BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM

They are the special kind, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:50 PM

I have just composed a poem about BTZZ's. It's on the new Walkabouts thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:55 PM

A work of geenious.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:54 PM

Thank you, thank you. (blushing)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM

IN response to your armwaving on "thatother thread" (Obama Administration) but germane to this subject, GfS, I have counseled homosexuals also, and neither that fact nor your experience in counseling them has any bearing on the legal issue of reducing their civil equality by claiming them to be sub-human is some respect. They are not. THey are natural human beings much as you and I are, and as such they should be fully entitled to define thier own partnerships and affinities with all the respect of the law on the same terms as anyone else.

That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result opf genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:18 PM

""That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result opf genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things.""

Damn right Amos.

I'm getting more than somewhat sick of GfS's pretentions to being a caring counsellor. The crudity of the references to Homosexual practices, and the unwarranted supposition that gay relationships are based solely on sexual preferences, show clearly how poorly qualified this character is for the job.

Homosexuals tend, in my experience to be warm, caring, individuals, and no more obsessed with sex than any heterosexual of my acquaintance. Their relationships are no less loving, or constant, than any others.

If GfS is truly a counsellor, there is something seriously wrong in the vetting system that should have weeded out such an obvious homophobe. GfS should not be allowed within a light year of anyone who needs counselling.

It is my considered opinion that GfS is more in need of counselling than most.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM

Ah...the endless righteous Mudcat search for bigots, monsters, fascists, anti-semites, racists, sexists, and other deeply disturbed people in need of counseling or the loss of their professions or perhaps even incarceration goes on...with its usual gusto.

Such people are always, of course, found on the opposite side of the latest argument, whatever it may be about. And what a coup when the righteous here have ferreted them out for excommunication! Drinks all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:53 PM

I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?).

A good friend of mine on Mudcat is Akenaton. We go back about five years and he speaks against homosexuality. He's a wonderful guy.

Another is Teribus. He speaks his mind in no uncertain terms and he backs up his statements. I like the guy. Period. We go back about four.

Another is Amos, and he was instrumental in me being here at all today because when my world fell apart he wrote to me lots and helped me put it back together--please give him shit for that via personal message.

The 'issue' of homosexuality is complicated. It's rife with prejudices of the past; with cruel jokes and bad 'humour'. As a teacher (when I was a teacher), I had many students who told me they were on the verge of committing suicide because they were NOT allowed to be accepted for who they were/are. They heard the 'jokes' and remained silent, because we all damned well know there is little mercy amongst teenagers.

I have friends whom I love who are homosexual. I feel NO diminishment in my 'masculinity'. They are friends, and the reality of our friendships do not involve sex. Hell, I even have FEmale friends whom I love.

Amos has nailed it, imo. When we open the door and allow people to be stigmatized--I have a child who has had that happen to her (special needs)--based on her 'differences', and I think, "What a pity those people don't see the beauty in her, the intelligence, the brilliance. It breaks my heart, but it does not break my will.

I have friends--real friends on Mudcat who read this type of thread, and it hurts that they do. They are--GASP--homosexual. I don`t ask that people change their views, but I do ask that they be somewhat kinder in voicing their criticisms.

Regardless of which side of the Great Divide they are on.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:54 PM

Dear, oh, dear, Little Hawk. Once again, you're starting to sound a bit like an entymologist peering through your microscope or a Grand Lama sitting in a lofty temple up in Shangri-La, totally above it all, disinterested, and merely amused by petty concerns of the unenlightened ones.

Do try to remember what Dante said. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM

Dante called the fire department, Don. It was an inferno.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM

Peace:

Thanks for an honest and compassionate voice amongst the thundering herd.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:34 PM

Good post, Peace. Very well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM

"That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result of genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things."

Are you all blind, stupid, or both!
I have spent a lot of time here explaining that there are many sectors of society which are refused what you describe as "human rights", the right to foster children being one.

for the last time I will repeat, "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour.
I have absolutely no doubt that homosexuality is learned behaviour allied to psychiatric problems, and is not genetic.
According to medical statistics it is as dangerous and destructive as drug abuse.
Amos....I believe you are an atheist like myself, do you not see the belief that homosexuality is genetically based, despite there being not one piece of expert medical evidence to support that view, as akin to a belief the "the supreme being"?

The vast majority of people worldwide, who believe in marriage, define it as between a man and a woman and closely allied to procreation, why is it not affecting those people, to have their beliefs completely redefined to accomodate a minority with behavioural problems?

I've taken on board what you've said Bruce...maybe some things in life are more important than "the current issue".
It takes a real big man to look at life as you do...you are pretty wonderful yourself.
I would also address these remarks to the much maligned Little Hawk.
I strive without much success to be more like him....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:36 AM

Ake:

Unfortunately there is a good deal of evidence out there -- ignored by some.. And the issue os not the generalized one of human rights, but equality under the law on a specific issue for a specific population about whom people have various opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:53 AM

ANd I see in no way that anyone's beliefs have to "be completely redefined", except their most oppressive ones about some of their fellow humans. Not sure what the justification for this overblown proposition is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:52 PM

I have a 13 year old son. Since the issue of gay marriage is in the news we have had talks about sexuality that have been fairly open. If his experience is fairly normal (and I have no reason to think otherwise) it seems the kids today are generally quite accepting of this sort of thing.

He has a female friend who recently broke up a long distance relationship with her boyfriend and is now looking for a girlfriend. He later said, quite matter-of-factly, that most of the bi-sexuals are in seventh grade. According to him these issues are mostly non-issues.

This in a mostly working class town of about 3,300 people.

I recently read an opinion piece written by a social conservative who basically said that this issue is lost. Things may roll back some for a while but it looks to me like when we geezers start dropping the new generation will head things back the way they are already going. I could be wrong.

In any event, in four days gays will begin applying for marriage licenses and in one week the nuptials will take place. I will keep you posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM

This   (CLICKY)   is a very long article, so I'm quite sure that those who need to read it the most will not do so. Nevertheless, it gives an excellent overview of the nature of scientific research into gender orientation with a good look at the findings so far.

This is a challenge, which, as I say, those who really should read it will undoubtedly wimp out on because they won't want to read what it has to say.

There will be a test!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM

Some time ago Don, you posted the information that one in ten men were homosexual. At that time, I questioned these figures and on reading your article I find that the true figure is about three in one hundred?

There is nothing in that piece which would lead me to conclude that homosexuality is caused by the genes, in fact the reporter tries to make a point that twelve percent of brothers of homosexual men are also homosexual as opposed to two percent in the population, therefore there must be genetics at work, but it is much more likely that this is learned behaviour, as brothers are usually brought up in the same family environment with its attendant parental pressures.

Basically despite all the research by homosexuals trying to find the smoking gun.....they have come up with ZILCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM

Ake:

That is simply not the case. THere have been multiple studies which found that the genetic vector was a distinct causative factor. The current general conclusion is that it is one among multiple causes. WHy not do your homework?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:22 PM

Ake, as I'm sure you recall, I stated at that time that I was going on the figures published by Kinsey in the 1950s, and immediately updated my information when I got the new statistics (once I verified that they were accurate). So you cannot accuse me of chronic inaccuracy or having a closed mind (as I am quite sure is the trust of your current remarks).

That article demonstrates that they have come up with considerably more than "ZILCH," as you know perfectly well, and I was pretty sure that your reaction to the article would be something like this. And I'm sure others with prejudices similar to yours will be reporting in soon. I would like to be able to think of you that you didn't read the article carefully and missed the relevant paragraphs, but I doubt that that is the case. You just don't want to accept it.

I am not trying to convert you, because I know you are locked into your position. So the article is there for the benefit of those who will read it with an open mind.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:32 PM

As long as we're dealing with statistics here, I think I should mention that approximately 95% of male dachshunds will enthusiastically mount just about anything, male or female or even inanimate, when they are in the mood which is...frequently.

The remaining 5% are too lazy.

It has not been determined if this indicates homosexuality in dachshunds...or merely a complete lack of discrimination. The jury is also still out on whether it's a primarily genetic feature of the breed or a form of learned behaviour. Some researchers feel that it all stems back to a single bloodline of licentious dachshunds bred by the Baron von Bumpsenhausen in the early 1700's, but this remains speculative.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:54 PM

Little Hawk strikes again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:57 PM

Dang! I was hoping for a funny dachshund picture, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:16 PM

Always happy to oblige. . . .    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:24 PM

Omigod. That is just...wonderful! I am in your debt. Well, for an hour or two, I am. After that, no guarantees... ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM

Ominous. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM

My Gott in Himmel!! Das ist ein YodaHundt berspeken!!!


Don, thanks for the informative article. I was up on almost all of those data points but the bit on the young twins was faskinatin.

I think reincarnation must be playing a role. Having unresolved issues as an A would make it very awkward to give in to being a B no matter what part of the alphabet you were born as.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:30 PM

I've already got that one, Don, and it's one of my favorites. I love the worried look, the furrowed brow...it's the typical look of an anxious dachshund. They are world-class worriers, specially the "smooth" ones (shorthaired variety).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM

Another for Little Hawk.

Superdawg and his sidekick Woofie.

####

Yeah, Amos. I thought the idea of hormones in utero was pretty interesting. In any case, it seems pretty firmly established that, whatever the cause, personal choice just doesn't enter into it. Therefore, back to the civil rights issue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:55 PM

I think reincarnation could have a good deal to do with cross-gender behaviors and tendencies in people. Have always thought so. If you've been both man and woman before in other lives (which I regard as very common and very probable in the human race), then why would not the characteristics of one gender show up in the physical framework of the other?

Culture is also an influence, and a major one. The people you grow up among can have a very big influence in forming your later behaviours. That's not a case of genes.

Some people are genuinely bisexual in nature, and why should that be surprising?

In most traditional societies, however, we find a very strong pressure to separate the male and female characteristics and roles as much as possible, and to enforce heterosexuality. What drives that pressure? Well, it's part of the struggle to define one's cultural identity. The more people are afraid of their own cultural identity being threatened, the harder they will press for a clear separation between the genders, and the less they will tolerate exceptions to "the rules" (as they see them).

"the rules", however, are usually largely arbitrary in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:12 PM

It also has the threatening component, Little Hawk, of making people less predictable. As the song says,

Plant a carrot
GET a carrot,
Not a Brussel sprout!
That's why I
Like VEGetables
You KNOW what you're about!...."

It makes the stolid types very nervous to think they might be winking at a secret lesbian, or shaking hands warmly over a few beers with a closet gay. My gawd, if you can't trust bodies, what CAN you trust???? LOL!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:13 PM

LOL!!! So true, Amos. There's nothing like the fear of the unknown or the unfamiliar to spook people, is there?

That's why most little boys are scared of little girls up to a certain age...(when their biological sex drive starts to take over and completely alters their viewpoint on that subject).

Remember all those amusing Calvin & Hobbes cartoons where he and Hobbes (the stuffed tiger) are having their club meetings in the tree house and deciding how to resume their war against the dreaded and despised enemy: Girls! (*shudder*)

The club was called GROSS (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS). The main object of its stratetic plans was to inconvenience Susie, the little girl who lives next door. Susie, however, was usually able to outsmart Calvin. No big surprise there! (grin) And Hobbes was secretly in sympathy with Susie anyway. Tigers have an instinctive grasp of the romantic, and they appreciate friendly female attention at any age.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM

Can Psychiatrists Really "Cure" Homosexuality?
Masters and Johnson claimed to convert gays to heterosexuality in a 1979 book. But did they?

Scientific American
April 22, 2009
By Thomas Maier

[excerpt:]

Back in 1979, on Meet The Press and countless other TV appearances, Masters and Johnson touted their book, Homosexuality in Perspective—a 14-year study of more than 300 homosexual men and women—hoping to build on their groundbreaking sex studies of heterosexuals that had helped ignite America's sexual revolution. The results seemed impressive: Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.

But were Masters and Johnson's claims of "conversion" in those 12 cases -- nine men and three women -- even true?

Prior to the book's publication, doubts arose about the validity of their case studies. Most staffers never met any of the conversion cases during the study period of 1968 through 1977, according to research I've done for my new book Masters of Sex [a biography of Masters and Johnson]. Clinic staffer Lynn Strenkofsky, who organized patient schedules during this period, says she never dealt with any conversion cases. Marshall and Peggy Shearer, perhaps the clinic's most experienced therapy team in the early 1970s, says they never treated homosexuals and heard virtually nothing about conversion therapy.

When the clinic's top associate, Robert Kolodny, asked to see the files and to hear the tape-recordings of these "storybook" cases, Masters refused to show them to him. Kolodny—who had never seen any conversion cases himself—began to suspect some, if not all, of the conversion cases were not entirely true. When he pressed Masters, it became ever clearer to him that these were at best composite case studies made into single ideal narratives, and at worst they were fabricated.

Eventually Kolodny approached Virginia Johnson privately to express his alarm. She, too, held similar suspicions about Masters' conversion theory, though publicly she supported him. The prospect of public embarrassment, of being exposed as a fraud, greatly upset Johnson, a self-educated therapist who didn't have a college degree and depended largely on her husband's medical expertise.

With Johnson's approval, Kolodny spoke to their publisher about a delay, but it came too late in the process. "That was a bad book," Johnson recalled decades later. Johnson said she favored a rewriting and revision of the whole book "to fit within the existing [medical] literature," and feared that Bill simply didn't know what he was talking about. At worst, she said, "Bill was being creative in those days" in the compiling of the "gay conversion" case studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM

My god...Masters and Johnson bad data?? This may change EVERYTHING!!!!   :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:08 PM

"I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?)."

Yes, I push buttons...and I wouldn't have to, if somewhere along the line, some of you, were showing signs of knowing HOW to think, instead of your glowing retention, of parroting off, crap you were taught WHAT to think!! Before I started this line of posts, which got a little 'coarse', I fully explained BEFORE, that I would, and why...and then proceeded to do just that. Some, could see through it, and some of the 'blocked' started wagging their heads 'TSK TSK'.....but, it did accomplish one thing, needed....some actually started thinking it through further.

I don't believe there are many, is any, in here, that given the circumstances of seeing someone hungry, cold or in other ways 'down on their luck', wouldn't stop to help them(at least I hope so)..and it wouldn't matter if that person in need was a homosexual, black, rich, or poor..etc, etc. That is because of something INSIDE us, and now it is up in all our faces...and you know what?...that's good! Would a 'political bent', stop any of us, from showing care, and compassion, toward a fellow human being in need of a hand??

Well, that's the same here, but on here, the hand that is needed, is understanding that is far wider in scope, than the 'political notion d'jour!'...and what is 'politics'?....the art of persuasion? Nobody needs persuading of anything, what is needed, is a remembrance, of who we are, and that little voice inside, that re-acts to truth, and then acted upon...as if the truth really IS important. To disregard the truth, to merely promote an ego gratification(game), of winning an argument, for some sort of validation, is nothing but useless self absorption...and in doing so, two things: A chance to ADD to your knowledge, and being constructive to others, are out the window.

I've 'perused' some other blogs (political) in nature, and they are getting absolutely no where...but now, on here, minds are considering other points of view..which means here, in Mudcatland, there is more 'unifying' than in all the empty promises about unifying, coming out of Washington, by the usual band of liars. Keep your minds open!

Yes, I might say something a certain way, to push a button, and that button could be linked to the 'think' circuit..which is good, and far healthier, than the listen and adopt blind obedience, to the propaganda machines, pumping out sewage for brain food, and telling you its delicious!

Not only that...sometimes its just downright fun, and entertaining...in a world of the 'politically correct word police'!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:31 PM

It's not really fair of all of us to persist in our unthinking moronic parroting Koolaid drinking irrational dittoheaded haze and force this poor lady to push buttons just to try and stir some life into us. Really, where are our manners? This is unacceptable indolence and rudeness on our part. Imagine putting a hardworking psychologist to all that extra work! We are forcing her to do double-duty as the Mudcat Mater and CHief Button Pusher de facto, if not de jure-- when I am sure she has her hands quite full with other deranged halfwits she gets paid to prod. We must rectify our sloppy ways around here and stop forcing her to push buttons all the time. She's made it clear she wouldn't have to if only we would think for ourselves. One can only assume the result of that process would be insights parallel to her own, since she has made it clear she is an accomplished thinker.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:52 PM

Beautifully put, GfS. You are voicing a number of the same concerns I have tried to articulate over and over again on this forum...usually to the incomprehension of people who, as you say, are wrapped up in "merely promote(ing) an ego gratification(game), of winning an argument, for some sort of validation, (and it) is nothing but useless self absorption..."

They are, like good little parrots, repeating endlessly the things that they think they "should" believe in order to be the kind of people they think they "should be" in order to earn a certain set of credentials: the credentials that prove they are not "racist", "sexist", "gay-bashers", "bigots", etc...

But they're not actually thinking and they're not actually communicating in any thoughtful way. They're mouthing accustomed slogans and accustomed positions of acceptable doctrine and searching for scapegoats...the presumed violators of their acceptable doctrine. When they find what they think is one, the pack mentality takes over.

It's a subtle thing you are pointing out, and it demands patience to understand it. It's way too subtle to reach most people, because they are just parroting a familiar party line (of their accustomed variety..."liberal" or "conservative"). They're enjoying watching the verbal parade of their own imagined righteousness imprint itself on the page.

It's an unaware form of behaviour. I do not expect that those engaging in it will understand what I'm saying at all...(shrug)...well, that's life! Don Firth thinks, for instance, that I am engaging in a kind of Buddha-like detachment...and that's not it!

As you said, GfS "I wouldn't have to (make provocative statements), if somewhere along the line some of you were showing signs of knowing HOW to think, instead of your glowing retention, of parroting off crap you were taught (about) WHAT to think!!"

Bingo! That is it, in a nutshell. Some original and creatively independent thought is what is needed around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:11 AM

Little Hawk: You're showing symptoms of acute diffractionis responsibilidis, pal, known in laymen's terms as "Themitis".


I'm glad you have found someone to share your symptoms with, but the only known remedy is to notice who is generating your bubble of choice, and retake the viewpoints one has endowed "them" with.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:17 AM

Amos..Should I curtsy?...I mean if you talk down to me, I personally think you have an inordinate, hostile,resentment toward 'lasses', and 'ladies', and you've been treating me this way for a while..is it that you can't get past. Perhaps you have issues with women...
On the other hand, if I was a man, it would only mean your sense of perception is as bad as you've repeatedly displayed....

Little Hawk, Should I pump my fist into the air, and grunt, 'HOOyah!'...

..or should I retreat, and wonder what I did wrong?

Amos, Did you and you father get along?..I mean were you close?
Don't have to answer on here..but, think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:30 AM

Just read your post again....I think way back, that's where we came in, but it was during the primaries....Good Lordy oh Lordy, was that a crock!
Change??..Yes, like changing diapers, but every time its the same old 'filler'!!

..and thank you for the compliments!..a breath of fresh imaginative air.

As to Amos, I'm awaiting his...umm..decision(?)
I mean he either has hostile, resentment toward women, or his perceptions are all screwed up....So what is it, o' wise one?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:35 AM

I agree with Hawk Guest, You have certainly given us all pause for thought....Doesn't matter if you're man or woman, your heart is in the right place!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:10 AM

Hi Ake, Its always a pleasure to see your name pop up, as well. Here we are, again in this same ol' stuff...I thank you for your input along the way!
Absolute Warmest Regards,(pretty good to give a self proclaimed atheist),
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:04 AM

""That's why most little boys are scared of little girls up to a certain age...(when their biological sex drive starts to take over and completely alters their viewpoint on that subject).""

Classic innit? Little boys are driven by their biological sex drive if they are hetero, but the little twerps are choosing to be deviant when the same drive orients them toward other boys.


""I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?).""

Bruce, more often than not I agree with your view of life, but I can't help wondering if we are talking about the same person.

Is your GfS the same pompous, opinionated, patronising bigot that has categorised everyone here who disagrees with her view as blinkered and brainwashed, and has set herself up above the best medical research brains of the WORLD,as the one and only fount of knowledge in respect of homosexuals, described by her as "men who want to stick their wienies in other men".

I think the pillory might be too lenient!!!

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 09:21 AM

GtS:

Part of the syndrome of diffractionitis is seeing your own distortions in Them. When all you have is a hammer, everybody looks like a nail. I have issues with women? Hooyah, surely I do. Maybe I'm a lesbian, huh?
As for my father, an honorable and distant man, that ground has been well covered in my endless quest for fictitious normalcy, so no dice there. Haven't you got anything else?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM

Distant, well, ok.....but answer the question..something you should try, and so often avoid....you're NOT getting out of this one by one of your usual tactics, avoidance...(unless I let you off the hook), because you brought this on yourself...and you've (up to a point) stifled quite a few other threads, and been abusive, to more than just me(remember Joybringer?)...then just walk away to 'cut and paste' replies...when people asked you in threads past, to say what YOU thought. Well, its time to stop being a legend in your own wine, sober up, take a big breath and take the plunge...is it your perceptions, or your honor???...Now you're trying to opt out by suggesting you might be a lesbian??? Hiding behind a terrified woman's skirt??....(I guess that settles the 'honor question')...I guess by process of elimination, you're copping to a screwed up perception plea??? Go ahead, If you're a man, show some balls..if a lesbian,..pretend (lesbians in the room should be offended by you)!

Don T. Button it, or you're next!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:03 PM

What does any of this have to do with whether or not same sex couples should be able to get married?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:07 PM

Don, your thirst for ferreting out "bigots" and other such deviants of that sort on this forum (meaning people who deviate from your own opinion in some way) is comparable to the single-minded devotion of a crack addict looking for his next hit. ;-)

And it gets in the way of having useful discussions here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM

GtS:

Your fired, for having a complete vacuum as a sense of humor. To set the record straight, though, I am not likely to engage in introspection at the impulsive behest of someone whom I neither trust nor respect as to their wisdom or psychological abilities. So you can put your bag of tricks down.

None of this has anything to do with the issue or topic of the thread, in any case. Take about avoiding the issue!!

I take it Joybringer was one of your alter-egos or sub-personae?

She had a similar cattiness to her as I recall, but I don't remember if we clashed, or about what.

Anyway, back to the topic, the survey article linked to just upthread kind of waters down your "homosexuality as acquired behaviour" worldview, no?

I am curious to know specifically what the particular danger on an individual transactional level you imagine would transpire if the California Proposition were to be overturned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:58 PM

Considering the nasty tone this thread has taken, I believe I am going to absent myself and turn my time and efforts to accomplishing something in the real world.

In both Connecticut and Rhode Island, gay marriage bills are passing in their state legislatures, and in Washington State, Senate Bill 5688 has just been passed by both the House and the Senate, and the Governor has already said that she will sign it. The only thing that is holding it up is a small coterie of eastern Washington Republicans who are attempting some obstructive hanky-panky along the lines of California's Proposition 8. However, the proponents of SB 5688 anticipated this and are taking steps.

My representative in the state legislature is a friend and neighbor whom I knew long before he ran for public office. I will start with him and ask him what I can do as a citizen to see to it that this bill goes into law.

I will look into this thread from time to time to see if anything has changed, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

In the meantime, Guest (strayed one helluva long way) from Sanity, you might read THIS for you enlightenment and edification. (Fat chance!! Talk about "parroting". . . .).

Don Firth

P. S.   Hey! Amos! DonT! Others! We're wasting our time here. Let's get to work in the real world!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:43 PM

If you give a rational statement about why you disagree with homosexual marriage, that's one thing. When you talk of it as "perv marriage" and "DEPRIVED FILTH," then you lapse into the wicked realm of bigotry.

So, Joy Bringer," is there something rational you have to say, stripped of all the hateful terms? Rational arguments are welcome, but you have seriously stepped beyond the bounds of rational discussion.

Oh, and I think the word you wanted was "depraved."

-Joe Offer- "

---

I can see why you might have abandoned this unsuccessful identity, counselor.

Don--you buying? Vamonos. Demasiados pendejos por aqui.


A