BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:18 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."

Excellent idea, Don! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:00 PM

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


And WHAT?.........You certainly do have a superinflated view of your capabilities.

""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. ;-)""

Thank you LH. I have quite considerable respect for YOUR views too.
A propos of ferreting out, I don't have to dig very deep, when two extremely vociferous and biased posters turn a discussion about discrimination under law into a contest to see which of them can find the crudest, most malicious, and most obscene description of a whole group of people who do no harm whatever to the posters in question.

That's not about whether they agree with my view or no. It is a matter of FACT.


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

Damn right. It's gonna happen anyway, and they'll just have to live with it, or move back to Mars.

Out of here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:07 PM

First of all, this thread has not taken a nasty turn, but rather a good one, in the fact that the bullshit parroting is being exposed, and the perpetrators of it. Look at them scurry away!!! I think, if you're going to put forth a premise, then be prepared to take on the honest debate...without resorting to name calling, and trying to discredit your 'opposing' debater, by calling them names, and ganging up on them like a crazed lynch mob. Sometimes when you got to get to the meat of a subject, one needs to break through the shell...and where that sounds nasty, perhaps there is place for constructive dialogue, though an honest and heartfelt, intelligent..and therefore the HEALING process can begin,...usually, once the party line nonsense has been exposed, for what it is.

Amos, your still not off the hook.....

Don's running

TIA is pretending not to read any more..(besides, I don't think he wants to be a glutton for punishment)

..and the other Don,,the article you posted is largely irrelevant, being as it goes into a 'hatred of gays'..and 'homophobia' which I am neither...but I do understand the mechanisms that take place, that may lead to it..and the path back out.

Nice try, but stick to the spirit, and topic.
As far as the other concern, about the 'thread topic', I believe that we, through much interference wind bagging, are getting to the core of just what 'marriage' is.....and therefore, what completely understandable, salient grounds Californians, among others oppose it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM

""Don's running"".

Yeah, right....I'm really really scared of being beaten up by a crackpot with delusions of infallibility.

Nope, I'm just sick of wading through crude, obscene, drivel.

Talk to yourself GfS, and maybe those nice men in white coats will take you off for a little holiday, with your very own rubber walled room.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:42 PM

Nobody's "scurrying away." And rather than an honest debate, GfS, you've turned it into a slagging match. Because you are there, like Wile E. Coyote, twenty feet out from the canyon's edge and you just haven't looked down yet, but you're getting abusive because you're beginning to realize where you are--hanging in mid-air

I have some real work to do. Legislators to phone and e-mail.

Prepare yourself. Lock the doors! Raise the drawbridge!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 09:59 PM

Sorry Don, I guess I'm not like you....into cartoons. I was busy getting an education.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:42 PM

Amos, and parrot, I am, never was, or know 'Joybringer' other that how she was treated. If you go back to where ever that was, you will see, that we were all on there.....another bad call from the 'perceptive' ones!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:48 PM

As "compassionate" counsellors go, GFS reminds me somewhat of a Sunday School teacher I encountered in 1965. He was very proud of a ministry to interracial couples that he had carried on in a previous setting. He didn't encourage them to break up. He explained that once he brought them to the point of accepting that they had sinned against God by mixing the races, and repenting of that, they were really able to grow toward spiritual maturity.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:01 PM

"I was busy getting an education."

To bad it didn't take.

As far as cartooning is concerned (you must have had to really research me for that one), that was something I did as an extracurricular activity while I was going to grade school.

For your information, I've spent a total of seven years in institutions of higher learning studying a wide variety of things, mostly English Literature, Philosopy, and Music, and my education didn't end there. I have a pretty massive library, containing books I have actually read. Such innuendoes out of you, GfS, are merely another example of your turning nasty because you know you're trying to defend an untenable position.

Do try to apply your education.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:14 PM

Don T., it was not you I directed those remarks toward that you put in the quotes, it was Don Firth. I should have typed his whole name out, I suppose, but I thought it would be clear who I was addressing.

People should be able to perceive the reasoning and the honest intentions on both sides of the various debates that have raged on this thread, understand where people on both sides are coming from, understand their legitimate concerns, and not fall into the easy intellectual laziness of just dividing it into stark terms of the black & white, the good and evil.

That would require some patience and a genuine desire to understand what someone else's concerns really are and what they really meant by something they said, rather than to just leap instantly into labelling them by some automatic condemnation label of our era...such as "bigot"...or "sexist"...or "racist"...or the other favorite damnation labels of this time we live in.

We all want freedom (for people generally). We all want justice. We all want fairness. That's a given. If you want it, then you have to give it also. You don't do that by just dumping people into some "pool of the damned" over some fragment of something they said that you misinterpreted in the worst way possible because it made you feel good to catch them out and nail them. And that's my point. That's what concerns me here on this forum...again and again and again and fifty times over after that.

I seriously doubt that anyone posting here wishes to see gays persecuted in any way. I know I don't. I don't particularly wish to see anyone persecuted at all, but what I do want to see is an end to witchhunts...whether they are inspired by conservative rhetoric OR liberal rhetoric.   They're equally ugly in either case.

And that's why I post here. I have virtually no interest in debates about gay marriage itself...because it's not a subject I'm concerned about personally or even interested in. I don't feel threatened by it nor do I feel worked up over it either. It's a non-issue to me.

What concerns me is how people are debating about it here...how they conduct that debate...how they treat each other...how they denigrate the character of the person they are debating with...and why they think it's okay to behave that way just because they are presumably "better" (morally speaking) than the person they're talking to. That concerns me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:08 AM

Proposition: homosexuality should have no weight under the law.

Proposition: Legal categories available to people at large--such as civil atatus, marriage, citizenship, insurability, employability, and the like -- should be applied without regard to gender, race, color, religion, creed, or sexual preference.

Proposition: There are no genuine ethical grounds for denying the legal civilian status of marriage to people who wish to elect it on grounds of their gender.

There ya go. The evidence: the codified civil contract embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; the survey articles linked to throughout this and the earlier similar thread.

So far, the counter-evidence: personal opinions expressing hatefulness, disgust, self-righteousness, and other shabby, second-rate attitudes of unreason.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:44 AM

See, the thing that I think , that is really whackers, and my chief, complaint, with how this is being presented, is that, when an issue, any issue, is misrepresented, and turned into a political 'cause', and adopted, then from there, becomes an issue to bolster a political agenda, in which ton loads of misinformation is unleashed, to support the political base, at the expense, and exploitation, of the people who it was about, in the first place! Then from there, one side proposes 'remedies', which are not beneficial other than popularizing it..to make it acceptable....then cramming it down everybody's throat, whether they like it, accept it, or support it, or not...and impose, in this case, a sexual lifestyle, on the dissenting, majority. Add to that, this particular issue, used to be treated, and successfully, as a dysfunction....and now, its not treated at all..due to the politicized, misinformation in regards to it. To accommodate that, the proponents of the political agenda, driving it, begin tearing down institutions, faith based and otherwise, redefining the language, and the mentality, of the very basic fabric, of a society, which allows the freedom, to think and live as we wish. All this for the political machine, who in reality doesn't give a rat's ass, about the well being, of that same society, at large. It in turn, as Akenaton, very clearly points out, is in fact detrimental to that society.
Meanwhile, the parrots feast on the crackers...and are deluded that it is 'health food'!
Polly want a cracker??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM

As I recall, the proof offered so far as to the "curability" of this "issue" has been a Youtube claim by one individual - scientific proof by one anecdote. As anecdotes go, I have heard several stories of "cured" homosexuals who later faced up to the fact that their orientation remained unchanged. One was a long-term associate of Jerry Falwell a few years ago. You haven't proved that sexual orientation is reversable, and I haven't proved that it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:05 AM

Is this the link you were talking about, frogprince?
Note the interesting part, (about the son's speech) given towards the end of the 'interview'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE

What is most concern to me, is that political activist groups, bureaucrats, money driven lobbyists, and flocks of parrots, and political wings, are the ones who decides what is defined, and who what and to what end, people would, should, and won't get medical help. That being said, (being as the political pendulum swings)...do you want THESE people deciding on mental health issues?????????!!!!???!!

Right as it stands now, within the LAST YEAR, physicians accepting Medicaid, has dropped 50%...due to paperwork, and qualifying issues, limitations etc etc.. If you want a better understanding of this, hang out in a hospital cafeteria, or restaurant, where those in the medical field, hang out, and talk (secretly) about what is going on....you'll get a far better grasp, than listening to Harry Reid, Carville, Bush, Obama, or any political figure, under the influence of their personal 'special interest lobbyist'.

If a certain company in a Congressional district, made 'Camel Toe Widgets', and the owner of that company, wanting to make a huge amount of profits, and was a political 'donor'...he goes to his congressman, who refers him to a lobbyist, who comes up with a group of money, AND A 'STUDY' to present to his preferred congressman of that district,..who in turn sees big benefits and profits for him, if he gets it approved, to mandate a law, requiring 'Camel Toe Widgets' in every household, so he, in turn, parleys another congressman to '..if you vote for this proposal, I'll vote for your proposal...'
'..hmm, I don't know if that will fly..."
..oh, yes it will, we have a 'study' provided, that will let the people think this will be a great idea for them....(blah blah blah)'
...ok, we'll get the word to our 'political action' committees, and they'll see that the activists are 'informed'..we'll get the word out! You can count on my vote..' and the handshake is made!
This is your representative government at work, these days!

From there, its just winding up the parrots, dangling crackers of 'self importance' and doing 'something to feel busy, toward a noble end,'....and off it goes to the street!!!

This is where we are with the FDA, insurance companies, mortgage companies, pharmaceutical companies,...and on and on....

This is the shit you've been reading...and I hope all the parrots get enough crackers, to make them feel wonderful about it..so they can 'feel' that the did SOMETHING worthwhile.....Thanks.

THIS is how you want the decisions made in mental heath!!
Because, this it what it is become.

Before you jump for the keyboard....just take a moment, and think, consider..wrap your brain around it..before you rebut!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 07:57 PM

. . . Speaking of "mental health". . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:20 PM

Try it, before the make it illegal!

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

There are many people in this world who claim to be well-educated, but who have totally missed one of the major aspects of what a truly good education involves. They graduate from an institution of higher learning with their heads stuffed with facts that they have committed to memory during the past however many years and think that constitutes being "educated." They assume that the job is done. Finished.

But the overlooked major aspect that I speak of is the most important thing that a good education can teach:   how to learn. A good education doesn't end with a diploma. If it doesn't continue with the acquisition of new knowledge and the updating and revising of what one has already learned, then one frequently tends to lapse into general close-mindedness and chronic pomposity.

Such as stubborn refusal to even consider recent and current scientific research.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:17 PM

D-u-u-uhh!
Some jerk-offs even study campaign lies and think their gospel, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM

ANd some folks know the difference between a comma and a period, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM

I think that should be "they're," GfS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:27 PM

No, I spelled it right.....look it up.
(Figures!)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:47 PM

"They're" is a contraction for "They are,"

"Their" is the possessive of "they," as in "compaign lies."

Thus endeth the grammar lesson for tonight.

Unless you would care to parse that sentence so that the possessive actually does make some kind of obscure sense. Would you mind checking it against some authority such as The Chicago Style Manual for example, and refer to the page number so I can verify it in my copy?

Don Firth

P. S. In addition to being a young cartoonist, I worked for many years as a technical writer and editor.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:55 AM

Hold that line!! Hold that line!! Send 'em back to Nassau, Eli!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:47 AM

'They', are the possessors of their lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:55 AM

Indeed they are, but please abandon the defense of the sentence you wrote, as it is indefensible.

D-u-u-uhh!Some jerk-offs even study campaign lies and think their gospel, too! means, at best, that they study campaign lies and also contemplate their own gospel. ("Thinking about Jesus as I study them campaign lies...").

Your intent was to tell us that such jerk-offs, having studied campaign lies, believe that such lies are as credible as gospel.

Thus, they think or believe the lies are true or that they are gospel. Hence, "they're".

By the way, it was also a very rude sort of sentence, even insulting in its petty way.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM

Speaking of indefensible, is your position on this particular thread. I do believe you have discredited your self irreversibly, on this topic.
Still on the hook, there, ol' chap....!
Send out the beaked minions!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:39 PM

Not at all, dear lass. It is quite defensible and has been handily defended by self and others, thank you. You have yet to offer a factual or even meaningful rebuttal to it.

I know you could do better, but you won't try.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:03 PM

Among the style manuals that reside on my bookshelves are Webster's. the Chicago, the New York Times, and several others. One of my favorites is both a style manual and an excellent guide for editing and revising entitled Getting the Words Right (the title comes from a remark of Ernest Hemingway, who, when asked why he had rewritten the last chapter of one of his books twenty-nine times, said, "I was just trying to get the words right!"). And, of course, Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.

I have been writing all my life (honorable mention in the Atlantic Monthly high school short story writers'* contest), and so far, I have been paid for about thirty magazine articles. In addition, I have worked as an editor, and as a news director and copy writer for a network affiliated radio station.

You've written enough here, GfS, that finding examples of grammatical errors and incorrect word usage would be no sport at all. Like shooting fish in a barrel. So much for your attempts to denigrate others by claiming to have had a superior education. However, lest you lapse into despair, let me reassure you that there are others here who are even sloppier than you are. Your confusion of "they're" and "their" is a common boo-boo.

Now—I have asked this question several times on this thread, and I have yet to receive any kind of answer:

How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?

Well?

I'm waiting. . . .

Don Firth

*To preempt any attempts to cast aspersions on my punctuation, in the possessive of a plural, the apostrophe goes to the right of the "s."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM

Lest someone spots this and feels impelled to comment on it:

My apologies for the grammatical error in my above post.

". . . the title comes from a remark of Ernest Hemingway . . ." should read either "a remark by Ernest Hemingway" or "a remark of Ernest Hemingway's."

(Physician, heal thyself!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:31 PM

Yes, Don, again a broken clock is right twice a day....I missed the spelling of 'their'...when I went backed, and proof read it. When you called it to my attention, I saw the one,..not the other. I stand corrected...it was a typo..but then I read typonese, pretty well myself. Your bit on your education was interesting, so, in light of that, one can surmise that you know what your talking about. The same courtesy should be afforded myself....
As to your other, I'll get back on that, and I will, but I have to run, presently.

Amos, by shifting focus on some other drivel, you do NOT get yourself off the hook. Try answering questions posed to you, before running around saying, 'No, look over here..no, over here...no over here,..no, no, no, try over here'. I think you can be just maybe a little more mature than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 03:14 PM

Well, GfS, I was affording you the courtesy of assuming that you were reasonably well educated until you began denigrating my educational level by apparently assuming that movie cartoons were as far as my intellectual capacity goes.

After all, one can be a cartoonist and/or enjoy movie cartoons without having been a nursery school drop-out. In fact, a well-conceived cartoon requires a fairly high degree of intelligence. In something like Wile E. Coyote's apparent inability to learn from experience and his habit of concentrating so hard on his ignoble goal that he manages repeatedly to wipe himself out is something a bit more than mere slap-stick comedy. Those of a philosophical nature may see allegories of true-to-life situations and examples of the behavior of some people with whom they are acquainted.

Rather than referring to those with whom you disagree as "parrots," and likening someone to a stopped clock that manages to be right twice a day, along with a whole lexicon of other insults and epithets you have used, if you want people to extend to you the courtesy that you feel you are due, then you need to remember that the door swings both ways.

Now, as to the as yet unanswered question I keep asking. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM

Respect for another's intelligence is something that is always renewable, Don.

My own take on the matter is that I think you are probably both quite intelligent.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:19 PM

As for "well educated"...well, that isn't a synonym for "highly intelligent". There is such a thing as an educated idiot, after all. I've seen a few of those in my time. Merely memorizing volumes of known facts and minutiae does not necessarily result in wisdom, a good attitude, a kindly heart or a good character.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:15 PM

GtS:

Oh, I'm sorry--have I missed one of your scintillating questions? I think I was not avoiding the subject but trying to move this thread back to its original topic. If I recall aright you were trying to make it a thread about my inner psychological makeup, instead. If I further recall aright, I told you that I was unwilling to enter into such a relationship with you, giving the reasons why. Based on your emotional frenetic volleys in this and other threads, I simply would not be willing to trust you as a correspondent in such a dialogue. You may assert your credentials as much as you wish; I know the core fundamentals of the trade, and one of them is an agreement of trust, which as far as I am concerned you simply have not earned.

If there is some other question you think is germane to the subject of the thread--the relationship between gay marriage and law-- then by all means ask. Being neither gay nor a lawyer I can only offer to do my best.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM

"Merely memorizing volumes of known facts and minutiae does not necessarily result in wisdom, a good attitude, a kindly heart or a good character."

I believe I said something along that line up above, Little Hawk.

Don Firth

P. S. Out for the rest of the evening. I'll check in again tomorrow to see if anyone has finally answered my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:25 PM

Yes, you may have. I wasn't necessarily challenging you personally, Don, when I said that, just making a general observation about something I've noticed in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:34 PM

Ahh, but be it for a little wit, this would really be a drag. The problem with politics in general, is trying to find a truth, out THEIR lies. The truth that politicians use, are in layers...like peeling an onion. The truth that parrots tell,...are crackers!

(made that one up myself..just now...no 'cut and paste')

Being educated, in a field, though one may have spent a lot of time learning, can easily be lost, due to A.D.D. It is not that there is a lack of attention, that causes an impediment to acquiring knowledge, as much as needing to fill another void, the deficit, of getting attention, once you have it!

I prefer accurate information, as opposed to those who merely hold forth with an 'opinion', they gathered, just because it sounded consistent, and resonated, with THEIR acquired and preferred pathology...would you say?

Though I've exchanged barbs, witty jabs, and sparred with you, yours is the only opposing opinion, on this topic, that to me, I can respect, not only because of your friends, but of your love for them.

Besides, being as this is a forum, comprised mostly of musicians, and more than likely writers of music,(and other such), as I've stated before, I'm trying also, to stimulate the circuits, and virtually giving away, not just material, but avenues, by which to think larger, and approaches and insights to 'enhance' one's writing...plus, you gotta' admit, some of this stuff is pretty fucking entertaining!

I mean to say, don't you look forward to the next exchange..and done some thinking in between?.......Not you, Amos.......(wink)

Now, what was that question, you wanted me to answer. I'll do it as accurately as possible, and if you make nasty remarks back, ..well, I might just cut you to shreds....again. (grinning)!...but at least, I'll try to make it entertaining. THERE'S a lot out THERE that isn't, these days......

(smiling),
Guarded Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM

It's definitely entertaining as far as I'm concerned. ;-) That's why I keep coming back.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM

Little Hawk seems to be on a mission to bring this thread to a happy and peaceful conclusion......which would be a shame after so much blood and guts.

We must not allow ourselves to be sucked into the syrupy porrige!
Onwards! to death or glory!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM

I am not sure you can get to either destination in ASCII, Ake.   Unless you have a heart attack from sheer ire. Or are willing to accept the admiration of a few old folkies as "glory". I guess that's close enough for folk music, as they say. Remember Humpty Dumpty's guidelines for making words behave properly.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:14 PM

LOL! Good one, Akenaton. I like your sense of humour.

Yes! I am determined to finally achieve harmony and mutual respect among the posters here. It is my Quixotic nature that leads me on into such rash adventures.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:23 PM

WHo are you calling a windmill????



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM

It's the arm waving, Amos... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM

Again? You need me to ask it again!??

Considering the number of times I have asked the question on this thread, only to have it still remain unanswered, in fact, not even addressed, I find myself biting my tongue (actually, since I'm typing, biting my fingers) to keep from blurting out some fairly acid witticism, but I will do my best.

The question is:

How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?


Like the cat who ate the cheese and breathed into the mouse hole, I wait with baited breath. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

Don:

Unless you have been eating anchovies again, the word you want is "bated", a contraction of abated, or shortened breath.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:26 PM

But Amos, Don may have written it that way intentionally...

From here:

For those who know the older spelling or who stop to consider the matter, baited breath evokes an incongruous image; Geoffrey Taylor humorously (and consciously) captured it in verse in his poem Cruel Clever Cat:

Sally, having swallowed cheese,
Directs down holes the scented breeze,
Enticing thus with baited breath
Nice mice to an untimely death.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:27 PM

Amos - Read Don's sentence again - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM

Oh, I read it; I just thought there might be a slim chance I could slap his wrist for an error or something, but I can see it is a lost cause.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:38 PM

I should have read the latest WAV thread before my last post. Seems I have omitted a dot.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:39 PM

As far as I can see, it could only affect yours and Barbara's marriage, Don if either one of you chose to let it do so. (and I gather there's no danger of that...) ;-) What I mean is, if one of you was all upset about it and went on and on about it day after day, well, then, that might become an annoyance to the other, and then that might affect your marriage. Possibly. In which case it would be your reaction to David and Steven's marriage that was affecting your marriage! ;-D Since that's not the case, however, my guess is that I have just wasted a whole bunch of keystrokes on a fool's errand here. Ah, well, such is life in the provinces...

Now you have the answer you were seeking. Or maybe not. Well...you have an answer anyway. That's a bit better than no answer at all. Refer back to this post whenever you get the nagging feeling that no one cares enough to respond. (grin)

Are we having fun yet?