|
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 20:49:35 GMT 1
Reference 'skullduggery' .. here is an interesting take on the issue of science and the homosexual lobby; www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8307647/Christian-GP-sacked-as-Government-drugs-adviser-for-gay-child-sex-link-study.htmlThe Doctor in question had produced a paper in 2006 with 6 other medical practitioners. The paper, titled Gay Marriage and Homosexuality: Some Medical Comments, was said to have summarised conclusions from research and other academic studies. "...Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population." "...disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles". "....While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable," Because of these obvious and common-sense conclusions ... the Doctor has been removed from his Government job, presumably because he may offend the Pink lobby , which represents 1% or so the population .... Now, Jean, what have you to say about that?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 12, 2011 22:21:22 GMT 1
I did no such thing and I don't care for the accusation Louise. I think simplex is just trying to stir up trouble. If you prefer to believe what simplex says that's not my problem. I can't insert passages into your posts, abacus, so if there's any skulduggery going on, it certainly isn't mine. Have another look at the quote you posted, purportedly from me. Stop this nonsense, it's just making you look worse.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 13, 2011 9:11:10 GMT 1
I can't insert passages into your posts, abacus, so if there's any skulduggery going on, it certainly isn't mine. Have another look at the quote you posted, purportedly from me. Stop this nonsense, it's just making you look worse. She never stops Abacus. She cannot. She is intellectually incontinent and never, never stops. Moderator Why is this person allowed here? She has no interest in science, has not contributed to any science threads (except to criticise individuals integrity) and seeks to foment trouble and discord at every opportunity. Now she insinuates that a regular poster is interfering with her postings! I would have thought that a minimum requirement to be here is an interest in science. She has only one interest, discord and insult Time for her to be banned from yet another board?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 13, 2011 10:10:35 GMT 1
Reference 'skullduggery' .. here is an interesting take on the issue of science and the homosexual lobby; www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8307647/Christian-GP-sacked-as-Government-drugs-adviser-for-gay-child-sex-link-study.htmlThe Doctor in question had produced a paper in 2006 with 6 other medical practitioners. The paper, titled Gay Marriage and Homosexuality: Some Medical Comments, was said to have summarised conclusions from research and other academic studies. "...Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population." "...disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles". "....While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable," Because of these obvious and common-sense conclusions ... the Doctor has been removed from his Government job, presumably because he may offend the Pink lobby , which represents 1% or so the population .... Now, Jean, what have you to say about that? There is, unfortunately emerging evidence that the 'homosexuality' lobby is becoming as stridently intolerant as the 'anti-homosexual' lobby once was, from the sad example you cite, to the recent case of the Christian B&B couple and many other examples of a hateful intolerancee Inddeed nothing is acceptable to thie homosexuality lobby than total acceptance of homosexuality, and anyone that dissents from this dogma hates homosexuals.Of course most people do not give two s---s for anyome's sexuality. They simply regard it as none of their business. But that too, is unacceptable One must conform to the newest PC dogma
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 13, 2011 10:28:36 GMT 1
Well, there they are, abacus, in all their glory - two foolish old men, and perhaps worse than that, if anyone were to take seriously what they had to say.
How do you like the company you've been keeping?
(As for your unaccountable addition to my post, it is there on the board for anyone to see! My original is post 99, which was last edited more than an hour before your post 100 which purports to quote it, but which in the process adds a line from your own reply. That post has not been edited to date.)
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 13, 2011 11:23:27 GMT 1
Well, there they are, abacus, in all their glory - two foolish old men, and perhaps worse than that, if anyone were to take seriously what they had to say. How do you like the company you've been keeping? (As for your unaccountable addition to my post, it is there on the board for anyone to see! My original is post 99, which was last edited more than an hour before your post 100 which purports to quote it, but which in the process adds a line from your own reply. That post has not been edited to date.) Simplex, you have hijacked this thread in a an attempt to turn it into a protest against homophobia which nobody has, so far, shown any sign of being. I was simply posing the question as to whether homosexuality was genetically based, which has not yet been demonstrated, not making moral judgments about it. As to the other issue, I have no idea what you are up to but all I did was to quote your post and then add my own comments. Simplex, if you cannot discuss issues like this in a grown-up way then perhaps you should not make any contributions as they seem to be inflammatory.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 13, 2011 11:34:34 GMT 1
...all I did was to quote your post and then add my own comments... Abacus, please do just one little thing, would you? Go back a page, and reread my #99. Then, read your #100. Within your quote from my #99, there appear some words which I did not write. They are words from your reply. They appear twice in the post - once as part of what I'm supposed to have said, and again as a comment from you. I've no idea how they got into the quote, but the point is that they are not my words.Will you do that, and come back and tell me what you found?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 13, 2011 11:36:16 GMT 1
This is the problem when minority lobbies get out of hand, naymissus, they can become blind to other people's beliefs and seek to totally impose their own views on everyone else. Homosexuals have a right to practice what they wish in private but that does not mean the rest of us have to grant them total approval because it is still a free country and as such we are all free to follow our own paths, as long as we respect other people's right to do the same. For example, I would not myself want to put tattoos on my skin but some people do and however much I abhor the practice recognize their right to do so. That's just life and people like simplex should grow up and realize it. Live and let live, simplex, that should be your credo love.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 13, 2011 11:43:27 GMT 1
...all I did was to quote your post and then add my own comments. Simplex, if you cannot discuss issues like this in a grown-up way then perhaps you should not make any contributions as they seem to be inflammatory. Abacus, please do just one little thing, would you? Go back a page, and reread my #99. Then, read your #100. Within your quote from my #99, there appear some words which I did not write. They appear to be words from your reply. I've no idea how they got into the quote, but the point is that they are not my words.Will you do that, and come back and tell me what you found? Simplex, for the last time, I did not alter your original post in any way to my knowledge, ok? Whether you are being mischievous or something happened accidentally I can't say but doing something like that on purpose to malign somebody's character is something I would never dream of doing. How many more ways can I say it?
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Feb 13, 2011 11:51:44 GMT 1
This board is not going to degenerate into interminable squabbles between Hartrick and others.
Thread closed.
|
|