want to live in fantasy land, that is your prerogative. I really don't give a good God damn either way.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 04:32 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, keep to your fantasy land and I'll keep to mine. Deal?

We can bash the Alliance and Tories here and you can bash liberals a socialists there. Sounds fair to me.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 22 December 2001 07:51 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I will take Mr. Hill's expert opinion over Svend Robinson's any day.

That is accepting an argument based on authority, and is faulty reasoning.

Hill made certain claims. It is not intollerant to examine or de-bunk those claims.

Hill claims that the homosexual lifestyle spreads disease.

What we do know is that unprotected anal intercourse is a very risky endeavor. This is accepted fact.

What we also know is that anal intercourse is not exclusive to homosexuals, nor do all homosexuals practice it.

And we know that with proper education, these risks can be managed.

So, for Hill to contend that the "homosexual lifestyle" is any more dangerous than other "lifestyles" is wrong.

It is faulty reasoning, and while Hill would like to dress it up as science, it turns out to be junk science that does not survive sceptical scrutiny.

Robinson, on the other hand, made no claims referenced here. Your trying to present the argument of the excluded middle by saying we can either believe Hill, or Robinson once again establishes your location in downtown doltville.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 22 December 2001 04:53 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been thinking for a while that Falwell is gay...how elso would he know so much about them. Especially about Tinky Winky! He just seems so preoccupied with gay issues.
From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 22 December 2001 05:07 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seeing the light

Check this out for insight into mind of the family values set. Written by a woman who was raised as one but found the courage to let it go. Well written article; her book to be released soon.


From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 December 2001 05:08 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John I. Fleming, why do you come to this board? Are you trying to missionize us? We don't go to your boards, because most of us find most right-wingers nasty and unpleasant, and you're not helping to falsify that generalization. Why do you come to ours? I can only see that you get a really ugly type of pleasure out of antagonizing people. It's pretty pathetic actually.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 22 December 2001 05:15 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He could also be a fat, balding, 44-year-old who lives in the basement of his mother's farmhouse and goes out twice a month for Bible study. (Hey, it's a possibility.)
From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 05:35 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Rasmus wrote:

quote:
" John I. Fleming, why do you come to this board?"

Why do I post here? I like seeing what the most secular portion of Canada's population has to say. I must say, I'm not disappointed.

Markbo correctly pointed out that no matter what I write, you losers will throw a temper tantrum. If the same post were to be written by someone else you all would agree with it's content. Hell, I could even use a clone and agree with all of you for a few weeks and even post pro-conservative philosophies and I would have some of you agreeing with me!

You people make me laugh, that is why I come here.

Merry Christmas, oh wait, happy holidays.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
anarchyisorder
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1989

posted 22 December 2001 05:41 PM      Profile for anarchyisorder   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

(strange how he didn't deny it...)


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 22 December 2001 05:46 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I like seeing what the most secular portion of Canada's population has to say.

Christ would feel more comfortable here than in your company. No joke, I mean it John Fleming.


From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 05:57 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pankaj, I was wondering that myself. And Jesus probably wouldn't agree with the "loser" comment. We're all God's children.

I was also wondering where Mr. Fleming gets the idea that babble is secular. Although God is definitely gonna spite me, I always thought there were a number of theistic babblers here. Oh well, I suppose Mr. Fleming is ignoring that, too.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 December 2001 06:01 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your brand of religion doesn't resemble anything I would call Christian, John I. Fleming. So you think we're all losers, and you come here to antagonize and laugh at us. How wonderfully Christian. For shame!

quote:

Rasmus wrote:

quote:" John I. Fleming, why do you come to this board?"

Why do I post here? I like seeing what the most secular portion of Canada's population has to say. I must say, I'm not disappointed.

Markbo correctly pointed out that no matter what I write, you losers will throw a temper tantrum. If the same post were to be written by someone else you all would agree with it's content. Hell, I could even use a clone and agree with all of you for a few weeks and even post pro-conservative philosophies and I would have some of you agreeing with me!

You people make me laugh, that is why I come here.

Merry Christmas, oh wait, happy holidays.

John I. Fleming


I think a policy that doesn't let the moderator ban this guy is a pretty weak posting policy.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tyandeah
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1992

posted 22 December 2001 06:16 PM      Profile for Tyandeah     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rasmus wrote:

quote:
"I think a policy that doesn't let the moderator ban this guy is a pretty weak posting policy."

Now you want to ban me because I don't agree with you? You are a real piece of work!

By the way, just who the Hell said I was a practicing Christian?

John I. Fleming

That's right, I used a new handle. I wanted to see if there can be one person using more than one handle.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Tyandeah ]


From: Earth, Milky Way | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 December 2001 06:25 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry for assuming that you thought you were a practising Christian.

BTW, it is against Babble policy to post using more than one login name.

quote:
Now you want to ban me because I don't agree with you?

No, if I were moderator I would ban you in a flash for being self-avowedly antagonistic, for coming here to "laugh at" us "losers". Plenty of people disagree with me, and I respect them. They are able to disagree in an intelligent and articulate fashion. I can learn from them. I cannot learn from you.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 22 December 2001 06:32 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nicely quoted, rasmus.

I wonder -- what makes Mr. Fleming think this is the most secular portion of Canadian society? And what difference should that make, pray?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 06:40 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Let's see how it started out Rasmus.

Clockwork:

quote:
"And Mr. Fleming, I thought you took your country bumpkin conservatism elsewhere."

quote:
" As for socialist sites, you should be happy I'm calling you a country bumpkin conservative. I'm practicing my free speech.
You should agree with that. Us homo, stupid, fucked-up socialists need to practice free speech every once and a while or else we go all Stalinist.

Free speech and profanity!

Rasmus:

quote:
" We don't go to your boards, because most of us find most right-wingers nasty and unpleasant, and you're not helping to falsify that generalization. Why do you come to ours? I can only see that you get a really ugly type of pleasure out of antagonizing people. It's pretty pathetic actually."

Anarchyisorder:

quote:
" He could also be a fat, balding, 44-year-old who lives in the basement of his mother's farmhouse and goes out twice a month for Bible study. (Hey, it's a possibility.)"

You three call me a pathetic Conservative country bumpkin who lives in the basement of his mother's house who gets pleasure out of antagonizing people and you wonder why I called you a bunch of losers? Give it a rest man!

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 06:42 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, I didn't say you live in a basement. I called you a country bumpkin conservative. Don't be pulling a Markbo.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 December 2001 06:43 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Tyandeah
recent-rabble-rouser
Member # 1992

posted December 22, 2001 06:16 PM Rasmus wrote:

quote:"I think a policy that doesn't let the moderator ban this guy is a pretty weak posting policy."

Now you want to ban me because I don't agree with you? You are a real piece of work!

By the way, just who the Hell said I was a practicing Christian?

John I. Fleming

That's right, I used a new handle. I wanted to see if there can be one person using more than one handle.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Tyandeah ] Posts: 1 | From: Earth, Milky Way | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged



From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 06:45 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your also the one, Mr. Fleming, wondering if shooting Muslims with pig-gut smeared bullets and burying them in pig skin was a, option.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 06:53 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Oh really clockwork? The one good thing about discussion areas is that posts don't disappear. I seem to recall to be referring to Muslim and Islamic Fundamentalists and even if we did or did not do what General Persing did, we can't just stand there like pacifists.

quote:
" Unfortunately the current world crisis with the Palistinians in the Middle East, Moslem and Islamic fundamentalists in Afganistan and Pakistan, we must take some sort of action. Whether the reaction be reflective to that of General Persing or not, something must be done. We can't just hold up placards condeming wars like so many socialists would like to do. There has been too much innocent blood shed for us to just stand there like pacifists."

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 December 2001 06:56 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But the implication is that that response was proper. Your still entertaining it.

As a loser (edited: I'm the loser here, not you Mr. Fleming, just so we be clear), I suspect that is the response you want.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 22 December 2001 08:21 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John, this is a pre-Christmas warning. If your attitude hasn't improved in the new year, I'll be giving babblers a John-I-Fleming-free board as a gift.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 08:45 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Pray tell where I have attacked anyone like they have attacked me. Pray tell where I have used profanity like clockwork has. Show me where I have broken those rules that are present when first registering.

I can show the many times that your socialist friends have broken those very rules yet you wear blinders. For an apparent moderator you are very selective in your condemnation.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 22 December 2001 08:53 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John I. Fleming: Don't expect Audra to do a statistical analysis. A holistic, deductive, inductive, inferential assessment proved you are guilty of babble crimes. But this is a just state and will allow you the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself. If you do not take this opportunity, then capital punishment will be meted out. You will no longer be allowed to exist (here at babble). Got it?
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 December 2001 08:55 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anarchyisorder, while I appreciate that we're basically on the same side, I actually do (this is no mere formality) take issue with this
quote:
He could also be a fat, balding, 44-year-old who lives in the basement of his mother's farmhouse and goes out twice a month for Bible study. (Hey, it's a possibility.)

One of the things I dislike about our culture is powerfully homogenizing popular notions of normality and what it means to be "a loser" etc. I think a healthy society will have room for every character type, and some of them may well be 44 year-old, balding fat men who live in their mother's farmhouse basement and go to Bible study once every two weeks. I don't actually have a problem with that, and don't care if John I. Fleming fits the description. I do care if he runs around destroying things that other people value.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 09:00 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
More like "I don't agree with your socialist views so I have been put on notice that I will be censored if I continue to disagree. Cornform or you're thrown out."

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 22 December 2001 09:07 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JIH, you seem to be making a habit of being thrown out. You think its time to wonder if its you?
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 December 2001 09:10 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes John I. Fleming, you show nary a trace of capacity for self-criticism.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 22 December 2001 09:11 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Pankaj:

If you are responding to me, then you are mistaken. I have never been tossed off this board. Never.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 22 December 2001 09:29 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Both insulting and being insulted is distracting and futile. Treat the enemy the way scientists treat rats - by trying to figure out what the rat is trying to teach you about human nature and belief systems. If you get bored of the the rat, you can either disect him or find him a home with a loving family. People insult when someone else stumbles on assumptions that the other has taken for granted and never questioned - it is a sign that you are on to something.
quote:
If being gay was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being tall was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being female was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being male was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being black was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being native was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being ADHD was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being dyslexic was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?
If being left-handed was genetics, couldn't they claim disability?

What about claim that one has the right to take pride in who one is?

quote:
Young, homosexual, teenaged boys have a fifty/fifty shot of making it past 30 years old alive. Homosexual children are three times as likely to commit suicide.
I heard that left-handers die earlier than right-handers - mostly as a result of accidents involving appliances and tools made for right-handed use. I heard that in some native communities there are high suicide rates. Are you suggesting that one way to lower the rate of suicide is to make it illegal to be left-handed or to be native? Marginalized groups have their differences - but a lot in common.
quote:
I guess if I was gay and everyone in my society were telling me I was an aberration
Which part is worse being gay/native/ADHD or believing that who you are is an aberration. And which is more dangerous - coming out, meeting people, falling in love and getting married or just having random sex so that you don`t fall in love with anybody and you can keep your secret a secret? Does homophobia influence lifestyle choices?
quote:
Just because I point out some realities you call me a conservative country bumpkin? Whatever.
Clockwork, I think what he does with his bum is his own business. Mr. Fleming, what is it that makes those realities real? Are you saying that it is that men are naturally promiscuous - if so should not lesbians have the lowest incidence of aids?
quote:
Why would half of IV drug users be gay? That doesn't seem very likely.
Glen Murray would say that some male prostitutes only think that they are gay when they are in reality hetrosexual. Atleast that`s what he told his only son. But there are some children who are kicked out of the house - imagine being Anita Bryant`s son and telling your mother you are gay and hate orange juice.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2001 01:33 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I must most vehemently protest the idea that Mr. Fleming be tossed off this message board.

I think Mr. Fleming does more for the left wing than anyone, least of all himself, realizes.

With opponents like Fleming, we don't need allies.

The only sore point with me is that this thread could have segued nicely into a discussion about anal sex in general, and instead it's degenerated into a meta discussion on an unsatifactorily related subject-- an asshole.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 23 December 2001 01:44 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"The only sore point with me is that this thread could have segued nicely into a discussion about anal sex in general, and instead it's degenerated into a meta discussion on an unsatifactorily related subject-- an asshole."

How quaint. I am being told that I will be censored for nothing and she blindly disregards blatant overtures like this! Talk about double standards!

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2001 02:09 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She hasn't had time to read it yet, Fleming, give her some credit. Unlike us, perhaps she has a life that requires sleep during proper hours.

Besides, maybe Audra has come to know my dry sense of humour, or appreciates the fact that you seem to have come here in some kind of mashochistic quest, and my insults actually give you some kind of pleasure.

Ever hear the bear joke?

"You don't come here for the huntin' do ya boy?"


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2001 02:13 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I knew I posted this somewhere.

The Bear Joke.

Taking advantage of the short bear hunting season, a hunter, upon spotting a bear on a ridge crowned with an old stump, took careful aim and let go a round from his trusty .303. He ran up the ridge to where he thought he saw the bear fall, but there was nothing. Heaving and breathless, the hunter looked all around, until he felt the huge paw of a bear on his shoulder.

"Who do you think you are, coming into my woods and trying to shoot me?" Demanded the bear. The Hunter turned and looked way up at the bear and just stood, open mouthed and dumb founded. The outraged bear continued, "I'm going to have to teach you a lesson. Take your pants down, and bend over yonder stump." Thereupon, the bear visited a terrible indignity on the hunter.

A year passed, and the hunter burned to avenge himself. This time, he came armed with an M-16, set on full automatic. He came upon the ridge and waited. Hours went by, and just as he was about to doze off, the hunter spotted the bear on the ridge by the old stump. The hunter took extra careful aim, and emptied an entire clip into the bear. He ran up the ridge, smiling with triumph, his indignity avenged!

But, at the top of the ridge, no dead bear could be found. The hunter looked around and could not find a carcass. Just as he was about to leave, he felt the bear's big paw on his shoulder again. "You are a slow learner, aren't you boy?" The bear boomed. The hunter, tears in his eyes, couldn't believe the bear had survived, and trembled with dread thinking about what most certainly was coming. "Just to remind you whose woods this is, take your pants down and bend over yonder stump." Once again, the bear stole the steel from the Hunter's sphincter.

A year went by, and the Hunter was mad with thoughts of revenge. This time, he went to the ridge the day before hunting season opened, and stuffed dynamite under the old stump, and carefully burried the wires all the way down to his hiding spot below the ridge. And waited.

After a few days, the bear showed up at the ridge and ambled by the old stump. Lauging maniacly, the Hunter pushed the plunger, and the old stump exploded into a gazzilion fragments.

The hunter ran up the ridge to the crater, looking for little bear bits, blood, guts....any sign of the bear.

And there was none.

His eyes wide with fear, his breath tearing at his lungs, the hunter looked everywhere for signs of the blown up bear. Then, he felt the huge paw of the bear on his shoulder, turning him around.

The bear looked sideways at the hunter, and said:

"You don't come here for the huntin' do ya boy?"


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 23 December 2001 02:38 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At sometime in the future, I'm considering starting a debate proposing that the ad-hominum argument may indeed be perfectly valid, depending on the hominum you're going ad. But for now....

quote:
Um, John....you're a troll.

So far Mr. Fleming, the above quote represents close to the entire catalogue of my own responses to your many and copious posts on this board. Perhaps, somewhere in my little epistle you missed my central thesis, so I shall elaborate.

You appear to feel hard done by. You seem to feel that the policies which govern this board are being applied to you in an unfair and predjudicial manner, because you represent a right wing point of view. Well John, I know that the following statement won't make it past your considerable psychological defenses, but here it is anyway. You're wrong!

A cyber-discussion room is a social context like any other. You show absolutely no awareness, despite your stated professional experience, that you know how to behave in such a social context. Your behaviour is bombastic and rude. In any other social gathering you'd be thrown out. It has nothing to do with left or right. I've met doctrinaire lefties just like you and I avoid them like the plague. Worse, you just plain talk too much.

I can't help but speculate on the motivation of someone who would continue to post as you do with so little encouragement from the respondents. There's gotta be something slightly twisted in the obviously large commitment of time and energy that you are willing to put into being a mere pain in the ass.

I note that you're a dog handler. Given the character that you have displayed on this board, I am of the opinion that this satisfies certain issues that you have with control and domination. I also speculate, given what you have displayed on this board, that this hobby compensates for deficiencies in relationships with bi-peds.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2001 02:52 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I don't like the ad-hominem attack, and I never initiate them.

However, once initiated I refuse being caught bringing a knife to a gun fight.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 23 December 2001 03:02 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oldgoat, what a cool post! You're right on the money. Especially these paragraphs:

A cyber-discussion room is a social context like any other. You show absolutely no awareness, despite your stated professional experience, that you know how to behave in such a social context. Your behaviour is bombastic and rude. In any other social gathering you'd be thrown out. It has nothing to do with left or right. I've met doctrinaire lefties just like you and I avoid them like the plague. Worse, you just plain talk too much.

I can't help but speculate on the motivation of someone who would continue to post as you do with so little encouragement from the respondents. There's gotta be something slightly twisted in the obviously large commitment of time and energy that you are willing to put into being a mere pain in the ass.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 23 December 2001 03:07 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Tommy, that's from one of my favorite movie quotes, Sean Connery isn't it? can't remember the movie.

To your point though, this ain't even a knife fight. It's no fight at all.

Anyway, it's late and I'm outta here. g'nite.

edited again to say,... I really liked the bear joke.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2001 04:45 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's from "The Untouchables", one of the very few watchable Costner movies.

Connery is attacked in his apartment by a knife wielding assailant, and, gun in hand says something like "ain't that just like a dago, bringing a knife to a gun fight."

Shortly after, the Connery character gets caught bringing a revolver to a machine gun fight.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2001 04:54 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ANYWAY

The salient point in all this is that if Hill really was a man of science, and relied on reason to guide him instead of what appears to be petty xenophobia, he'd quite acurately be able to say that anal intercourse is a risky behavior when it comes to contracting the HIV.

Any health care and sex educator will tell you that. Sue on the Sunday night Sex show will tell you that, and tons of other information about anal intercourse that might in fact put you off the idea altogether, and that's not even considering the HIV risk.

Hill seems alone in making the illogical leap to the idea that the homosexual lifestyle in and of itself spreads disease in a way that other lifestyles don't.

It is speculation, but I submit reasoned speculation, that Hill makes this illogical leap either because he is homophobic, or desires to gain support from homophobes he thinks are within the Alliance party.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 23 December 2001 05:18 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
I just found an interesting article on this issue. It seems three Ontario doctors filed a complaint with the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons over what Dr. Hill said. It was dismissed and then Dr. Hill filed a complaint himself to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, claiming that they were guilty of unprofessional conduct. Dr. Hill was vindicated so it seems because the committee condemned the action taken by the three Ontario doctors.

"When Reform MP and physician, Grant Hill (MacLeod), stated, during the 10-day only debate on amending the federal Human Rights Act in May, 1996, that homosexuality was an unhealthy lifestyle, three AIDS physicians at Toronto Wellesley Hospital, Philip Berger, Brian Cornelson and William Seidelman criticized Dr. Hill for his supposed "bigotry" and filed a complaint with the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons. This complaint was dismissed by the Alberta College. Subsequently, an Edmonton lawyer, Ralph Watzke, laid a complaint against the 3 pro-homosexual physicians with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, claiming that they were guilty of unprofessional conduct.

The Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, has now officially expressed its dismay about the complaint to the Alberta College. It stated: "The Committee wishes to express its disapproval that this process has been utilized in this manner."

Snapshots of Canada

Interesting.

John I. Fleming

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 23 December 2001 07:15 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We started talking about gay issues and now we are talking law - or atleast about what lawyers say when arguing their case.

I think Fleming has a point about how the homosexual lifestyle, as it stands now without even the possibility of life long commitment through marriage, promotes disease. Anything to do with sex which discourages commitment promotes sexually transmitted disease. Thankyou Mr. Flemming for bringing up the point that we should allow homosexual marriages since the possibility of such a marriage promotes the concept of commitment over promiscuity.

Any one else besides me agree with Mr. Flemings contention that we should promote marriage as a method so as to reduce the spread of disease?


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 23 December 2001 07:54 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would suppose that Dr. Hill is opposed to gay marriages as well. Surely he knows that he can't have it both ways. Or perhaps the point you raise Vaudree has never been brought to his attention. What do you think Mr. Fleming?
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 23 December 2001 09:10 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Any governmental move to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Canada would require a Constitutional amendment and could not be done by simple legislation, even at the federal level. Therefore, same-sex marriages are illegal in Canada.

Canada's Supreme Court has ruled definitively that same-sex partners must be included under the term "spouse"--so for better or worse, Canadian lesbian and gay couples now have to worry about such things as alimony, child support, shared taxes and separation oversight, while gaining the rights to shared pensions, wrongful-death benefits, immigration, hospital visitation and much more.

If gay and lesbian groups still wish to marry and be recognized as such, they must have the Constitution changed. I can guarantee that isn't going to happen any time soon. If the federal government starts making amendments to the Constitution, many groups will demand other portions of it changed. As an example, Section 2 under fundamental freedoms of the Constitution will be challenged; "2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

Many groups wish to have it read; Every Canadian citizen has the following freedoms:

The federal government doesn't want to tread those waters and they shouldn't. Gay and lesbian same-sex couples already receive all benefits given to opposite sex couples except for one small thing; a marriage certificate.

My only suggestion to the gay and lesbian community is to create their own institution that recognizes same-sex marriage because the federal government won’t.

John I. Fleming

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 23 December 2001 09:30 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I havn't read this whole huge thread in it's entirety, so I don't know if this has been brought up before. Anal sex is of course one of the most high risk activities contributing to the transmission of HIV through sexual contact. There are lots of other ways which are high risk. Unprotected sex (of a more conventional nature) is extreemly high risk for a woman, but not so much for a man, for anotomical reasons. Oral sex is comparitively low risk, though still a risk.
The issue is, of course, Dr. Hills relating this to a "homosexual lifestyle". It was determined a long time ago, around when my employer sent me on training as I chaired my agencys' AIDs policy committee, That public education should not focus on lifestyle issues or identify particular groups, but discuss behaviors. This had nothing to do with any kind of political correctness, but was seen as good public health policy.

A look at the Escort ads in certain "progressive" publications makes it evident that an interest in anal sex is far from restricted to gays. There are many practices, some quite esoteric, which are practiced by all orientations. If Aids is percieved in the public as a "gay disease", the same behavior among hetrosexuals will not be approached with the same due caution.

What Dr. Hill is certainly guilty of is failing to observe best practices in the specialty of public health, and he's supposed to know better. Given that he's a Day supporter, thus associated with the whole unfortunately named "family values" bunch, I think raising the question of homophobia is perfectly valid.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 December 2001 09:30 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Any governmental move to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Canada would require a Constitutional amendment and could not be done by simple legislation, even at the federal level. Therefore, same-sex marriages are illegal in Canada.

Nuh-uh. The Supremes ruled that sexual orientation could be read into the Canadian constitution. Parliament has not attempted to override this ruling with the notwithstanding clause; therefore all laws passed by the feds are subject to the "reading-into" ruling - witness, for example, the mandate that the federal Human Rights Act be changed to specifically include sexual orientation.

In short, your argument is bollocks.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 23 December 2001 09:51 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A good doctor seeing a risk of disease will want to legislate any law possible which would reduce the risk. The only differences between the hetrosexual lifestyle and the homosexual lifestyle are legally sanctioned commitement, and, with the exception of the United Church, religeously sanctioned commitment. Why are not more doctors after realising that there is a health risk not lobbying governments and churches to both promote and sanction these commitements - so as to stop the spread of disease.
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 23 December 2001 10:04 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"In short, your argument is bollocks."

Really? I guess you must have missed the second paragraph I wrote.

quote:
I submit to you four recommendations on behalf of our association:


1. That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities recommend the speedy passage of the bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

2. That the Prime Minister reverse his decision to have a free vote on this matter, and in third reading demonstrate his government's commitment to the human rights of all Canadians, both for this bill and for all future bills dealing with human rights;

3. That the Minister of Justice confirm to this committee, to Parliament and to the people of Canada his commitment to proceed without delay to introduce the full package of amendments with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

4. In particular, that the Government of Canada, in responding to the last report of this committee, confirm its commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include provisions for duty to accommodate on the basis of disability during this sitting of Parliament.


Thursday, May 2, 1996 Human Rights (8)

I wrote:

quote:
Canada's Supreme Court has ruled definitively that same-sex partners must be included under the term "spouse"--so for better or worse, Canadian lesbian and gay couples now have to worry about such things as alimony, child support, shared taxes and separation oversight, while gaining the rights to shared pensions, wrongful-death benefits, immigration, hospital visitation and much more.

Specific benefits were changed yet that fundamental one has not; same sex marriage. If it was changed can you please direct me to any press release that covers any marriage in Canada between same-sex couples?

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 23 December 2001 10:06 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Vaudree:

Do you think marriage matters anymore with the divorce rate up to almost 50%?

John I. Fleming

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Too old to lie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1979

posted 23 December 2001 10:10 PM      Profile for Too old to lie        Edit/Delete Post
Mr Fleming is being paged in "The Childhood Poverty Myth" thread. Some admission there might be appropriate just now.
From: Planet Titanic | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 23 December 2001 11:59 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To get back to the topic, I read somewhere this weekend (I think it was a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail) that if Dr. Hill is so worried about lifestyles that spread disease, and since lesbians as a group have the lowest rate of STDs, in the name of consistency, he should be advocating that all women adopt a "lesbian lifestyle". Since he has not done so, I can only conclude that his statement is a justification for homophobia. (This comes as no surprise.)

I am heartened to see that these sorts of statements are published, widely debated and, for the most part, debunked.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 December 2001 04:45 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is, Mr Fleming, is that you've provided mutually contradictory statements here. You claim a constutional amendment is necessary to enshrine same-sex marriage, when you simultaneously admit that a Supreme Court ruling mandates that sexual orientation be read into the Charter as a legally protected basis for nondiscrimination.

Parliament is essentially breaking the law by refusing to amend the immigration or marriage laws in regard to the revised definition of 'spouse'.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 24 December 2001 06:33 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"The point is, Mr Fleming, is that you've provided mutually contradictory statements here."

No, Sir, I am not being contradictory. There are two definitions of spouse in Canadian law; married spouse; common-law spouse. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that same-sex couples be considered common-law spouses so that they could receive spousal benefits.

In the House of Commons on June 8, 1999, Ms. McLellan stated (Hansard, p. 15966-7):

"The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is "the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others."

That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition - - - I support the motion of maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

The Minister of Justice inserted this definition of marriage in Bill C-23 (same-sex benefits, called the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act) on March 22, 2000, which provided that nothing in Bill C-23 would change the definition of marriage as "the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

On April 26, 2001, the statute, Civil Law Harmonization Act, which was passed to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec, provided in S.4 that, to comply with the definition of marriage in the Quebec Civil Code, "marriage" was to be understood as:

"the free and enlightened consent of a man and a woman to be the spouse of the other."

The definition of marriage existed in law at the time of Confederation, in the British North America Act, 1867. Any change in the definition of marriage as understood by the 1867 British North America Act, could not be changed by the courts, but rather only by a full scale Constitutional amendment. The precedence was set by the British House of Lords in the case Hyde and Hyde in 1866.

In the ruling to allow same sex benefits, the Justice "agreed with the plaintiffs that the denial of a license constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but concluded that the discrimination is justified and defensible under the Canadian Constitution."

Canadian Appeals Court Rejects Same-Sex

"Parliament would not be able to change that definition unless the country were first to change the Constitution to broaden the authority originally granted Parliament."

One part of the Constitution (the equality section) (S.15) of the Charter of Rights, cannot be applied to amend another part of our Constitution (the 1867 British North America Act), as the two parts are equal and together form one body - that is the Canadian Constitution.

Therefore, Sir, there is no contradiction.

John I. Fleming

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca