Originally posted by FMFgoodbye FMF, you simply will not learn.
I am responding directly to your post on this page of this thread, robbie. When you mentioned "entry to [an] establishment" you were referring to business premises, right? Would you settle for an end to institutionalized discrimination against gays if the political compromise was that it brought an end to such "court orders" as you mentioned in your post?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you yourself were not "hijacking" the thread when you said "I will not prosecute you in you refuse me entry to your establishment on the basis of my race, creed or religion or any other reason, i will simply go somewhere else. But if i was gay you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was refused entry on the basis of my sexual preference i would make you subject to a court order", how on earth can I be accused of "hijacking" the thread by simply responding to what you said?
goodbye FMF, you simply will not learn.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInstead of reading what Mr Fisher says, try looking at the data. Then consider why he has decided to exclude women from the sample he presents (and, by extension, all female sex-workers). If you are unable to connect the dots... well, I'm sure you are. Whether you will admit that is, of course, another matter entirely.
the figures are what they are, the assertion therefore that gays (in particular) gay men are more promiscuous is certainly true, for at least a percentage of those practising homosexuality.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat you are railing against here is nothing to do with having other people's morality imposed upon you, it is legislation to prevent organisations such as yours from imposing it's morality upon others.
On the contrary, there are those who are determined to impose a morality on others and who will prosecute you if you do not accept their morality under the guise of sexual discrimination. I will not prosecute you in you refuse me entry to your establishment on the basis of my race, creed or religion or any other reason, i will simply go somewhere el ...[text shortened]... arly you need to feel your bum and be brought back to reality about who is imposing what on who.
You explicity attempt to propagate a belief that homosexuality is "contrary to nature, unhealthy and unacceptable" all according to your faith, and then you deny that you are trying to impose those views!? Are you actually two people?!?
And what is this?
...Clearly you need to feel your bum...Really RC, it's coming across as an uncontrollable obsession you have with people's bottoms.
Originally posted by avalanchethecathis comparison is between homosexual and heterosexual men and levels of promiscuity. Why you should seek to introduce other elements remains known only to you, but its not the only study and Dr. Diggs cites many others in support of the view.
Instead of reading what Mr Fisher says, try looking at the data. Then consider why he has decided to exclude women from the sample he presents (and, by extension, all female sex-workers). If you are unable to connect the dots... well, I'm sure you are. Whether you will admit that is, of course, another matter entirely.
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwe are not the ones prosecuting others because of our sexual preferences, are we? Its us that need protection from the gay lobby. You have no need of accepting those views, I certainly wont prosecute you if you don't. Lol, feel your bum is a simple colloquialism for, be brought back to reality out of a dream like state.
What you are railing against here is nothing to do with having other people's morality imposed upon you, it is legislation to prevent organisations such as yours from imposing it's morality upon others.
You explicity attempt to propagate a belief that homosexuality is "contrary to nature, unhealthy and unacceptable" all according to your faith, an ...[text shortened]... ally RC, it's coming across as an uncontrollable obsession you have with people's bottoms.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould you settle for a complete dismantling of all institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals in return for them being unable to prosecute you, as a business owner, because of your objection to their sexual preference and for denying them entry to your establishment?
we are not the ones prosecuting others because of our sexual preferences, are we? Its us that need protection from the gay lobby. You have no need of accepting those views, I certainly wont prosecute you if you don't.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut if the study includes any male sex-workers, then the results are skewed to falsely suggest higher promiscuity among homosexual males as a simple consequence of normal human behaviour. How can you not understand that?
his comparison is between homosexual and heterosexual men and levels of promiscuity. Why you should seek to introduce other elements remains known only to you, but its not the only study and Dr. Diggs cites many others in support of the view.
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI understand it, but its an EPIC failure of a proviso, why, Fischer states,
But if the study includes any male sex-workers, then the results are skewed to falsely suggest higher promiscuity among homosexual males as a simple consequence of normal human behaviour. How can you not understand that?
You will note that I have selected the data so that we are comparing gay men with straight men who are not currently married. I separated out the married straight men. I did this because it is important to compare, as it were, apples to apples. So, in comparing apples to apples, I compare groups that are in a similar situation—that is, I compare gay relationships taking place without the benefit of marriage with straight relationships of the same.
His focus is not on casual sexual encounters, but on relationships!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat the...
I understand it, but its an EPIC failure of a proviso, why, Fischer states,
You will note that I have selected the data so that we are comparing gay men with straight men who are not currently married. I separated out the married straight men. I did this because it is important to compare, as it were, apples to apples. So, in comparing apples to ...[text shortened]... lationships of the same.
His focus is not on casual sexual encounters, but on relationships!
Are you just trolling now? Did you look at the reports he culled his figures from?
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chrisdo you think that homosexuality is immutable? what evidence do you have for the claim? if not, why are you making it akin to a persons racial characteristics, which most certainly are immutable? are you claiming that a person cannot change their sexual preferences like their racial characteristics?
this thread begs the question what is legal / acceptable to put online,
i don't think i would be allowed a national front thread, but this one gets through...
and it is not a credit to RHP that it is still up.
I used to work as a fraud analyst and in one of my dumber moments, I went on a tirade about illegal immigrants using card fraud in the UK and how the police don't care, its true they do. but in the context i put it it sounded racist, and the thread was taken down ...
so should this one
Originally posted by e4chriswhy should it be?
and it is not a credit to RHP that it is still up.
I used to work as a fraud analyst and in one of my dumber moments, I went on a tirade about illegal immigrants using card fraud in the UK and how the police don't care, its true they do. but in the context i put it it sounded racist, and the thread was taken down ...
so should this one