The "gay Gene"

[Hugo]

um, the law specifically protects religous values

I have never, ever argued against homosexuality from a religious standpoint. Therefore, according to C-250, I am a hate criminal and unprotected by laws of religious freedom. It is not misinformation at all to state that, in violation of this law, I am subject to penalty up to and including 5 years imprisonment. That is what the current hate crime legislation, which C-250 merely adds to, prescribes.

heterosexual males probably lag very closely behind the average gay man inter terms of total partners. [emphasis mine]

No, they do not. Homosexuals have hundreds or even thousands more lifetime sexual partners than heterosexuals on average. This is the fact that's been borne out by every study I have read, and it's why their incidence of serious STDs is 2300% that of heterosexuals, their average life expectancy is 42 years, and that 80% of STDs are suffered by 3% of the population - the homosexuals.

Now, I really must object to your post. You accuse me of misinformation because I am citing exact figures, percentages and penalties of law, and then you go on to talk about "heterosexual males probably lag very closely", and "i doubt just from common sense".

Come on. I'm citing studies and facts, so you accuse me of misinformation, and then tell me what's "probably" true and what "you doubt" without any facts or citation to back it up?

Nova, I don't believe I falsely attributed anything to you. Can you quote me so doing?

[FastNed]

OK, SirRiff, I've read your response and I'm still attempting to reach an understanding of the potential for the existence of, and the ramifications of a "Gay" gene. I do not know the technical language of genetics so excuse my terminology and correct it where necessary.

I am differentiating between 'primary' and secondary' genes in looking at this because if a gay gene was a 'primary' recessive, probability theory would give us a 25% population and the figure I see most commonly for a gay male population is 3%. (Side thought - can you work back from 3% and say anything meaningful about such a genetic distribution?).

If I understand what you have said, somewhere in a gene,

'sexual attraction', 'aggressiveness', 'nest-building', 'testosterone production' or something like this, there is a recessive factor (element?) which when aligned so that the recessive factors merge (mate) (compliment each other) the result is a desire for same sex pairing. As same sex pairing is non-reproductive, this is obviously a genetic dead end and I do not state that as a value judgment as to the individuals who carry these genes but as a evaluation of its genetic value to the survival of the species.

I realize that six thousand years is a mere second in terms of genetics and evolution of a species but the 3% - the size of it - bothers me. Ignoring any value judgment other than the survival of the species, and accepting that a 'non-reproduction' gene is a species dead end, does this number track with overall genetic theory? I ask because none of the genetic disorders (for lack of a better term) appear to have this large a population, perhaps excepting the 'malaria' gene in Black people which you mentioned.

[nova_satori]

Sorry, It you quoted Ned. my bad

I was like, "WTF, i never talk about child abuse anywhere."

I'll try not to do it again

[SirRiff]

CRAIG

Okay provide some sources for this.

Hugo has provided plenty that show the opposite to be true.

penty of sources? i dont ever recall seeing more then one or two links, and i even forget where i saw those, in this thread or maybe somewhere else. again, i ask, if you guys remember where they are exactly, please copy and paste them for me, i barely remember anything anymore.

while i agree craig that good sources for this kind of statistical argument is good, i dont want to get into just a source war. Yes i will definatly look for something reputable considering its an interesting topic (it may take some digging around), but the only thing of value would be a huge long term independant study, like from the CDC or something, and i dont think they exist. so the while its good to cite external references, i think a philosophical logical approach is also very productive. i just wanted to say we shouldnt get caught up with #s of links as strength of an argument. the great thinkers of history probably had reference to very little reference material.

at the number of children in the states that come back to different then assumed fathers and you see that heterosexual males probably lag very closely behind the average gay man inter terms of total partners.

now in term of this specific statement, i do belive it to be true and i specifically remember hearing it on some somt of medical investigation series on an american news program. in truth of all the "suspicious" paternity tests done, something like 1 in 7 come back to unpresumed fathers.

so the greater point is that heterosexuals are very promiscious as well, so just being promiscuis cannot be fairly used as a failing of homosexuals. even the degree is questionable, who gets to decide that 100 partners is ok but 31 isnt? if someone had sex safe with 573 partners over 40 years, does society have any right to judge? i would say no on philosophical and ethical grounds.

the issue is larger - it has to do with constitional powers, the meaning of the word family, state vs. church separation and the imposition of judicial decree over parliamentary debate based on the FALSE assumption that Gayness is natural.

see i dont agree that your using the world "natural" in even a remotely ethical way. i think you are using it as anything that doesnt match your perception is unnatural, but in reality thats not what natural means.

it is an absolute scientific truth that sexual behavior is genetically hardwired. it must be for the laws of biology to work (and they do). thus the only thing standing between gayness being "natural" is finding the narrow sexual prefernce of humans being influenced by genetics. i personally think its unthinkable for it not to be, considering all the genetic influence on almost all human behavior. it makes no sense that it wouldnt be and lots of sense that it would.

What Hugo is trying to tell you is that the political process for change in marriage is based on FLAWED data and unproven assumptions.

i humbly suggest (without elicting the wrath of Ronda) that the vast majority of citizens or politicians couldnt make heads or tails of genetic "evidence" if presented with it ona silver platter. its a very complicated and specalized science, often takes decades to "prove" conclusively, is easily held back by the flaws of society, and when dealing with something as complex as human sexual behavour it will most likely NEVER give you a simple answer like 47.5%. it just wont. you cant reduce human behavior to numbers and correlations. we are just too complex and too hard to measure.

i belive homosexual attraction, just like heterosexual attraction, is strongly influenced by inherited characteristics. thus it would be as natural as blue eyes regardless of how it is encoded or complexly hidden.

so the problem is really what are we asking craig?

we can say

1. can we reasonably and ethically make a case against homosexuality on the grounds its presents a uniqure and specific threat to the health and welfare of society?

2. and if so, how does it present a greater danger then various other accepted sub populations of citizens?

examples

young males are far more likely to die and kill and traffic accidents and other riskly behaviors. societies response is to the harmfull behavior itself, trying to mitigate the damgae, not to the people themselves, regardless of what the root cause is.

young black males in inner cities are far more likely to enage in drug crimes (and are way overrepresented in the jail system) and violence then their white middle class counter parts. is this due to thier deviant makeup or socio- economc pressure?

disadvantaged minority groups, like low income blacks and latinos have higher average birth rates and higher sexual disease transmissions. is this due to deviant culture or low economic status?

if a social class who had high rates of hepatitis engaged in very riskly sexual behaviors within thier population, is that a threat to society at whole? a contained group of people who have higher then average disease rates ?

are these "threatening" subpopulations a threat to nobody, a threat to themselves, or a threat to society? who decides? what is an appropriate response? do all groups need to be treated similiarly or can we target specific groups?

just on teh entire "gays are a health hazzard" argument (which i think is a bait and switch for a religously maintained philosophical argument) i dont think you can make a sound philosophical argument that society has the morality and judgement to target gays on the grouds of danger without applying the same precautions to many other groups. especially when you consider the question, who exactly do all these historically feared subpopulations threaten? are they dangers to themselves or society?

That is the issue. Not whether you fly rainbow flags from your bedroom window.

i got a canadian flag on my balcony thanks. wait...is.. is that a rainbow flag in your closet i see?

HUGO

I have never, ever argued against homosexuality from a religious standpoint. Therefore, according to C-250, I am a hate criminal and unprotected by laws of religious freedom. It is not misinformation at all to state that, in violation of this law, I am subject to penalty up to and including 5 years imprisonment. That is what the current hate crime legislation, which C-250 merely adds to, prescribes.

that is obviously not what the law says, else it would never have gotten passed. its this kind of hysterical response that weakens your point.

not accepting homosexuals will not get you prosecuting. inciting hatred of homosexuals will.

somethign that will incite violence, incite discrimination, and fear monger. if you do that, you are a bigot and deserve what you get. these are called hate laws. they protect any minority against hate speech, not free speech.

if you dont condone homosexuality and say it, nobody will bother you. it isnt ment to be any more protective of gays then blacks really.

Hugo, if we see a guy on teh news get charged for saying something harmless like "homosexuality isnt right" we will all know you are right.

No, they do not. Homosexuals have hundreds or even thousands more lifetime sexual partners than heterosexuals on average. This is the fact that's been borne out by every study I have read, and it's why their incidence of serious STDs is 2300% that of heterosexuals, their average life expectancy is 42 years, and that 80% of STDs are suffered by 3% of the population - the homosexuals.

i just dont belive that. THOUSANDS of partners? thats alot for any normal person. again, i dont recall any links recently, so if anybody has one, post it again so we can all find it.

and there is no way that most homosexuals have 23X the STD rates of heteros. no way. just cant be. they would all be dead already.

serious, direct me to a serious study that says homosexuals have 23X the rate of STDS and a 42 yr lifespan. i cant wrap my head around those numbers.

Now, I really must object to your post. You accuse me of misinformation because I am citing exact figures, percentages and penalties of law, and then you go on to talk about "heterosexual males probably lag very closely", and "i doubt just from common sense".

Come on. I'm citing studies and facts, so you accuse me of misinformation, and then tell me what's "probably" true and what "you doubt" without any facts or citation to back it up?

well i was talking just about what i think are more reasonable differences. again, if you post some big study that says otherwise, then i will rethink that. but i cannot accept the rates you cite, they are way off for reality.

and i know alot of guys that slept with 20+ girls in university alone, i cannot belive that patner rates for modern homosexuals are astronomically above those for promiscious young heterosexual. certainly not 1000s and 1000s, its too wild to claim without a public health study backing it up. please post the link.

in my personal opinion, the STD/patner rates for homosexual are higher then heteros, but that itself does not further the argument against in any way as i can see,

if a gay man and a straight man both expose themselves to personal risk during consensual sex, society can make them less equal?

its perfectly expected that two males who are both sexually aggressive would have more sex then a man and women, because in society women are always the limited factors to a mans sexual success. that is why a women can easily find 100 partners in a bar and a man is luckly to find 1 at all. obviously MM is less sexually restricted then MF, which is most likely less restrictive then FF based on sexual psychology.

i just dont see the argument here.

men seek sex, its natural, you can see it manifset in the multi billion $$ porn industry targeted at men by far, the fact rape is exclusively attempted by men, prostitution targeted to men, and so on.

a heterosexual man is much more sexually aggress then a F.

thus two gay men would definately have more sexual partners.

is that unnatural? no, it isny by any definition.

is that a public health hazard?

maybe, buy who gets to decide what race, or income, or prefernce is a threat to soceity? as i said, blacks have higher STD rates, so do the poor. so is 40% OK but 101% a hazard? and who can say that a teenage boy can risk sleeping with 7 girls during high school but a gay man cant risk it with 20 men? isnt it all personal risk? just like smoking tobacco, or drinking, or driving fast?

when does individual behavior become a risk to society?

i say that any argument aginst gays on this ground would fail if you tried to apply it fairly against racial, or economc or other catagories. not to mention the problem of defining exactly what a threat to society is, considering blacks were probobly considering one 200 years ago.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

that is obviously not what the law says, else it would never have gotten passed. its this kind of hysterical response that weakens your point.

Please, read the law. C-250 simply extends the hate speech law to cover homosexuals.

Under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all.

You have not seen any prosecutions because the Senate has not ratified C-250 yet.

Please don't accuse me of hysteria when it's obvious that you are completely unfamiliar with the material.

i just dont belive that. THOUSANDS of partners? thats alot for any normal person. again, i dont recall any links recently, so if anybody has one, post it again so we can all find it... serious, direct me to a serious study that says homosexuals have 23X the rate of STDS and a 42 yr lifespan. i cant wrap my head around those numbers.

I'll re-post this for you, but this is the last time. You will have to pay attention in future.

From "Public Education Against America” by Marlin Maddoux:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.

A Bell and Weinberg study found that 43 percent of the gay men surveyed estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners. 75 percent estimated 100 or more partners. 28 percent estimated more than 1,000 partners.

In this same study it was revealed that 79 percent said that more than half of their partners were anonymous, and 70 percent said that more than half of their partners were men with whom they had sex only once.

A later study by these two researchers estimated that only 2 percent of homosexuals could be considered monogamous or even semi-monogamous (having ten or less lifetime partners).

One study found that 38 percent of lesbians surveyed had between 11 and 300 sexual partners. Another revealed that 41 percent of lesbians admitted to having between 10 and 500 lifetime partners.

From the Center for Disease Control:

Homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases even though they constitute a mere 3% of the population.

Youths engaging in homosexual behavior are 23 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than strictly heterosexual youths.

Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, four times as likely to have scabies.

Male homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have syphilis than male heterosexuals. They are also thousands of times more likely to have AIDS.

In 1991 and 1992 a survey of 5,371 obituaries from sixteen American homosexual newspapers found that across the United States, the median age of death for a homosexual male not having AIDS was only 42 years, with a mere 9 percent living to old age. Of 106 lesbians surveyed, the median lifespan was only 45 years, with 26 percent living to old age.

[SirRiff]

HUGO a scientific source is the primary souce. the actually study from some sort of respected instituation.

In 1991 and 1992 a survey of 5,371 obituaries from sixteen American homosexual newspapers found that across the United States, the median age of death for a homosexual male not having AIDS was only 42 years, with a mere 9 percent living to old age. Of 106 lesbians surveyed, the median lifespan was only 45 years, with 26 percent living to old age.

i did a quick search and found a many links that repeated the 42 yr life span number.

here is one;

The average lifespan of a homosexual man is 42 years versus the average lifespan of a normal man being 75 years! The average lifespan of a lesbian woman is 45 years versus the average lifespan of a normal woman being 79! We need Truthspeak in the media, in education and in the government! (Source of statistics: Family Research Institute as quoted by Dr. D. James Kennedy in his letter dated August 31, 1995.)

here is another;

McMahan said she told the forum audience that the homosexual lifestyle is "not healthy and not normal" citing a statistics that said Gay men who are not HIV-positive live an average of 42 years, compared to the average American male lifespan of 72 years.

The statistics McMahan cited were unattributed at the forum but she said later the "widely published" stats were gathered by the Family Research Council from 126 obituaries of "known homosexual" men published in the Seattle Gay News from January through November 1994.

again and again they cite these family research institutes, and councils studying some # of obituaries.

well i went to FRI website and they pretty much hate gays in every way possible. they are not a legitimate scientific institute. they publish policies based on religous values, they are not scientists, they dont publish methadology, and they dont subject their findings to peer review. all basic requirements of real science.

some of their thier "reports" are titled;

The Plague, SARS, and Gay Rights

Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children

Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest

How Much Rape is Homosexual Rape?

Mental Health of Homosexuals

Christianity in Crosshairs of CDC?

Mental Health Professionals Endorse Pro-Gay Propaganda

Stopping Gay Parents: The Ammunition is There

they have no evidence of being anything more then a "traditional" values organization that publishes anti-gay literature. thats it. they are not scientists or independant in anyway. they obviously detest homosexuality and publish opinons to that effect. no intelligent person would consider thier "study" of obituaries to be credible.

a real study has a defined methadology that is peer reviewed.

the CDC is respected. if THEY did a study on gay lifespans i would believe it.

thus when i asked you for a source for the 42 year life span, it was not that i wasnt paying attention as you put it, i realize anybody can post crap, but i was asking for a link to a government organization, or a medical advocacy group, or something with independance and credibility.

if you know an independent scientific study that suggetst a 42 yr life span for homosexuals, please post the link to the study. otherwise, i think its obvious that specific claim is completely unproven.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

Well, Riff, those figures on gay disease incidence were from the CDC, and it seems to me that you could not have those diseases without it impacting life-span. AIDS alone is far, far more prevalent amongst the homosexual community (a homosexual is "thousands of times more likely" to contract the disease, according to CDC) and as AIDS is an invariably fatal disease, that must also have a significant impact on the life expectancy. A separate study, I believe from Bell and Weinberg, stated that a 21-year-old homosexual had a 50% chance of being either dead or HIV-positive within 10 years.

Now, if you actually have any evidence that contradicts my findings, please post it. But given those disease statistics and the extreme promiscuity of the gay community, combined with their disregard for safe sex protocol, it is pretty easy to believe the case for a 42-year average lifespan.

[SirRiff]

Now, if you actually have any evidence that contradicts my findings, please post it. But given those disease statistics and the extreme promiscuity of the gay community, combined with their disregard for safe sex protocol, it is pretty easy to believe the case for a 42-year average lifespan.

well if there entire basis for the 42 figure is those family councils, there is nothing to contradict. i actually dont know what hte life span for a gay man is, i will look around for some credible numbers, but 42 is just as arbitrary as 64.

and those CDC statements are from the same guy who cited the 42 number. generally if you are stating a CDC study you can cite the study name or link to the results.

what are you quoting when you say "thousands of times more likey"? its not in the original book quote.

people with obvious biases need to do more then just say the Family council says this or the CDC says this. the CDC publishes its work and its very easy to reference. nothign in that quote is easy to believe to me. those numbers seem manipulated i think. especially considering the 42 number that is arbitrary at best.

i dont know where the CDC says gays are thousands of times more likely to have AIDS.

none of this stuff is solid when you consider how high the numbers are claimed

SirRiff

[Hugo]

It's a nightmare trying to find anything on the CDC website.

Furthermore, I have already done a load of research on this, and you have cited nothing. I am getting tired of doing all the legwork in this debate, when all you come back with is unfounded "doubt" and what your "common sense" can tell you. I think it's about time that you did some research of your own and actually did something solid to refute my findings, if you can.

[SirRiff]

Furthermore, I have already done a load of research on this, and you have cited nothing. I am getting tired of doing all the legwork in this debate,

you think citing the family research council is legwork?? thats like me citing GLAAD.

my god man, i havnt seen anything in the entire thread referenceing a primary scientific source, nothing at all. im confused about all these sources you cited because the latest one is

From "Public Education Against America” by Marlin Maddoux:

which is odd, because its just a copy and past of a section of a book by a right wing guy who doesnt like gays. you call that support for heath data on gays?

you are the one that says gays are "thousands" of times more likely to get AIDS, you are the one who says the average life span of gay men is 42 years.

all i am asking is that if you expect anybody to take those two very alarming numbers seriously, that you actually reference a primary study or organization. CDC, a hospital study, a public medical association, an international academic paper, SOMETHING of substance where scientists (not religous/policy people just claims) cite thier methods, subject themselves to some sort of peer review, and present thier data in scientific form. not just saying "we looked at newspapers and found this". that is NOT sciencie.

I will give you an example.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)

http://www.pipa.org/

they state who they are

PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland  (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland.

they state methodology

METHODOLOGY

The poll was fielded by Knowledge

Networks, a polling, social science, and

market research firm in Menlo Park,

California, with a randomly selected sample

of its large- scale nationwide research panel.

This panel is itself randomly selected from

the national population of households

having telephones and subsequently

provided internet access for the completion

of surveys (and thus is not limited to those

who already have internet access). The

distribution of the sample in the webenabled

panel closely tracks the distribution

of United States Census counts for the US

population on age, race, Hispanic ethnicity,

geographical region, employment status,

income, education, etc.

they produce raw data

Dates of Survey: Margin of Error: +/- 2-3.5 %

Sample Size:

June through September: 3334

Jun: 1051

Jul: 1066

Aug/Sep: 1217

May: 1256

Mar: 795

Feb: 2186 + (997) over-sample in 5 major states

Jan: 1063

Total Sample: 8634 + (997) over-sample

Q1: Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war

against Iraq?

state their funding and sampling biases

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is

randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet

access. For more information about this methodology, go to

www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford

Foundation.

the result of this particular study was...

i havnt seen anything cited (that i recall seeing) ANYTHING that is scientific, independant, credible, verifiable, or unbiases such as the CDC, or other sources i listed above. these are the only kind of oraganizations that would be able to produce real numbers on this kind of health study.

so i dont think you are doing any more work then me when i point out the absolute nonsense of the 42 year number when citing the family research council who lack any of characteristics of scientific study.

yes i agree the CDC website is hardcore, but that is 'Proof" if you want to claim proof. just like the PIPA study is "proof" that misinformation bias can be matched to news source.

i'm just saying, the person who claims proof of something like gay men living half as long and having thousands of sex partners should be too surprised when challenged to produce a credible source.

i recall writing a paper on historical observable mutation rates of the human X chromosome, and the days and weeks of research on international genetic databases that were required just to confirm and cross verify your conclusions, not to mention the detailed referencing and sourcing you need to do for some complex data. this is how truly scientific knowledge is vetted and eventually accepted.

SirRiff

[Scotchneat]

Hugo, Not only are you ignorant of genetics and science in general, but you also know nothing about law.

Bill C-250, simply seeks to add sexual orientation to s.318 (4) of the Criminal Code.

This is the actual law:

["318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of

(2) (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of

(3) (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(4) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such convictions, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

]

["Under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all."

]

Sorry, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about. First, Zundel denies the Holocaust. Second, he was charged under the "False New" section of the criminal code and went to prison for 15 months. He was later convicted again and the law was struck by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional (R. v. Zundel). He was deported but he's free. You seem to share the same ideas, so maybe you should get in touch with him.

As you can see under 319 (4) , the law offers a wide defense which would cover the posts that you have made here.

I know you would dearly love to be prosecuted, but unfortunately the homosexual liberal conspiracy that you believe doesn't exist. The law is essential symbolic as s.319 (6) shows.

[Scotchneat]

Sorry, Ernst Zundel is now facing deportation to Germany after having been deported from the US. He is being deported as a threat to Canadian security due to his links to extreme right wing and Neo-Nazi groups.

In the meantime, he is in prison, albeit not for the reasons given by Hugo who seems to think that Ernst Zundel is an innocent Holocaust scholar.

[Scotchneat]

[under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all."]

I can't believe that anyone would write something like the above. Ernst Zundel is and was one of the main purveyors of Nazi and anti-semitic hate literature in the world. He has clearly stated that Holocaust is a hoax promoted by the Jews to extort money.

He wasn't charged under the hate speech provisions because they thought it would be too difficult to convict him. (And yet according to the great legal scholar Hugo large numbers of "Christians" will be carted off to prison for speaking out against homosexuality).

I don't support hate speech or false news laws, but I fully understand why Zundel was a target. Obviously Hugo doesn't. :angry:

[Hugo]

Scotch,

The law that you have cited is vague and fails to define "hatred." Therefore, if a lawyer can argue in a court that my comments on this forum may have caused a breach of the peace, I can be convicted. You may think it's all fine and dandy, but I think a lawyer could twist this around pretty easily.

FastNed, you're a lawyer, aren't you? Do you think this law could be used against me for the comments I have made in public?

And yet according to the great legal scholar Hugo large numbers of "Christians" will be carted off to prison for speaking out against homosexuality

Now, this just illustrates your libellous debating tactics, because this is the precise opposite of what I said.

Riff,

The fact remains that you still have not cited any evidence to contradict what I say. You have not disputed the CDC's figures, so is it your opinion that being 2,300% more likely to contract an STD or 500,000% more likely to contract AIDS would not/B] shorten your lifespan at all?

Anyway, consider the following:

studies showing 28% of male homosexuals having had over 1000 sexual partners and nearly 43% having had over 500 partners.

--Sally Ann Steward, "AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners Among Gay Men," USA Today, November 21, 1984: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, "Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women," Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978, pp. 308-309; A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith, "Sexual Preference," Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1981

Less than 2% of homosexuals claim monogamy (10 or less partners) and research consistently shows that a "sexually open" relationship is essential to maintain a long-term gay male relationship.

--McWhirter and Mattison, "The Male Couple," 1984 (themselves homosexual)

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

--International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661

A study using 103 pairs of twins, one a practicing homosexual and the other not, found that homosexual behavior significantly increased the likelihood of suicide even after adjustments were made for substance abuse and depression. The practicing homosexual twin was over 5 times more likely to experience the suicidal symptoms. The study measured suicide risk in terms of the categories: "wanted to die," "suicidal ideation," "attempted suicide," and "thoughts about death." The study was unique for its thorough co-twin control design and its use of the most widely used instrument in psychiatric epidemiology, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. (emphasis mine)

--AMA’s Archives of General Psychiatry, October 1999

The hypothesis that high suicide rates among homosexuals is the result of adverse societal attitudes is not borne out by studies which show that distress among homosexuals does not decrease as social tolerance is increased, as for example in Denmark.

--Williams and Weinberg - 1974

98% of homosexuals practice dangerous and bizarre sexual activities.

--The Gay Report, Jay and Young, Summit Books

Homosexual men live an average of 40 years, compared to the general male standard of 70+. Lesbian life expectancy is 45 years, compared to a heterosexual woman's 76 years.

--American Center for Disease Control

Homosexual males are more likely than heretosexual males to suffer the following diseases by these multiples:

Syphilis - 14 times

Gonorrhea - 3 times

Genital warts - 3 times

Hepatitis B - 8 times

Scabies - 5 times

Penile infection - 30 times

Anal Infection - 100 times

AIDS - 5000 times (emphasis mine) 

--American Center for Disease Control

Alright, Riff, it's your turn. You have not cited a single source, study or piece of evidence to support your views, only your personal "doubts" and "common sense."

Now, put up or shut up.

[Hugo]

I apologise for the formatting errors, I'm unable to edit them out for some reason.

[SirRiff]

Homosexual men live an average of 40 years, compared to the general male standard of 70+. Lesbian life expectancy is 45 years, compared to a heterosexual woman's 76 years.

--American Center for Disease Control

is this a study? or book excerpt? or what? i cant find this anywhere on the CDC site. i dont know where it came from

SirRiff

[Hugo]

That one's probably erroneous. I'm not sure if the CDC even did it (although numerous places seem to think they did, if you Google it), but it looks suspect now that I look at it in detail.

So, scratch that one. Now, what about the rest of them?

[SirRiff]

omg...i hope i am not right....

ok the International Journal of Epidemiology statistical modelling of HIV life expectancies found at

http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf

tables the "life expectancy....at exact age 20 for gay and bisexual men in all vancouver"

the live expectancy at age 20 is either an additional 34, 42.6, or 46.3 years depending on the modelled gay population.

which is an average of 34+42+46/3= 41 years.

is this where people get the 42 life span numbeR??

because it would be stupid to do so. that is the expected age from age 20. not the total life span.

one HUGE thing not mentioned in the paper is that vancouver has a MASSIVE drug problem. this study was done from data on 1987-1992 numbers so we have a massive heroine problem in vancouver targeted to who? young males. we also have the aids explosion of the 80s targeted to who? young males. so the conbination of the greatest AIDs explosion ever, not to mention a institutionalized dirty needle problem in vancouver int he 80s would definately shorten the lifespan of a gay man.

they actually mentioned they picked vancouver because it has among the worst AIDs rates in Canada, no doubt from all the dirty needles through the 80s and 90s (i hear they made a big effort to clean up lately with safe injection sites)

so by those numbers, the WORST HIV city in Canada, and the WORST drug city in Canada both during the late 80s, they predict by modeling the average life expectancy of a gay man (average of all 3 population models) is about 61 years, compared to 74 years for all men.

so in a city with the highest AIDS rate, and with the worst drug problem, both of which target primarily young men, the average 20 yr old gay male will unfortunately loose 12 years of his life due to premature death.

i would say that is pretty reasonable.

but then again HUGO, if you slept with prostitutes in down town vancouver and were a drug addict, you wouldnt live very long either now would you?

this is worst case scenario stuff, but we could go to the poorest city in the US, with the highest gang violence rates, and model the age and incarceration rates of young black 20 yr old males and come back with the worst case numbers- is that an argument against blacks?

i think this study shows that high risk behavior is more likely to kill you. simple as that.

i recall wilt chamberlin (sp) (the basketball player) saying he had sex with 17000 women during his career and gene simmons (of KISS) saying thousands and thousands.

what does this prove? given the opportunity, MOST MEN will have massive amounts of sex. the limited facter in most mens # of partners is the willingness of females. a women can go to a bar and have sex 100 times, a man might get lucky once (if he is lucky).

thus it is pefectly reasonable to presume that two men who lack the hesitations of women will be more sexually agressive then a man and women.

so really all this talk about gay parters is just about the matching of sex drives. a high sex drive women will likely harm her health just like a high sex drive gay man. why? becuase both will have multiple willing partners.

it is no more the fault of gay men acting like men then it is the millions of yougn men at bars every night acting like men.

if tomorrow morning every women became a nymphomaniac, we would see pregnancies skyrocket and disease transmissions hit the roof. why? because men act like men.

so why is it immoral for a gay men to have sex like a man but a hetero man not to? the only differnce is that straight men dont have near as receptive partners as gay men. the sex drive is the same in both, and the risks if thier targets were receptive would be the same too.

also, i think its reasonable to presume that after the drugs raveged through vancourver, and AIDs ravaged the gay community, and that safe sex education has started, that people (other then junkies) take far more precautions now then in the 80s. i think the numbers would have come down in 2003 for non drug users.

if AIDS had started at Woodstock 1969 we coudl have make the same argument against the "free love" hippie chicks there.

so we know;

drugs are bad

unsafe sex is bad for anybody

its obvious most men would be promiscuous given the chance (equally willing partners)

AIDS kills you early

you males are the most risk taking demographic anywhere

i dont see how a the normal male sexual behavior of high sex drive, high risk behavior of young males in general such as drug abuse, or the localizing of healh problems to a subpopulation such as smokers or alcoholics, makes homosexuals immoral. everything is as natural as anybody else to me.

the only legitimate question is: On what criteria can soceity say the actions of a subpopulation constitute a threat to the health and wellbeing of society as a whole?

now THAT is teh question.

SirRiff

i will look at some of the other quotes you put up there, but i still cant find the 42 year# anywhere else, and i hope that some moron didnt take remaining life expectancy and confuse it with total life expectancy and post it all over th web.

[SirRiff]

Alright, Riff, it's your turn. You have not cited a single source, study or piece of evidence to support your views, only your personal "doubts" and "common sense."

That one's probably erroneous. I'm not sure if the CDC even did it (although numerous places seem to think they did, if you Google it), but it looks suspect now that I look at it in detail.

i appreciate your honestly, and not to be an ass, but i did spot that one right off the bat and i think that lends a little bit of credabilty to my "doubts" and "common sense"

i will read up on the other ones

SirRiff

[Hugo]

is this where people get the 42 life span numbeR??

No, I believe that figure came from a survey of obituaries in gay magazines and newspapers, and it was arrived at after deaths from AIDS were removed. However, it doesn't take into account deaths that were not in those newspapers and it occurs to me that those with obituaries in gay publications were probably the more flamboyant of their orientation and any estimate thus derived is probably erroneous.

It's probably difficult to gather actual facts on this since death certificates and coroner's reports generally don't give information on sexual orientation. From the number of times I saw this on the web, however, your guess that nitwits have posted this all over the place is, unfortunately, probably true.

what does this prove? given the opportunity, MOST MEN will have massive amounts of sex.

Maybe, but the statistics say that homosexuals are far more promiscuous, for whatever reason. They also say that homosexuals suffer far more diseases, for whatever reason.

so in a city with the highest AIDS rate, and with the worst drug problem, both of which target primarily young men, the average 20 yr old gay male will unfortunately loose 12 years of his life due to premature death.

Good point, but you should also note that AIDS is so predominantly suffered by homosexuals it is not funny, and that instances of substance abuse and hard drug abuse, like suicide, are far higher amongst homosexuals.

So, is it the case that drug and AIDS deaths are skewing the figures for homosexuals - or is it the other way around?

It seems to me that the odds of AIDS, drug abuse, suicide, serious STDs and so forth are stacked greatly against homosexuals. That can't be good, and the fact that these problems occur so much more in the gay community, to my mind, can only mean that either:

1) Homosexuality often causes the above problems.

2) Homosexuality and the above problems are usually caused by another, underlying problem.

Myself, I subscribe to the latter idea. I find that, although anal sex does have health risks, it's implausible that anal sex alone would cause the problems that plague the homosexual community.

On what criteria can soceity say the actions of a subpopulation constitute a threat to the health and wellbeing of society as a whole?

It's my belief that homosexuality, extreme promiscuity, suicidal tendencies and so forth, and the lack of self-respect that accompany these, probably stem from the same root cause of underlying self-esteem issues. This is borne out by the very high percentage of homosexuals who suffered sexual abuse as children or who had issues with male role models and gender identity.

I don't think we need to outlaw or punish homosexuals any more than we need to outlaw or punish the mentally ill. However, I would like an end to homosexual propaganda, parades and celebration of the "lifestyle" because, after all, nobody is celebrating smoking or hard drug abuse. I would like to have a truth campaign on the actual risks of homosexuality, and to encourage homosexual men to seek help rather than instant gratification and to make that help more readily available.

[Scotchneat]

Hugo, Do you continue to insist that

[["Under that same law, Ernst Zundel is in prison because he wrote a book that questions the extent of the Holocaust. That's all."]?

because if you do, there is something seriously wrong with you.

[The law that you have cited is vague and fails to define "hatred." ]

I haven't read all the case law related to this section, but the mental element seems very high.

So you have to make the statement knowing that it would a "lead to a breach of the peace" simply being negligent wouldn't be enough.

As a practical matter, you'll also see that the charge under 319 (2) has be to laid by the attorney general, so you'll have to be extremely unpopular to be charged under s. 319 (2).

As for the charge under 319 (1), your statement would have to cause someone to comit a crime, meaning the crime would not have occured but for your statement and you have to know that a crime would be the outcome of your statement.

[Now, this just illustrates your libellous debating tactics, because this is the precise opposite of what I said.]

Have you ever heard of "hyperbole"? You have continued to suggest that you would or could be charged under s. 319 if sexual orientation was included, so obviously you think that s. 319 will be frequently invoked against those speaking against homosexuals.

The best case you could make would be that if you wanted to publish highly inflammatory material about homosexuals (e.g. a homosexual conspiracy to destroy Christianity) that you might not publish it because of s. 319.

[Hugo]

I am highly suspicious of this law because it uses "sexual orientation" in a way that could also be used to "protect" pedophiles or child pornographers, for instance, from hate speech. The hate speech law still also does not extend to the handicapped or the elderly - are they less worthy of protection from hatred?

I believe that homosexual groups will use this law to muzzle their opponents. Probably not me, but "ex-gay" organisations and counsellors will almost certainly come under fire. I cannot see what other purpose C-250 has, since the rights of homosexuals are already protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. C-250 is totally redundant, unless its purpose is to muzzle those who speak out against homosexuality, and that worries me.

319.1 invites criminal conviction not just on the basis of breaches of the peace that have occurred, but on the prejudiced speculation of breaches of the peace that may occur in the future.

Zundel has done other things to be imprisoned for, notably speaking at Nazi rallies and so forth. Nevertheless, the book he wrote is "hate speech" in Canada.

[Scotchneat]

"I am highly suspicious of this law because it uses "sexual orientation" in a way that could also be used to "protect" pedophiles or child pornographers, for instance, from hate speech. "

Pedophilia and child pornography are crimes, so I don't see how such acts could be included in sexual orientation is this context. You might as well add rapists.

"The hate speech law still also does not extend to the handicapped or the elderly - are they less worthy of protection from hatred?"

Hate motivated crimes against the elderly and handicapped are fortunately uncommon and hate speech directed at the elderly and handicapped is also uncommon. In any case, the issue we are addressing is whether sexual orientation should be included and the fact that other identiable groups should be included doesn't change fact that sexual orientation should be included.

Below I intentionally altered your post

"but "ex-jew" organisations and counsellors will almost certainly come under fire. I cannot see what other purpose s. 319 has, since the rights of jews are already protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. s. 319 is totally redundant, unless its purpose is to muzzle those who speak out against judaism, and that worries me.

The itallics are added by me.

There are Christian missions such as "Jews for Jesus" focused on converting Jews to Christianity. Such groups "speak out against " Judaism" in the same way that "ex-gay" organizations "speak out against" homosexuality. No one in any of these groups has been charged with hate crimes.

"Nevertheless, the book he wrote is "hate speech" in Canada. "

The only book that Zundel wrote is some crap about UFOs and Nazis. He published a phamphlet called "Did Six Million Really Die?" which is inflammatory tract aimed at demonstrating that the Jews are perpetauting the lie of the Holocaust for financial gain.

As for the definition of "hatred" under s. 319, I would refer you to the Supreme Court judgment R. v. Keegstra (1990) where Justice Dickson wrote.

gThe word "hatred" further reduces the scope of the prohibition. This word, in the context of s. 319(2), must be construed as encompassing only the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium.h

[Hugo]

Pedophilia and child pornography are crimes, so I don't see how such acts could be included in sexual orientation is this context.

You could argue that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, as NAMBLA already does. While C-250 might not protect pedophiles from being prosecuted, it might well be used to protect them from "hate speech."

Below I intentionally altered your post

I'm sure you think you've been very clever, unfortunately, I don't recall seeing any large numbers of psychiatrists and doctors being of the opinion that Judaism was a mental illness and a deviancy. Perhaps you can point me to the medical professionals who believe that?

C-250 does not deal with religious objection, in fact, it specifically says that it will be tolerated, so therefore your point here is invalid. What will be targetted is secular objection to homosexuality, of the type that comes from medical professionals.

[FastNed]

Hugo, you are correct that "Hate Speech" Laws could subject you to prosecution for comments made on this Forum.

As a flat statement, "Hate Speech" Legislation is a Prosecutors dream! There is little certainty in exactly what is covered and prohibited so any exercise of a 'controversial' or 'emotionally charged' position could lead to prosecution - if a Prosecutor wished to pursue you or has their own agenda.

Google 'saskatoon' for prosecution of Biblical quotes against homosexuality - this is a very dangerous area as is all hate speech legislation. It not only chills debate but it attacks the fundamental concord between us all, that we can live together in a civilized manner and discuss our differences until we reach a middle ground.

I really could care less what someone does in their bed, the only bed I control is my own and that is as it should be. But I deny that anyone has a right to silence discussion on homosexual issues because of an allegation that this is 'hate speech', that's BS, pure and simple. There are Six Thousand years of religious texts that define homosexuality as a forbidden activity - along with adultery and murder. We are free to discuss those two but not homosexuality?

The concept of homosexuality must be subject to free and open discussion - such as it has been here on this Forum - and people must be free to state the good and the bad of both viewpoints. Without threat of criminal prosecution!