BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that Vermont's House and Senate voted to override GOP Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, the Washington City Council voted 12-0 Tuesday in favor of allowing same-sex marriages performed in other states to be recognized in the nation's capital.


Congress may vote on whether Washington will allow same-sex marriages to be accepted in the nation's capital.

But nothing is set in stone yet.

The Washington council is expected to hold a final vote on May 5. The bill would then go to Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat who supports gay marriage but told WTOP.com Tuesday that he has yet to review the legislation.

If approved, the measure would then encounter its biggest potential hurdle: It would be sent to Congress for a legislative review and vote, setting up what would amount to a straight up-or-down vote on same-sex marriage.

Because Washington is not a state, its legislation must pass congressional muster. Some measures approved by overwhelmingly Democratic Washington voters, including a restrictive gun law and a proposal decriminalizing medical marijuana use, have been vetoed by Congress in recent years.

"This is a right that should be enjoyed by all of our citizens," Council Member Jack Evans, a Democrat, said in an interview with WTOP. "Today is another major step toward the ultimate goal of all of us living in a city and a country where everyone is treated equally."..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM

Gay Elephant' Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
A Polish politician, furious over a gay elephant, obviously hasn't been keeping up with the latest research on homosexuality in animals
By Christopher MimsPosted 04.15.2009 at 11:56 am4 Comments

"We didn't pay 37 million zlotys for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there," said Michal Grzes, a conservative councillor in the Polish city of Poznan, Reuters reported last Friday.

What Michal doesn't know, apparently, is that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. The definitive text on the subject, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, written by Canadian biologist and linguist Bruce Bagemihl, is an obsessive catalog of a phenomenon so widespread that the can barely contain it.
For the Cliff's Notes version, you have only to look to a 2006 article on the subject, which points out that big horn sheep live in "homosexual societies" in which they "bond through genital licking and anal intercourse." (Male sheep that choose not to engage in the behavior become social outcasts.)

And that's just the beginning.

"Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in 'penis fencing,' which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages."

Naturally, human behavior does not escape the continuum of expression implied by the diversity present in the animal kingdom, and perhaps that's the real origin of Michal's objection.

To be fair, he did have one legitimate critique of the situation. "We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females, how will he produce offspring?" said Grzes. (PopSci)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM

Moral of the story......stop being an elephant!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 09 - 03:23 PM

Sorry to say this Amos, but it looks like you have flipped.....Please stop posting this nonesense, the arguments have been made further up the thread, leave people to make up their minds on the credible parts of this discussion.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 12:23 AM

Hey, Hi Ake!! Nice to see you again. I've pretty much let this one rest, because, as you noted, the arguments being made, border on the lunatic fringe. Next, will be how the tsetse fly in Lichtenstein, are the new link going up, the food chain, because they are homosexual, and propagate faster that way...except in Delaware, which is because they are discriminated there....or something as equally stupid...Who knows? Anyway, Hi!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 03:22 AM

Hi Guest....Seems like we're both still "pissin' into the wind", but every so often the wind drops......keep on pissin'......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:21 AM

""Iowa is only the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage.""

Vermont also is refusing to let the bigotry of one man override the democratic decision of the majority, having moved to overturn the governor's veto.

Nice to know that in FOUR of the Fifty states, all men ARE considered to be equal under the law, as the Constitution of the United States would have us believe.

Now if the other forty six can get their knuckles off the ground long enough to vote.........who knows?

The United States' claim to be a DEMOCRACY may once more have some credibility.

I don't give a damn about the argument over whether or no you agree with homosexuality being legal.

It IS legal, and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their orientation.

THEY SHOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS, IN LAW, AS ANY OTHER CITIZENS!

Anything else is undemocratic, and contrary to the letter, and the spirit, of the Constitution.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:38 AM

If we can discriminate against people's sexual orientation when all else meets the law, then there soon will be nothing to stop us from discriminating against people who wear blue, brown and pink ties. Or have certain accents. Or are confined to wheelchairs. Or have special needs. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:42 AM

The biggest problem is that "homosexual rights" has been made into a political issue and has become a convenient weapon for the politically motivated to batter one another with. Whether this is in the long term interests of homosexuals or society at large is no longer considered ....the battle lines have been drawn as Little Hawk would say!

At the moment the pendulum has swung to what is laughingly called the left,soon it will swing back to the right and another set of "political" moral values will apply.
As ever, the casualties of spurious political issues are the objects of said issues.
This discussion has been all about Conservative v "Liberal" and nothing to do with anybodys "rights",

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 06:34 AM

""As ever, the casualties of spurious political issues are the objects of said issues.
This discussion has been all about Conservative v "Liberal" and nothing to do with anybodys "rights",""

IN YOUR OPINION, of course.


Rights in LAW are precisely what it is about, and those are, or at least should be, totally independent of politics.

Of course, as legislators, the government are bound to play a part, but that part should not change with different governments.

It is a matter of law. The government legislates, and the judiciary interpret, and enforce, the legislation. Where, in that setup, do you see mention of politics.

The Constitution, by which Americans profess to set such store, enshrines the rights of "CITIZENS".

Nowhere in it do I see any mention of exceptions, NO "Except for Jews", NO "Except for Germans", NO "Except for Blacks", and equally NO "Except for Homosexuals".

By what twisted perversion of logic do you justify your statement that it is "Not about anybody's rights"?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:59 AM

Ake:

Your remark, which I just now saw, is most unkind and uncharitable. How does this work? (1) we are having a long discussion about homosexuality, gay rights, legal definitiuons and such. (2) I post a couple of items excerpted from poular press providing viewpoints or data related to the topic; (3)Disagreeing with these reports, you say it looks like I have flipped.

Does that really strike you as rational?

It strikes me as reactive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM

".....Now if the other forty six can get their knuckles off the ground long enough to vote.........who knows?

The United States' claim to be a DEMOCRACY may once more have some credibility.

I don't give a damn about the argument over whether or no you agree with homosexuality being legal.

It IS legal, and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their orientation.

THEY SHOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS, IN LAW, AS ANY OTHER CITIZENS!"

In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules.
In the case of homosexuality, it is not a matter of 'political rights' as a citizen, it is a matter of mental and emotional health.
I think natural selection should tell you that!..That is, if anything can tell you anything, at all.
Now here comes all the 'proof' citing animals and insects...who, naturally, are citizens, too....I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM

Come on Amos, we have beaten one another up on a regular basis on many threads and I still think you are a decent, intelligent, likable guy, with a bee in your bonnet...:0)
Don't suppose we'll ever agree on this subject, but I've enjoyed your input and of course I don't think you've really gone nuts....It's just that there are children of all ages on this forum and they might take your animal post seriously.....Lets not frighten the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 02:30 PM

The first post on this thread was by Amos. It contained the following sentence......."IF there is any chance you will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed "RIGHTWING" ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls."

Capitals by me to highlight the word rightwing.....Why was that word used?
Are there no "liberals" who are against homosexual marriage? are all conservatives against?
As this was posted at election time, I think Amos has been a "very naughty boy"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM

"In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules."

In that case, a lynch mob is a perfect example of a democracy in action.

Basic civics lesson:   a democracy, when not limited by certain principles of individual rights, can be just as tyrannical as any other form of govenment. This is the reason for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To protect the individual citizens from both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the majority.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 06:06 PM

What about the tyranny of the vociferous minority???

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM

"tyranny of the vociferous minority??? "

It's tyranny if a minority want to do what the majority do all the time, which wouldn't impinge in the least on the majority's continued ability to do it???????? (look, even more question marks!)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM

From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM

"In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules."
In that case, a lynch mob is a perfect example of a democracy in action.

Does that mean your bitchy wife is always right, too?
Does it matter how loud and long people bitch, scream, piss and moan?
If the majority isn't the ruling decider...why did Gore want recounts, in Florida???
Some of you guys are just illogical. You argue both sides of a principle, for whatever side suits you! Just pick one...anyone...and stick to the principle, instead of the issue...........for once! If you can't, then YOU are the people who make up, and are the lynch mobs!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM

I dunno, Ake--if those observations about sexual encounters in the animal kingdom are true, and I assume they are, why wouldn't they be a natural part of this discussion?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:49 PM

GfS, nothing is more obvious when observing people argue that they indeed do repeatedly argue both sides of a principle, for whatever side suits them at the time. I see it happening over and over again, and I bet I've unwittingly done the same thing myself many a time.

That's because the human ego is not nearly as rational or fair-minded or objective as it usually loves to think it is. It really wants only one thing:

Victory!

And that is what makes both people and nations frequently irrational, unscrupulous, unfair, dangerous, and deeply hypocritical while they vociferously charge out to win their various illusory victories over one another.

As Shakespeare said, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing...nothing except the universal desire to win. If you point their inconsistencies out to them, however, they will deny it vociferously and just waste another lengthy piece of your time justifying themselves and launching further counterattacks on you, so why even bother? Frankly, it ain't worth the trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:33 PM

The issue is whether a constitutional republic, which is what we are, has the right to violate its own founding principles because of some less durable or kess balanced opinion on the part of some of them.

We have an enduring commitment to equality--meaning equality.

That includes a strong precedent against the weaselly "separate but equal" version.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 01:49 AM

"Rights" are not universal, but conditional.
Anyone who says that we should all have the same "rights" regardless of our behaviour, or the effects of our behaviour on those around us, has lost their grasp on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:10 AM

I don't recalling anyone arguing that someone else doesn't have the 'right' to be a homosexual...do you?
..and as far as equality goes...umm, do you recall anyone who is happily married to someone of the opposite sex, claiming they unequal to a homosexual??
Cuts both ways, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:55 AM

The Constitution limits the rights of government by providing a set of principia that will be binding ON that goverrnment thus protect the rights of the individual. Even when those individuals become part of 'groups' (and I mean that in both senses), they remain first and foremost individuals whose rights are protected BY the Constitution and hence subsequent law formulated by the Legislative organs of government: HR and Senate. I agree with Don wholeheartedly. If we discriminate against people based on shit that's none of our business to begin with, then we open the door to discriminate against ANYone in the whole nation. (This includes Canada, so please don't feel I'm just jumpin' on Yanks. We have a responsibility as a 'free' people to help defend other individuals in our society. Even murderers after being found guilty pretty much HAVE to appeal the decision, even when the guilt is manifest and beyond misinterpretation. IMO, that's a good law. Miranda is a good law. They are meant to protect the individual. When we have no compassion for others around us, we will have taken a giant step towards allowing other doors to discrimination to open. I wish no pissing contest with anyone. I'm just putting my two cents in.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:25 AM

Just wanted to say the following.

I think most folks here know I can lose it when it comes to Nazi bastar/ people. I detest all they stand for. I detest their politics, their world view. However, I would speak on behalf of the individual rights of Nazi Americans or Canadians. Not because they are Nazis, BUT because they are individuals. I recall many years back that the ACLU--which I understand at that time was composed of lawyers--a high percentage of whom were Jewish, and that the organization argued on BEHALF of the right of a Nazi group to march in a town in one of the northern states. The ACLU's rationale was that if Nazis could be prevented from marching to seek redress of grievance, then so could any other group be prevented from accessing that right.

Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 08:29 AM

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself" - Thomas Paine

Or: 'Do unto others...'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 09:50 AM

""In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules.""


ABSOLUTELY GfS!!........

I didn't forget that for a single moment.

And in the USA, the majority HAS ruled that homosexuality IS LEGAL.......With me so far?

Right then; As individuals acting within the laws set by the MAJORITY, these people are entitled to the same LEGAL rights as any other citizen. Those rights include the right to marry as they see fit, and they are victims of discrimination IN LAW if those rights are abrogated.

It HAS, I say again, NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS, but with RIGHTS UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION.

Before you start making ad hominem attacks on other posters, pehaps you should look again at your own attitudes, and prejudices.

150 years ago, people like you would not permit marriages between whites and Indians (as they were then described), and white women who had been intimate with Indians were shot dead by their relatives when they were recovered.

For the first half of the twentieth century, white people and black could not marry.

Now it's homosexuals.

Tell me, who will bear the iniquities of your prejudice in the NEXT fifty years?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:28 AM

"Far from terrifying anyone, "Gathering Storm" has become, unsurprisingly, an Internet camp classic. On YouTube the original video must compete with countless homemade parodies it has inspired since first turning up some 10 days ago. None may top Stephen Colbert's on Thursday night, in which lightning from "the homo storm" strikes an Arkansas teacher, turning him gay. A "New Jersey pastor" whose church has been "turned into an Abercrombie & Fitch" declares that he likes gay people, "but only as hilarious best friends in TV and movies."

Yet easy to mock as "Gathering Storm" may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America's anti-gay movement.

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it's idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it's mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.

"Gathering Storm" was produced and broadcast — for a claimed $1.5 million — by an outfit called the National Organization for Marriage. This "national organization," formed in 2007, is a fund-raising and propaganda-spewing Web site fronted by the right-wing Princeton University professor Robert George and the columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was famously caught receiving taxpayers' money to promote Bush administration "marriage initiatives." Until last month, half of the six board members (including George) had some past or present affiliation with Princeton's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. (One of them, the son of one of the 12 apostles in the Mormon church hierarchy, recently stepped down.)

Even the anti-Obama "tea parties" flogged by Fox News last week had wider genuine grass-roots support than this so-called national organization. Beyond Princeton, most straight citizens merely shrugged as gay families celebrated in Iowa and Vermont. There was no mass backlash. At ABC and CBS, the Vermont headlines didn't even make the evening news.

On the right, the restrained response was striking. Fox barely mentioned the subject; its rising-star demagogue, Glenn Beck, while still dismissing same-sex marriage, went so far as to "celebrate what happened in Vermont" because "instead of the courts making a decision, the people did." Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the self-help media star once notorious for portraying homosexuality as "a biological error" and a gateway to pedophilia, told CNN's Larry King that she now views committed gay relationships as "a beautiful thing and a healthy thing." In The New York Post, the invariably witty and invariably conservative writer Kyle Smith demolished a Maggie Gallagher screed published in National Review and wondered whether her errant arguments against gay equality were "something else in disguise."

More startling still was the abrupt about-face of the Rev. Rick Warren, the hugely popular megachurch leader whose endorsement last year of Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, had roiled his appearance at the Obama inaugural. Warren also dropped in on Larry King to declare that he had "never" been and "never will be" an "anti-gay-marriage activist." This was an unmistakable slap at the National Organization for Marriage, which lavished far more money on Proposition 8 than even James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

The Obamas' dog had longer legs on cable than the news from Iowa and Vermont. CNN's weekly press critique, "Reliable Sources," inquired why. The gay blogger John Aravosis suggested that many Americans are more worried about their mortgages than their neighbors' private lives. Besides, Aravosis said, there are "only so many news stories you can do showing guys in tuxes."

As the polls attest, the majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support "at some point in the 2010s."

Iowa and Vermont were the tipping point because they struck down the right's two major arguments against marriage equality. The unanimous ruling of the seven-member Iowa Supreme Court proved that the issue is not merely a bicoastal fad. The decision, written by Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, was particularly articulate in explaining that a state's legalization of same-sex marriage has no effect on marriage as practiced by religions. "The only difference," the judge wrote, is that "civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law."..."

From The Bigots' Last Hurrah

By FRANK RICH
Published: April 18, 2009 (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:51 AM

Oh God!.....We're back to regurgitated homosexual propaganda from Amos...How boring!

I think Little Hawk had it spot on.... why bother, I suppose nature will sort things out in the end, just as it has always done.
Or maybe society will destroy itself by some other gorier method....the sonner the fuckin' better!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM

Passing an editorial from a leading paper, excerpted, is hardly regurgitation, ake, and although it is about public attitudes about homosexuality, I don't see how you think the label propogandfa applies here. In fact your labels is contumacious, argumentative, inaccurate, and counter-productive.

Think clearly first--then write clearly.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:14 PM

ANd let me add, Ake, that I have no particular axe to grind for homosexuality, although I have none to grind against it, either. I have no dog in that fight personally. What I DO have an axe to grin for is this simple statement: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

Trying to carve out one of life basic passages, marriage, and restrict it from a certain population legally is, in my mind, the most wrong-headed reversal of that proposition possible. There have been worse, so maybe that's a bit strong, but it is nevertheless unacceptably totalitarian.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:24 PM

Suicidal, and proud of it! Let natural selection sort it out...and leave the 'wonderfully enlightened, virtuous politicians' out of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM

I just want to mention that I've barely ever posted on this thread...or even opened it...for one simple reason.

I am completely uninterested in wrangles about homosexual marriage. I simply don't care who marries who or for what reason as long as they are both adults and they can make their own decision about it. If so, it's absolutely none of my business who they want to marry.

As for all the other arcane stuff about whether they should get to adopt kids or whatever.....I'm not interested enough to bother worrying about that either. My reaction is...***yawn***...okay, I think I'll let someone else get worked up about that one.

It's a non-issue to me whether or not homosexuals or lesbians want to marry one another. Total 100% flippin' non-issue.

I agree, though, with what Peace said: "If we discriminate against people based on shit that's none of our business to begin with, then we open the door to discriminate against ANYone in the whole nation."

Right on. If you want to live in freedom, then give it to others as well...as long as they don't hurt anyone else, rob, commit fraud, rape, assault, damage property, engage in slander and other obviously antisocial stuff like that.

Gays have always existed, they are often quite talented and creative and even charming people, they have made huge contributions to the arts and to human culture generally, and they don't scare me one bit. Not even slightly. Do they live differently from me in some respects? Yeah. Well, so what if they do?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:35 PM

Unfortunately there is no issue with evolutionary processes in this regard. The "merssing about" is with the basic social contract in this country. That's what your rabid anti-Gay fearmongers are fucking around with, and it is not appreciated, not helpful to the well being of the overall society. It is blindered monkeying about with vectors about which they know shanefully little.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:40 PM

Right. I just don't like having it crammed down our throats..and making 'special allowances'..having our noses rubbed in it, when it is in fact 'somewhat deviant'..and I can't say I've met very many parents who wanted their kids to grow up to be one..have you?.......Then someone will post,'I don't care if they did. its up to them'..the key words, are 'I don't care..'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:40 PM

The stress may be getting to you, Amos. You made an unusual number of typos in your last post. ;-D

Keep in mind that it won't make a rat's ass of difference in the end what anyone who's bitching on this thread here says about the issue of gay marriage and your stress levels will go way down.

Or do what Chongo does: Down about half a bottle of good Scotch whiskey, getcher sidearm, and go out to the firing range and blast away at some target dummies for an hour or two. Works for me. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:48 PM

GfS - I agree 100% with what you said: "I don't like having it crammed down our throats..and making 'special allowances'..having our noses rubbed in it"

Precisely. Although I have no problem with gays, although I have always believed in equal rights and an equal role for women, although I have always respected Blacks and Native Americans....I DO get absolutely fed up with being subjected to a continual media barrage of guilt-inducing propaganda, bellyaching, noble stereotypes of "victims", and over-the-top lobbying from a few fanatical people who have turned a social minority issue into a personal obsession and who spend their lives persecuting everybody else over it.

It gets to be too much to take after awhile, it gets to be a real pain, and I don't wish to share any unearned guilt for something I never did to anyone.

Now there, I have said what I need to about the 2 sides of this issue, and I think that about does it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:03 PM

There'ss nohing special about correcting discrimination. it is the DISallowance that is the special case, and none of this would ever have even been brought to your delicate attentions if there had not been a long and cruel tradition of segregation, suppression, and intolerance established in the culture. Had you not subscribed to the oppression, you would be less fanciful about how burdensome its correction is.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:32 PM

Ah, yes, my friend...but having been involved directly in the championing of Native American values from my teens right through to my mid-50's, I have now seen both sides of the coin. I have seen the utter chauvinism of the many (the complacent White majority) and the utter chauvinism of the few (some of those posturing on the "Good Red Road", stabbing each other in the back while so doing, besotted with their sense of their own moral superiority, and forever finding someone else out there to blame for their eternal sense of "victimhood" instead of taking some personal responsibility and just growing up).

No, I am no longer impressed by professional one-issue martyrs and idealogues who can't shake off their obsession with their own narrow cultural or racial identity stamp and who can't get over their collective past. Uh-uh. It took several decades of idealistic struggle on their behalf, but my patience has run out.

And I do not feel impelled to earn my good "liberal" credentials by always making the appropriate supportive noises for them on cue. I'm liberal, yes, to a considerable degree, but I am not Pavlov's dog.

There is no side in this world, and no group in this world who are always automatically right, just on account of who they are or what was done to them in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:39 PM

Little Hawk, You wouldn't by any chance know Russell Means, do you? We may have mutual friends, in common.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:51 PM

Well, you skate very gracefully, LH, so perhaps there is no issue. It would seem different if it was your marital ox being gored, of course.\

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:54 PM

Amos, Are you indicating that your ox and you are having marital problems?..If so, I normally would be the person to see...but I don't do inter species counseling.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM

Mwahahaha.



My marital ox is not being gored, thank you. I must decline your kind invitation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:24 PM

LOL!!! I had never suspected that Amos was involved in that way. My goodness, the things one discovers about one's friends!

GfS - No, I haven't met Russel Means. I had a lot of dealings with Rolling Thunder and various associates of his out in Nevada, have met Wallace Black Elk and various people from out that way, Brook Medicine Eagle (of whom I have a very good opinion, by the way), and a number of people in Ontario such as Art Solomon and Bobby Woods. I did get royally tired of the whole scene eventually, although I still have a great respect for traditional values and the Medicine Way.

I like it when people can become larger than their specific cultural, racial or national identity. If they are able and willing to do that, they can become extraordinary human beings. If so, their love will shine to the whole human race, not to just a part of it. That's what Jesus did. That's what Buddha did. That's the salvation of the world.

By the way, I was just watching some videos of Freddie Mercury singing in the band Queen... My God, what a beautiful voice and what a beautiful looking person! I couldn't care less whether he was gay or bisexual or whatever else he was at the time, that lad could sure sing!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:30 PM

That's fine, LH, as long as he knows his place and doesn't get uppity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:52 PM

Really? Well, how would he do that, Amos? Tell me.

If I was to meet Freddie Mercury (assuming he was alive now) I would figure to talk about music or something...not hear a monologue from him on gay rights. After all, I've always been inclined to give people their gay rights anyway, so why would I need to hear any such monologue?

I'm betting he'd choose to talk about music. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 07:01 PM

And "his place", by the way, would be the same as Sidney Poitier's place...the best darn seat I could offer him in the house. I admire people of great accomplishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 10:08 PM

Uppity?? Who? Freddie or Amos??....think that would happen????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:05 PM

I'll trade you ten Russell Meanses for one Sherman Alexie.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:10 PM

I'll see your Swan and raise you a Frilly Bustard.

Or was that Amos's swan?