 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 02:10 AM Funny how, after weeks of crap we get two beautiful posts like the two immediately above this. I've always appreciated little Hawk throughout the years I've been here (most people do regardless of Don's bitterness), but if GFS were to be become a member I am sure this forum would be a much more interesting and Iwould venture to say...a much better place...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 03:12 AM Thank you for the flowers, really. Just one thing before I go to nod-land... Psychologists differ from psychiatrists, in the fact that the latter, can prescribe drugs for symptomatic relief, so the pain goes away, but not the illness, whether it be physical, or 'otherwise'. You know, prescription drugs, the ones who advertise primarily during ALL the news shows, supported by the pharmaceutical companies, like the news media, owned by huge corporations, whose sponsorship of our militaries, secure 'our best interests' for the corporations, who bring you the news, about the military's, progress, for the large corporations, who buy the time to keep you 'updated', and making up new illnesses, so the pharmaceutical corporations, along with the, mass media corporations, keep you informed of what new illnesses are spreading, like A.D.D(formerly known as boredom....symptoms of daydreaming), Restless leg syndrome,(formerly anxious to do something else), P.A.D.(formerly known as legs or arms falling asleep), and a host of different names for acid indigestion, from eating shitty food, who, by the way, are sold by huge corporations, who also advertise on worthless shows, who of course, have their products listed as 'safe' by the FDA, who, of course is bought off, and paid for results, by the huge corporations, doing all the other stuff, listed above, who are also bought off by the same folks, who fund the studies, that say homosexuality is genetic...because, if people turned off their fucking T.V.'s and spent more quality time with their families, loving them, instead of 'learning' of new things to buy, to entertain their particular form of A.D.D.(formerly known as boredom), and think of new things to want, families might have a popcorn fart's chance of getting to know how each other THINK AND INTERACT, instead of how they stare....and daydream.....Duhhh.. God Bless You All, (except for Little Hawk, who only gets his blessings from Chongo, since his T.V. went on the blink!) Warmest Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 07:16 AM """Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!" Okay, say the first gay couple goes to a Methodist Church to get married, and the folks there, worried about their tax-exempt status agree to go though with it. That, of course, sets a precedent, and a second couple goes to a Pentecostal Church. "" Since they are campaigning for the legal right to civil marriage, what the hell has any church got to do with it. The various churches can currently turn away adherents of other faiths, so why would they have a problem with refusing gay couples. This fight is about CIVIL LAW, and the right to be treated equably under THAT law. Little Hawk, I'll do a deal with you. You follow YOUR precepts about judgement, and I'll stick to mine as follows:- If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and spends most of its time in the pond with the ducks, I will judge it to be a F**kin' DUCK, and I will call it that. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 09:08 AM "Since they are campaigning for the legal right to civil marriage, what the hell has any church got to do with it....The various churches can currently turn away adherents of other faiths, so why would they have a problem with refusing gay couples....This fight is about CIVIL LAW, and the right to be treated equably under THAT law." Of course this fight is about Civil Law. And so were the lunch counter sit-ins in the 1960's. The courts decided that somebody running a lunch counter couldn't discriminate in favor of one customer over another. Why would it be different with churches. Once gay marriage is legalized across the nation--as I'm sure it will be--then if a church agrees to marry a straight couple, it would not be able to deny marriage to a gay couple. If you don't think there are people out there that will put this to a test, I don't know where you've been for the last 50 years. Once a church denies marriage to a gay couple, the ACLU will be all over it. The first thing they will attempt to do is to have that church's tax-exempt status revoked. They will go on from there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 01:29 PM Rig is right Don, the agenda is "normalisation" not "rights". "Rights" are simply the "device de jour" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 04 May 09 - 01:41 PM Thought I would add a note since the Methodist Church was mentioned. I read in the paper over the weekend that the Methodist General Conference issued a statement that no same sex marriages were to be performed in a Methodist Church of by a Methodist minister. Any minister who does perform such a ceremony will be de-frocked (not the actual term but I don't remember what the actual term is and I think this gets the point accross). This includes not only loss of a job but also of retirement benefits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 01:54 PM Great! As soon as he/she refuses, he'll be named in the suit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,hg Date: 04 May 09 - 01:56 PM Oh yeah, GFS, the all purpose human being.... To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest' In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 02:41 PM ""Rig is right Don, the agenda is "normalisation" not "rights"."" Same old crap Ake! What YOU disagree with is abnormal. What YOU agree with is normal. Demonise them with an adjective which implies deviance, and you can rationalise away your bigotted viewpoint, notwithstanding the fact that what they deviate from is YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS RIGHT. There are any number of ways to live ones life, and YOU haven't earned the right to make those choices for anyone but yourself, NOT EVEN YOUR CHILDREN. Do you begin to get it NOW? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 04:06 PM Don....Calm down my friend, I have always been aware of the agenda of some homosexuals. By normalisation, I mean the attempt by homosexual "rights" activists to present homosexuality as just another lifestyle, no different from "a man, a woman and a couple of kids"....they can adopt the kids and play happy families just like the rest of us. Unfortunately they always avert their eyes(and deflect our eyes), from the thing I mentioned earlier......the big fat elephant standing right in the middle of the room that nobody sees....the link between homosexuality and AIDS/HIV. At present, this lifestyle is destructive and dangerous, and to present bit to the public as safe behaviour and "normal", a haven in which to bring up children, is idiocy. That is one of the reasons why I am against homosexual marriage...there are others, like trampling on the beliefs of the majority to accomodate a minority who are more strident. Lesbian relationships seem safe and long lasting in general, and I see no reason why they could not be good parents, but as long as the health issues remain I will be personally against homosexual, as opposed to lesbian, "marriage" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 04:17 PM I don't even have a problem with gay marriage, or whatever they want to do. I just think it's another nail in the coffin for organized religion, which doesn't bother me either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 04:18 PM "Don: ..'I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything...'" Maybe that's been your, and your son's problem. It's all been about YOU. Perhaps, recognizing that, imagine how he felt, excluded, while the little engine in him, kept longing for a loving father's attention, and approval..... As usual, GfS, you don't know what you are talking about. My God, you are a pompous ass!! This is none of yours or anyone else's business, but since you've taken it upon yourself to publicly discuss my many failures as a father, I feel it incumbent upon me to respond. My son was not "excluded." I will not go into detail as to his mother's and my situation, but due to both her circumstances and mine, marriage was not an option. However, my son was raised in a family, with a good man, whom he assumed was his father. Some years along, the man passed away, but by then, my son was in college. His mother felt he had a right to know who his real (biological) father is. So she (with my permission—telephone conversation; she and I hadn't seen each other for two decades) told him. I told her that since he was of age, I felt it should be his choice as to whether he wanted to see me or not. I did want to meet him. We hit it off right away, and have been great friends ever since. Both his mother and I explained the circumstances to him. He understood—and he sympathized with our situation. A boy gets his masculinity from his father, not his mother. Men, can't face the admission of failure, much like women can't own up to, 'It's my fault, I was wrong.' My son did have the love, attention, and approval of a good man. And my son is plenty masculine. The man with whom he was raised was a good role model. I don't feel that I failed, even though you may think so. But my son does not, and he's the one who counts. The fact that his mother and I couldn't get married was not my choice. It was hers. And later, she told me, "It was my fault. I was wrong." Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets. She and I were hardly members of the "Peace-Love" generation, although we were contemporaneous with it. Granted, I was a "folk singer," and was earning my living that way, but I became interested in folk music before it became a pop-culture thing, and she was in theater arts. Neither of us could have been considered "hippies." She was not a "groupie" I took advantage of and discarded. My son did not suffer from lack of attention, he did not have to fend for himself, and he did not grow up in the streets. The family he grew up in was stable, and he grew up with four siblings. You, GfS, are dealing in shallow stereotypes. I gathered from your posts, that you had a religious upbringing, and since, have turned bitter at that too. I did not have a particularly religious upbringing. As a child, I was strongly interested in science, astronomy and cosmology in particular, and I found my "spiritualism" in the rigors of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein—in recent years, Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku. My family did go to church occasionally, particularly on religious holidays, but not always the same church. My mother read a lot in Eastern religion and philosophy. Barbara, my wife, did have a religious upbringing, and she goes to church regularly. I usually go with her. The church we go to is the one I mentioned that adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome" I quoted above: Central Lutheran Church. If you want to know about the general thrust of the church and some of the reasons I support it, read their website. I find the pastors there very bright and very open to discussion of things spiritual and philosophical, and they are not dogmatic at all. I enjoy discussions with them, I have gone so far as to serve for six years on the church council. Without writing out my "Credo," fundamentalists would probably consider me an "atheist," more liberal religious folks might consider me an "agnostic," because I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God. I'm not sure that I believe in a "God" at all. Although religious institutions have been responsible for much of the world's misery and tyranny, there is a level of religious thinking that is beneficial, if not essential, to leading a good life as a human being. I particularly recommend Matthew 25:35-40 And from Judaism: If I am not for myself, who am I?Also In the world to come, they will not ask me, "Why were you not Moses?" They will ask me "Why were you not Zusya?"Me? "Bitter," GfS? Might that not be what psychologists call "projection?" Suggestion: Let your son know, that you're sorry, for not being there, when he needed you, and how truly important he is to you, and ask him to open up to you. Give him a hug, and hold onto him/each other, as if for dear life. Let him cry on your shoulder. There may be a lot more that he'd like to say to you...probably how much he wanted you..if you'd open up in that way. Pull out the guitar, sing him a song..let him know HE was more important to you, than YOU were to being about YOU. See what happens. That's very dramatic, GfS, and I wonder if that might not be a matter of projection on your part as well. Are you yearning for some kind of resolution yourself? Once again, you are dealing with stereotypes and making simplistic assumptions. Understanding, coming as a result of several long frank and open chats shortly after we first met, resolved any questions or any necessity for forgiveness. As I say, he understood our situation and did not see that there was anything to forgive. My son grew up bearing the surname of another man. He mentioned quietly to Barbara recently that he wanted to have his surname legally changed to mine—whom he regards as his real father in all respects. I would be more than pleased if he does. GfS, there is no bitterness or recriminations between my son and me. His mother explained things very clearly to him before he met me, and I did the same when we did meet. He understands, and if there is anything to forgive, it was forgiven long since. And Don, this isn't about imagining winning anything, in a blog. Its about the love between those who we love, and love expressed, to each other.. Must we have heartbreaks, BEFORE we fall to our knees? Again, GfS, you're dealing in your own fantasies. You and Little Hawk seem to be the ones who are doing all that talk about "winning." And who said anything about "heartbreaks?" None in my corner of the world, thank you. Physician, heal thyself! Don Firth P. S. No, GfS, I take it back! You didn't get your education as a counselor from watching Dr. Phil. You got it from watching soap operas! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 05:17 PM ""the big fat elephant standing right in the middle of the room that nobody sees....the link between homosexuality and AIDS/HIV."" The link, as has been pointed out innumerable times is between SEXUALITY and HIV/AIDS, and your PERSONAL AGENDA requiring that it be a homosexual problem will never make it so. ""there are others, like trampling on the beliefs of the majority to accomodate a minority who are more strident."" So, the fact that it is a minority that is shouting for equality makes it OK, in your strange world, to deny that equality, just so long as you are on the majority side, and therefore having YOUR way. If that's the case, I suppose you would be perfectly happy if the government banned folk music in pubs......AFTER ALL, WE ARE A MINORITY!!! Where DO you draw the line, and what in hell makes you think YOU have the right to draw it? As an example of totally self absorbed arrogance, that takes a lot of beating. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 09 - 05:32 PM "If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and spends most of its time in the pond with the ducks, I will judge it to be a F**kin' DUCK, and I will call it that." And you might still be dead wrong, Don. All through the 1970s and pretty well right to the present day I have looked like a long-haired dope smoking musician, talked like a long-haired dope-smoking musician, acted like a long-haired dope smoking musician, and spent a lot of time among long-haired dope-smoking musicians. Several cops have, because of that, on occasion misjudged me to be a drug user...and wasted some of my time with their hostile and supicious pre-judgement of who they thought I was. But I don't smoke dope and I was never inclined to, not even in the carefree early 70s when everyone I hung out with did. Your "duck" analogy is therefore not as ironclad and reliable as you think it is, and I think you should not rush to judgement of individuals based on some profiling menu you carry in your head, no more than a cop should. As for pomposity, hell!...you always give as good as you get in that department. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 05:39 PM ""As for pomposity, hell!...you always give as good as you get in that department. ;-)"" You are slipping, LH. Further, and slightly more focussed, examination will point up the fact that the word pompous was used, not by me, but by my esteemed fellow member, Don Firth. However I DO agree with him. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 06:43 PM Don T, I don't draw lines for you, I draw them for myself. I am simply giving my opinion on an issue just as you are, your opinion is just as valid as mine, it's just that I dont agree with it. I have no more power to influence people than you have, but it is people like you, Don Firth and to a much lesser extent my friend Amos who wish to silence MY small voice...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 07:01 PM pomp•ous : adjective 1 : excessively elevated or ornate (pompous rhetoric) 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant (a pompous politician). In addition, Little Hawk, our esteemed self-appointed counselor, GfS, apparently believes in the duck analogy, because by counting on toes and fingers, he/she came up with the notion that my son was conceived in the 1960s (as a matter of fact, I believe I told him/her so) and from that, assumed that we were typical members of the "Peace-Love" generation, characterized (according to GfS) by a complete lack of a sense of resposnsibility, and therefore, my son grew up living on the streets and was raised by city pigeons, like an urban version of Mowgli. If GfS had watched a wider variety of soap operas, he/she might be less addicted to simplistic stereotypes. By the way, while reading GfS's post of 04 May 09 - 03:12 a.m., although I agree with some what he/she says (regulatory agencies need a good, vigorous "dope-slap" about five times a day), I do get a very strong whiff of "conspiracy theorist." Scientific findings that he/she doesn't like are because "all the scientist have been bought off!" Next stop, Flat Earth!! Don Firth P. S. And Ake, I have no wish or need to "silence" you. The nature of your pronouncements says all that needs to be said. They refute themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 04 May 09 - 07:19 PM Seeing how long this thread has gone on for, I kinda get the idea things don't look too good for the sheep and me, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 07:47 PM What's a soap opera? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 08:02 PM It has been said, and is actually an old adage...'The argument is lost by the one who starts the name calling' Hg: "To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest' In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you." For you to understand that, try looking up the five blind men and the elephant. Send a copy to TIA....and yes, all that is true, and more, but that's of no consequence on here...yet! Jeez!...At least they're scrolling back..While you're at it, instead of sniffing for something to wrap your mind around, for the sake of attacking me(favorite pastimes of people with small minds), try reading the stuff and learn something. I assure you, while you were having a hard time getting out of the bedroom, to play your guitar, in front of somebody, I was functioning, Thank you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 08:48 PM GfS, saying that you are a "bigot" or a "pompous ass" is not name-calling. In your case, it is a diagnosis. Again: Physician, heal thyself. And—oh, yes! How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?You never did answer my question.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 09:30 PM Pointing out the obvious: Guest from Sanity Your welcome! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 04 May 09 - 09:57 PM Guest form lalaland, this time I held back to let Don Firth respond to you himself. But I was biting the keyboard. Anyone who has been around here for awhile, read a few of Don's posts, and has even a glimmer of normal reading comprehension, could tell you were shoveling a bunch of pure bullshit that had absolutely nothing to do with Don, as to his attitude toward religion or anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 10:01 PM GfS, saying that you are a "bigot" or a "pompous ass" is not name-calling. Am I imagining things or just hallucinating?? You're how old?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 10:10 PM As I said, GfS, it's a diagnosis. You do know what the word means, don't you? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 10:15 PM I'm not sure we're getting anywhere! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 04 May 09 - 10:28 PM I think that we've gained a lot of evidence indicating that Gfs is a dangerously imcompetent therapist to turn loose on vulnerable people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 10:35 PM Maybe people are not as vulnerable as we suppose, and are capable of looking out for their own interests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 May 09 - 10:36 PM GfS, You really can't live without me can you. Neither can Cecil or lansing. And you certainly can't live without myriad commas. It gives away your fake personas every time. Oops, did I say that out loud? And being as how I have a sibling who is an actual counselor, and being as how she is lesbian, and being as how (that phrase gives you away also) we share everything, the *real* counselor says that your self-important writing and self-promotion betrays you as someone who is pretending on many, many, many fronts. But I am projecting and accusing others my weaknesses aren't I? And I surely am a sucker for punishment, so please...punish away. Go!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 09 - 10:37 PM Heh! No, we're not getting anywhere...we're just all giving our restless little competitive minds something to chew on, as usual, and basking in our approval of our own wit and wisdom (as opposed to those who disagree with us!)...that is the normal pastime of the human ego when it's not busy dealing with more practical necessities. But Don (Wysiwig) T.....! This is the second time you have misinterpreted a remark I made toward Don Firth as being directed towards you. ;-) Okay, I realize that my post came immediately after a post you made, so I can understand why you thought it was directed to you, but I think we cross-posted or something, because I did not see your post at all at the time when I was typing mine. I was responding to something Don Firth had said about GfS being pompous...and to his remarks about how to identify "a duck". My feeling is that duck hunters tend to "see" ducks almost EVERYWHERE, because it's what they want to see and expect to see. This is why Don Firth keeps finding "bigots" on the Mudcat forum, and it's why a series of police officers harassed me over the years for having long hair and carrying a guitar when I don't use drugs and don't break the law. ;-) This thread won't end until the various aggrieved, blustering, battling egos here get so bored or frustrated with each other that they give up in disgust or disinterest and stop posting to it. That may take a VERY long time! ;-D I'm betting at least a hundred more posts. Peace, I think you and the sheep are in for a loooooong night! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 May 09 - 10:40 PM speaking just for me...it's not about ego, it's about disgust. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 09 - 10:47 PM Egos are easily disgusted, TIA. Easily outraged. Easily offended. Easily upset. Easily put on the warpath. It is part and parcel of their defensive and reactive nature. Ever read any Taoist literature? Cool stuff! Eckhard Tolle is good too. A reading of either of those will serve well to explain just how reactive and combative and addicted to blame and accusation the normal human ego is, how quick to find "enemies", and how unwilling to pardon or forgive a perceived slight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 09 - 11:32 PM Say, I think it's getting a little heated around here. Whatever you call it, identifying people as bigots and pompous asses is not considered proper in polite company. Please refrain. Thank you most kindly. -Joe Manners- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 09 - 12:27 AM Before the conversation was hijacked, and disintegrated into name calling and defensive rants about themselves, Don T. asked and steered the topic in a direction that was a good one. About the 'churches issue'. If possible, why can't we hear from a homosexual,(or at least one who is out of the closet)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 09 - 01:20 AM TIA:"And being as how I have a sibling who is an actual counselor, and being as how she is lesbian, and being as how (that phrase gives you away also) we share everything, the *real* counselor says that your self-important writing and self-promotion betrays you as someone who is pretending on many, many, many fronts." Let me guess, is she the driving force?..the one pretending to be a man? You just never cease to snipe a little here, and a little there. You, yourself, have identified yourself as both a man and a woman, and just flat out bullshitted on here. You have some sort of axe to grind. I'm sure your 'lesbian sister' would counsel you, to 'Let it go'...unless, that's another one of your lies, in which I really don't care, Ok? By the way, (and I'm wasting this on this post), remind your imaginary 'sister', that in counseling, a well placed question, can change a life....assuming people have been stimulated to think deeper, but first ya' gotta get past the ready-made mentally pre-rehearsed lines, and rationalizations....but of course, she knew that, didn't she??? Almost a nice try,..well, at least another feeble attempt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 05 May 09 - 03:03 AM Do you see the pesky elephant guest? Sure hope so, everybody else dodges round it, jumps over it, totally ignores it...they don't even clear up the shit! Maybe I'm hallucinating, but it's so big and fat....then there's the long swingin' trunk....the huge flappy ears.....shit like cannonballs. Naw, it MUST be an elephant!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 09 - 09:30 AM Akenaton, Well, as I mentioned before, and I'm sure it makes sense now, or at least is clearly obvious, the tip off, when a person is being counseled, and they have issues, and it is not quite clear, even unto him/her, the tip off that it may be homosexual is, emotional immaturity....oh yeah, did I say that before?...absolutely....but then, what do I know??? Maybe, sometime I'll even break it down for ya'. The thing is, they really are not 'trapped' by it, I mean, in reality. It is something they impose on themselves, and keep themselves there, and though wishing sometimes, that they weren't, they resign themselves to it. The frustration to them, is you can't convince those WITHOUT those issues, of resentment, anger, and 'emotional focus', toward a parent, or parent figure, that we should adopt this behavior, as genetic, or the other sex 'trapped in my body' nonsense, and see it for what it is. It's just too much of a hard sell, for people who have a healthy outlook in life. That being said, I certainly am opposed to denying them their rights, and also opposed to calling what they do, marriage. If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable! By the way, as of yesterday, 60% of Americans disapprove of legalizing, same sex marriage, while 40% of those, would favor some sort of civil union. Hate to be the bearer of such bad tidings. Don't shoot the messenger. Ake, you've been a good guy. I wish you all the best! ...now, about God.......... Warmest Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 05 May 09 - 10:34 AM "I assure you, while you were having a hard time getting out of the bedroom, to play your guitar, in front of somebody, I was functioning," "remind your imaginary 'sister" Gfs, talk about underhanded cheap shots; and you don't have the faintest idea whether there are really any targets there or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 09 - 11:27 AM They usually tell me, themselves. You just gotta know the path to draw it out. And by the way, there are, and were no targets Personally, I'd rather talk about music! And another 'by the way', in two earlier posts, one of them, a long way back, I specifically, said that I didn't want to even broach the subject, unless the person was educated, about the topic. I even let it rest, for weeks!..but, at the same time, why let my friends, and fellow musicians bullshit each other? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 09 - 01:50 PM Frogprince, GfS is proving to be the master of cheap shots. Among other things (such as dismissing scientific data as "gay lobby propaganda"), it grows more obvious all the time that GfS is not, nor has ever been, a trained and licensed counselor or therapist. No competent therapist would leap to the kind of assumptions about me that he/she did, or with any person they didn't know a whole lot better than he/she knows me. And no competent counselor would attempt to offer counseling—unbidden—to someone in an open forum such as this. Among other things, any competent counselor would recognize that as, among other things, simply unethical. Granted, this sort of thing happens: on the Dr. Phil show. But his subjects know they are in public, on television, and they have volunteered for it. Which I did not! But—when it comes to personal attacks, up-thread, GfS asked if I had any children and basically ask me "would you want your daughter to marry one?" I responded, staying on subject. Then— GfS took the details of that response, distorted them and twisted them, then proceeded, unbidden, to "counsel" me about my transgressions as a parent and my alleged ?bitterness? toward religion, none of which bears any resemblance to anything I said or anything in my real life. He/she basically drew from simplistic stereotypes and built a "straw man," then used that as a way to left-handedly attack me by implying that I am emotionally unstable, thereby attempting to undercut my credibility. And "win" the discussion. There is also a large measure of argumentum ad hominem in that tactic ("Everyone should ignore what you say [even if true] because you are certifiably nuts"). Now why Joe didn't recognize that as a personal attack, I don't know. But other people certainly did. GfS's desperation apparently knows no bounds. As to GfS's analysis of the causes of homosexuality (05 May 09 - 09:30 a.m.), it is pure, unmitigated psychobabble, the kind of thing that a freshman who has just escape from a Psychology 101 class is prone to spout. And, by the way, GfS, you still haven't answered my question. Don Firth P. S. "By the way, as of yesterday, 60% of Americans disapprove of legalizing, same sex marriage, while 40% of those, would favor some sort of civil union." Irrelevant. The civil rights of minorities are not a subject for popular vote. Otherwise, we would still have "separate, but (un)equal" schools. Constitutional Law protects minorities from the majority, and in cases like this, to allow the majority to rule is to condone the "rule of the lynch mob." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 05 May 09 - 03:46 PM Keep pounding away, Don F. Some day you WILL be vindicated...you WILL unequivocally triumph...you WILL drive GfS away in confusion and humiliation, never to darken our dear forum again...AND YOU WILL ensure that such vile, bigoted individuals do not DARE raise their heads in polite society! OOOFAH!!! (I'm joking...) Like I said, expect at least a hundred more posts yet on this thread. Man, I wish I could get paid a dollar for every vainglorious keystroke that goes down here. I'd soon be able to buy that vintage Duesenberg I've been dreaming of for all these years...and I'd have enough to bail my delinquent friend Shane out of the lockup too. Hmmm. Well, maybe better just leave him in there for a bit, I guess... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 09 - 04:36 PM Snipe, snipe, shipe. . . . (I'm joking....) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 05 May 09 - 05:19 PM Get a dachshund, man. They're wonderful companions, lotsa laughs, and reduced levels of daily stress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 May 09 - 05:37 PM ""I was responding to something Don Firth had said about GfS being pompous...and to his remarks about how to identify "a duck"."" LH you are really having a BAD day. Wrong again, mate. The "pompous" was Don Firth. The "duck" WAS mine, and in response to your "still might be dead wrong", NO, not really, having looked at all the other attributes so openly displayed, I think I am more than safe in saying that the plumage and webbed feet DO rather clinch the argument. When it comes down to it, this particular duck has been parading for some time with a sandwich board giving all the dentifying details. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 05 May 09 - 05:43 PM Actually Don, you're at the misrepresentation again, it was I who pointed out that the website you linked to was being economical with the truth....not the much put upon GfS. It was perfectly clear from the way they presented(or should I say "spun") their statistics, that they were attempting to hide the clear and obvious link between homosexual practice and Aids This is not a poor victimised minority, but a vey well organised and well funded operation to make homosexuality appear just like any other lifestyle, all this to the detriment of those who practice it Homosexuals need compassion and treatment, rather than to be set up like Aunt Sallys by their radical "brothers".....coerced into a battle for "rights" that few of them really want or need. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 05 May 09 - 05:47 PM As a friend Don T.....leave the comedy to the comedians! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 05 May 09 - 05:55 PM Just dropped in to see how this was progressing. I had to scroll to far back to find anything that originally related to the origins of this thread. We here in NH are just gettin to the same political stage of putting gay marriage on our aggenda. Hopefully it looks to be going in a better direction than California's direction. I never thought that we'd exceed California in progressiveness but here we go. We will follow our neighbors to the west, Vermont & to the south Mass. & vote in Gay Marriage. I haven't been as proud to be from NH in the past 20 yrs as I have been in these past couple yrs since we've gone domocratic. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 09 - 05:56 PM CLICKY #1 CLICKY #2 CLICKY #3 And now—the opposing view. Compare the differences in methodology. CLICKY #4. This latter is from a study by Timothy LeHaye, best know as co-author of the Left Behind series. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 05 May 09 - 06:00 PM It gets hard keeping track of all the rhetoric here without a racing form... ;-) Okay, Don T., I did make a mistake there...it was you who put forward the "duck" analogy. Sorry about that. Anyway, I still think that such analogies are often mistaken in the case of specific individuals. You see all the unnecessary nonsense I've been put through by police officers in my life....they were all SURE I must be a drug user, hell, probably a dealer! Why? Well, I did have the very long hair, the blue jeans, the guitar....duh! Ever try convincing a suspicious cop that you don't have drugs on you? It's like trying to convince the JDL that you're not anti-semitic, once their suspicion has been riveted on you. Hopeless. You can't convince a mind that's on a vendetta of anything. So...you just let them go through their routine, whatever the hell it is, answer their stupid questions calmly, present them with the bare facts (in my case: "no drugs here"), and eventually they give up and go away....probably muttering to themselves, "I'll nail that damn pot smokinng hippy son of a bitch next time..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 09 - 06:55 PM 900, whippee! |
