BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:52 PM

People, this is not a trivial question.

Little Hawk, apparently you haven't been following the discussions about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not me who brought the matter up. One of the standard arguments voiced by those who oppose same-sex marriage—or even domestic partnerships—is that it would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and jeopardize the marriages of "normal" people.

But you can never get an explanation out of them as to how it would do this.

I would like someone to give me an explanation of just how same sex marriage would do this, because, frankly, I don't see how it would have any effect whatsoever, and I would like to hear the reasons—the logic, if any—that endeavors to support this assertion.

Ake claims that if I don't see it, it's because I don't take my own marriage seriously, which is just plain silly. So maybe Ake is the one I should ask to give me his reasons for believing what he apparently believes.

And GfS, your comments that I might be "hiding something" is another of your attempts to undercut the credibility of my arguments and negate whatever I have to say.   But I believe my credibility is pretty well established with Mudcatters who have been around long enough and who have read many of my posts on various subjects, and who know me pretty well, some, in fact, face to face.

"Hiding something." Is it that you are implying that I might be homosexual myself, and that's why I'm advocating for same-sex marriage? That seems to be the thrust of your last paragraph. If not that, then what do you speculate I might be hiding?

No, behind all the psychobabble, GfS, you are one very rude person, and not just a little sneaky.

And I won't be backing off any time soon. Be assured of that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:55 PM

A huge number of moderate Christians worldwide believe in the traditional definition of marriage, they find it ridiculous that marriage can be redefined to accomodate homosexuals.
Traditional marriage was always linked to the process of reproduction and believers in the traditional view feel they are being coersed into the acceptance of a definition which devalues one of their core beliefs. Is there any form of relationship that liberals would ban from the marriage club? to many homosexual "marriage" is simply the thin end of the wedge
THAT is how homosexual "marriage" affects conventional marriage, as I have explained four or five times already

As can be seen from this thread, Homosexual marriage has been seized and used as a political device by "liberals"...something which the traditionalists view as the worst form of manipulation and hypocrisy.

When the very real and serious health issues on homosexual practice are added to the mix, I cannot believe that the self- confessed, "obviously intelligent" people on this forum consider homosexality to be simply an alternative, normal and healthy lifestyle.

Don there is no need for you to back off, as your posts have become so desperate, and nonesensical, that they can no longer taken seriously

PEASANTS 1.......INTELLECTUALS 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:03 PM

"Little Hawk, apparently you haven't been following the discussions about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not me who brought the matter up. One of the standard arguments voiced by those who oppose same-sex marriage—or even domestic partnerships—is that it would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and jeopardize the marriages of "normal" people.

But you can never get an explanation out of them as to how it would do this."

I am aware of that side of the discussion, Don, but it doesn't concern me too much (if it concerns me at all...which I don't think it does). I'm more concerned about health issues related to anal sex. I do not consider it a moral issue, but I do consider it a health issue, whether or not that form of intercourse is being used on men OR women.

People's opinion's about whether or not same-sex marriage could "somehow undermine the institution of marriage" are mostly subjective, just as subjective as their opinions about how a change in dress code, for example, could affect public schools or sports or the morale of the police force. It's perfectly legitimate for people to question things like that and wonder about the ramifications of making a change in some traditional custom. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they are "bigots" or "homophobes", it simply indicates that they are traditionalists, and we are all traditionalists about some things in life.

Therefore, I see no particular reason why individuals should be pilloried and personally attacked for having an opinion on either side of the issue of whether or not to institutionalize same-sex marriage.

As for me, I'm in favor of freedom and personal choice, so I have absolutely no objection to same-sex marriage. It doesn't bother or threaten me in the least, and I'm not worried about the tradition being threatened by it. That's my opinion. It doesn't bother me that Akenaton does not share that opinion....and I DO agree in the main with his concerns about the health issues...but that's not a moral issue, as I've said before, it's strictly a health issue.

I also think it's okay for people to do unhealthy things to themselves if they really want to, because I believe in freedom of choice...as long as they aren't affecting others by their actions.

So....although I think smoking is stupid and destructive, I will not take away people's right to do it, although I will take away their right to inflict secondhand smoke on other people inside an enclosed public area. And I will not take away their right to drink, but I will penalize them if they do it while they're driving or if they commit crimes while drunk. And I will not take away anyone's right to have a same-sex relationship or to have a same-sex marriage...because they are perfectly free to do that if they want as far as I'm concerned, and I wish them all happiness....nevertheless I do consider the practice of anal intercourse in ANY relationship to be an unwise and health-endangering practice, and I would advise anyone against it if I were their doctor.

There's nothing physically harmful about anyone kissing someone else or showing affection...opposite sex or same-sex. There's nothing physically harmful about engaging in oral sex (unless you're already carrying an STD of some kind). There's nothing that shocks me about a man doing any of those things with another man, although I don't find it personally appealing, that's for sure. ;-) It's not to my taste particularly, but why should that matter to me if I don't have to do it myself or watch someone else do it? So it doesn't matter to me.

But...anal sex is physically harmful over a period of time (mostly to the recipient) because the human rectum was simply not designed by nature for that sort of activity. It was designed to expel bodily waste, not to have an erect penis shoved up it repeatedly.

Frequent anal intercourse causes damage to the anal musculature and in time can result in incontinence. It can also cause damage to the intestinal wall, internal bleeding, and sometimes some small abrasions to the penis as well, and given the fact that the inside of the rectum is anything but a clean area of the body, that can lead to further health problems. It's an extremely unclean habit to engage in.

These are not reasons, Don, for banning gay relationships nor are they reasons for banning same-sex marriage, but they ARE a health issue in themselves, and that's my concern.

Another concern I have...and it's a big one...is how politicians, demagogues, and special interest groups and fanatics on both the Right and the Left have siezed upon this issue for their own gain, with the intention of dividing and conquering a confused electorate... They BOTH have the gall to pretend to be occupying some kind of "moral high ground"...they BOTH have no respect for anyone with an even slightly divergent opinion...and they are BOTH continually inflaming this issue in the media. My reaction to that is: "A pox on both their houses!"

Those are my concerns.

Now, if Akenaton feels that a change in a tradition...ANY tradition... is upsetting to him, he has a right to feel that way without being termed a "bigot". And if he feels that it's a health issue, he's right, in my opinion...as regards anal intercourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:17 PM

""Don T., Good question, at least an honest one....""

I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.

On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers.


""Since the HIV virus has been out there, most all health care professionals (dentists too), emergency workers, police, and fire, now are required to wear gloves, when required to touch or handle other people, in the execution of their services.""

And this proves your point about homosexual AIDS carriers because.........................?
I think you'll find gloves are worn in treating ALL patients.

And while we are on the subject of honest questions, was the following from my earlier post TOO difficult for you?:-

(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin, but learned behaviour, does it not NECESSARILY follow that heterosexuality is also a "lifestyle choice" in the opposite direction?

If this is so, then the question of "normality" or "deviance" surely does not arise.

In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)


I've noticed that, whenever anyone posts something you find difficult to answer, you simply ignore it. Why then should any of the rest of us be required to take your comment seriously?

Care to give an HONEST answer?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:23 PM

We cross-posted, Akenaton. Are your fingers as tired as mine? ;-D

You know, Don (F), I wouldn't even object to someone marrying their dog or their sheep....provided that it could be somehow verified that the dog or sheep fully umderstood the arrangement and was in favor of it! ;-D Mutual consent, in other words.

It cannot, however, be verified. Therefore, Don (F), I am not in favor of legalized marriage between a human being and a dog or sheep.

Note to the two Dons: It is Don (F) whom I am directly addressing in these last two posts (aside from one sentence above to akenaton), not Don (wysiwyg) T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:40 PM

Excellent, Little Hawk! I find myself in agreement with everything you just said. In both your most recent posts.

Ake, I recommend that you read what Little Hawk has written. I especially recommend the paragraph that begins "People's opinion's about whether or not same-sex marriage could 'somehow undermine the institution of marriage' are mostly subjective. . . ."

And as to my posts becoming "so desperate, and nonsensical, that they can no longer [be] taken seriously," that's only your opinion, just like your misgivings about same-sex marriage.

By the way, did you even bother to look at any of the material I linked to in my post of 07 May 09 - 07:45 p.m? I didn't think so. Well, don't bother. You'll undoubtedly just blow them off as usual as "gay lobby propaganda," despite the authoritativeness of the sources.

Don Firth

P. S. And bullseye, Don T! Right on target!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:48 PM

I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:01 PM

I don't think I've ever been to a doctor or dentist who did not put on rubber gloves before even the most cursory examination. Standard Operating Procedure, whether operating or not.

It never occurred to me to take it personally. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:12 PM

A whole catalog of diseases can be spread through contact with someone else's bodily fluids by whatever means. Person wipes nose, then a moment or two later, shakes hands with someone. Turning a doorknob or using a banister.

And aerosols! A good, enthusiastic sneeze can do a very large room in not more than a few seconds.

Life is fraught (past tense of fright?) with hazards that are many and varied.

(Pianos falling out of windows. . . .)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:05 PM

Okay, Don (F), I'm glad you understand my position. ;-)

I do think that people have a right to object to same-sex marriage being legalized if they feel it offends their traditional sense of what the term "marriage" means. If so, then they should inform their Congressman or whomever of their opinion, and vote accordingly at election time. I would not automatically characterize them all as "bigots" or "homophobes", however, because many of them may be nothing more than conventional traditionalists...they may not hate gays at all, they may just love the old traditions they grew up with...and it's not a sin to be a traditionalist (whatever the tradition may be).

We've had a continuing brouhaha in Canada, for example, about whether Sikhs who are enlisted as police officers should be allowed to wear their turbans while in uniform. I don't have a problem with it if they do, but the vast majority of Canadians feel that it's not appropriate and that the Sikh police officers should wear the same hats and headgear as all the other Canadian police officers do, because that's the uniform and the tradition in this country. So...it remains a dispute here.

Traditions change, but they usually change slowly. I've seen many change in the last 60 years. I may regret some of those changes, but I have no problem with most of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:47 PM

I don't want to get involved in this argument, I have my own opinions about civil partnerships and marriage - however if I might be excused a small 'thread drift' in reply to LH's post....

Sikh police want bullet-proof turbans

'Sikh police officers in Britain want the government to develop bullet-proof turbans to allow them to serve as firearms officers without having to remove their headwear
Inspector Gian Singh Chahal, vice-chairman of the newly formed British Police Sikh Association, said the Home Office needs to make provisions for Sikhs to recognise their role in the police force, the Guardian reported.'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 May 09 - 09:51 PM

Somebody simply needs to develop a 12 step program to help the Sikhs get over their addiction. It would be better for them, and it would certainly be better for the tax paying public.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:05 PM

I did not intend this digression to reult in any attack on anyone's religious beliefs as I would not attack anyone's 'disbelief'

In the UK there is no problem with Sikh police officers wearing a turban
A Home Office spokesman said on Thursday: "The Government wants a police service that reflects the diverse communities it serves."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:13 PM

Peace: "I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page"

Yes, and was standardized in the early 80's. Before that, one could go to a doctor, or dentist, and they would not..But you are correct.
I happen to be in UCLA, Hospital(Westwood) at the time when, the first, yes, the FIRST, exam was going to given to a patient(outpatient), who had something that no one had a bulletin on yet. It was called AIDS/HIV, but there was absolutely nothing released about the disease yet, and three of the doctors we're afraid, at that time (1982), to administer the physical, and were debating how, who, and what to do, as a precautionary measure. They (two) finally performed it wearing environmental suits! Within two weeks of that time, more information came out about this new, and strange disease. Since that time, the standard operating procedure, was to wear gloves, patient to patient. Later that year, the dentists, at UCLA, were refusing to work on patients with either, Hep, or AIDS. Saw it with my own eyes! Heard it with my own ears. Any one here can remember, not that long ago, when the doctor would merely wash his hands, but not wear gloves, except for certain things.

Don T.: "I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.
On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers....

Don, If Akenaton hasn't posted enough on that yet, then you ain't reading!

"HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?"

Another stupid question, Bi-sexuals, promiscuity, etc etc...(ohhh ye-a-a-ahh, I forgot..)

"(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin,....Blah blah blah" Here, watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

"In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law."

Behavior is not covered the same as ethnicity etc. etc.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)
Neither can you! re-read my post on the civil rights,regarding real civil rights..its just a little scroll away!
Now 79% of blacks opposed Prop 8 in Calif....Ever wonder why????
Maybe they have a better clue about what civil rights is really about, ok?? Oh, Obama does not support it either..pretty far out, for the leftist of the left!(Voting record in the Senate)

So, if it not genetic, which it isn't, not ethnic, not about age(YET), or born with gender, or religious, what the fuck is your basis for harping about it being a civil right????
I've already stated, a bazzillion times, that all should be equal under the law, and all rights are endowed by our creator, etc etc(not by the state), and not based on what genital you put where!..and trying to get acceptance of that behavior, for whim's sake. If two guys, women, goats, pigs, amoebas, etc etc want to live together, fine! They do all the time. If they want to put their sex organs up each others nose, that's their business. I hope they conceive a lot of snot, but to turn this into a Civil Rights issue, of entitlement, and use it to further a political agenda, is ridiculous. Marriage it is not.
Maybe your parents forgot to explain why you are you, how you got here, and what they had in mind, when they got together.

Don First, Yours is coming..set it aside, just for you!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:13 AM

Re turbans. Make them out of Kevlar if they have to be bullet proof. However, that won't stop yer skull from shattering when .357 gives ya a little tap.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:46 AM

Turbans don't strike me as a problem. ;-) If I was the chief of Canadian police, I'd say, "Sure. Wear your turbans on duty. No problem with me."

Sikhs have a long military tradition serving the British Empire in its glory days, and they make excellent soldiers and cops. I hardly see how wearing turbans would make them any less effective at carrying out their duties.

A majority of Canadians, however, seem to disagree with me on that. Again, it's a subjective matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:22 AM

The whole thing about turbans is a bunch of crap, imo. I'm with you on this one 100% LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 09 - 06:28 AM

Don Firth....I recommend that you read Little Hawk's clarification of the paragraph you linked to.
It represents my position exactly, I am simply giving my opinion against homosexual "marriage" and listing the reasons for holding that opinion.

None of the reasons I have given have been satisfactorally answered by you or any of ther others who have attempted to defend Homosexual marriage.

The position of being against homosexual marriage has been widely presented in the populal media as "homophobic" or "bigoted", this makes proper debate almost impossible, and forces people like myself and GfS immediately on the defensive, when it should really fall to the Pro homosexual group to prove the desirability or safety of promoting homosexuality as a normal and safe lifestyle.

My point about the link between homosexuality and Aids has not been answered at all, as I said before it is the "elephant in the room" a glaring black hole in your argument.

You misrepresent my words regularly, now I see you have taken to misrepresenting Little Hawk......I'm sure he will not be too pleased to be used as a "touchstone" for your aggresive syle of argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 May 09 - 09:09 AM

"I did not intend this digression to result in any attack on anyone's religious beliefs..."


                   It's not really a digression, Emma. I would attack anyone and everyone's religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are what cause most of the problems in the world, and religioius beliefs are what is causing all of the problems with gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:12 PM

I would be pleased if people in general would stop their knee-jerk labelling of other people as "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "anti-semites", and other such damning labels in today's society....all of which totally preclude having any chance of a meaningful discussion.......and that is the primary real purpose of those kind of terms. They are meant to silence people on the other side of a debate. They are a form of savage emotional intimidation of other people.

I would be pleased if people would stop that kind of crude labelling of others and would instead try to actually listen and understand the concerns that others have and grasp why they have those concerns. If they did so, instead of engaging in name-calling, they would discover that those others are usually not nearly so far away from them philosophically as they think. They would discover (surprise!) that people on the other side of the argument are also rational, sane, idealistic, and desirous of freedom and happiness for all humanity.

I am pleased by the fact that the overall discussion has become a little more reasonable in most of the more recent posts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 09 - 02:25 PM

Congratulations, GfS and Ake. You win!

No, not the discussion. Not on your bogus data. Not on your convoluted use of illogic. Not on your wit and charm. No, not at all. You win on sheer bull-headed endurance. And the realization that not all the substantiated scientific data in the world will ever change your minds (Flat Earth syndrome).

But at least sparring with you two has given me a good look at the kind of shoddy data, tangled reasoning, and sham studies (including that video denying the genetic connection, which leaves out a crucial piece of information that would negate the message of the video) that I will be meeting in my endeavors in the real world. Thanks for the exercise.

Rather than wasting my time here trying to reason with people, one of whom can't even get my name right, and all of whom a filled to the gills with acrimony and display all the potential for opening-mindedness of tree stumps, I'm going to use my time and energy to lend my support to the cause of same-sex marriage in my state. The law has been passed by the legislature, but the goons are gathering to get up a California-style referendum, so I'm talking with my local state legislator (who lives just a couple of blocks away when he isn't in Olympia, the state capital, and who goes to the same church my wife and I do—and who voted for the same-sex marriage bill) to find out what I can do in the real world to help block the referendum and get the bill permanently adopted. I've already talked to him once, but I'm meeting him again tomorrow at coffee hour after church.

Besides, a wise old uncle once told me, "Young man, don't waste your time arguing with a bull that has diarrhea. He can produce it much faster than you can shovel it away."

Don Firth

P. S. I may look in from time to time to see if this thread is still going. As I said before, it's well past its "sell-by" date.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 02:51 PM

History of AIDS to 1986--article worth reading.

Calling AIDS a homosexual disease is a misnomer. Hell, stories that first came out suggesting that Ebola--which does in 10 days what AIDS does in 10 years--was first brought into the human population because someone had sex with a green monkey. Fact is a child was bitten on the arm by a green monkey and THAT transmitted it to the human population at that time. But, various 'phobes will not pass any opportunity to target the objects of their hatred. (That is not a reference to anyone posting to this thread.)

Read the article; it's worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 09 - 07:38 PM

""I would be pleased if people in general would stop their knee-jerk labelling of other people as "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "anti-semites", and other such damning labels in today's society....""

I'm sure you would, LH, and I wouldn't argue with you if you could explain to me why you feel that I, or anyone else should accept you as arbiter, and accept your opinion as more valid than anyone else's.

You sit on your high moral cloud, looking down on us lesser intellects and comment in judgement on me, and talk about knee jerk reactions, and name calling.

If I see a shovel leaning against a wall, I'm not going to say "That's a manually operated earth shifter".

It's a bloody shovel.

Ditto, if I see the kind of nasty, crude, irrational rants so evident in postings by GfS, and they, IN MY OPINION add up to bigot, then I WILL say so, with or without YOUR approval.

That is emphatically NOT a knee jerk. It is my CAREFULLY CONSIDERED opinion, which seems to be shred by rather a lot of quite intelligent people besides myself.

Ake is a slightly different matter. I don't think he can help his hardwired disgust toward gays, but the logic of his position completely escapes me, and I feel it has escaped him too. His emotions have blinded him to the one fact that destroys his argument completely.

Ake maintains that his major objection to homosexual marriage is on grounds of danger to health.

But he hasn't yet explained how allowing "gay marriage", as opposed to "civil partnership", is going to increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Nor does he offer any insight as to how refusing that right will decrease the incidence.

Inquiring minds would like to know the scientific basis for any such belief.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 11:54 PM

You make an interesting point there, Don T. Indeed, I don't see "how allowing "gay marriage", as opposed to "civil partnership", is going to increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS."

There would, in any case, be just as many gay relationships still happening whether or not they were placed under the definition of "legal marriage". After all, if people want to have a gay relationship they will, right? ;-)

I think that Akenaton is opposed to the idea of legalizing gay marriage because he's a traditionalist. He likes the established tradition, established for thousands of years now...and that tradition is that a marriage consists of an adult man and an adult woman who are married to one another.

Akenaton likes that tradition. He is opposed to changing it. That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot or a homophobe, (although you may think it does...and that's your opinion). It makes him a traditionalist.

Now, in my case I am not so attached to the marriage tradition. I'm not worried about it much at all. Accordingly it doesn't worry me if it gets changed to include same sex couples. It seems like an insignificant matter to me...like I've said before: "It's a tempest in a teapot".

So I'm not nearly as attached to the tradition as Akenaton is, that's all.

****

He may find sex between males disgusting. Fine. I find it kind of distasteful, myself...it certainly doesn't turn me on, I can't empathize with it, and I don't get a good feeling from observing it (in a movie, for example), but I am not the least bothered by two men showing genuine affection or love for one another...I just don't much like seeing them have sex with each other, that's all. I don't in the least mind seeing a scene where two women are having sex or a man and a woman are having sex. That's just my own personal taste, period. It's not some kind of moral position, just a matter of taste.

Now, if Akenaton finds sex between males disgusting, that's okay...because he can be allowed his own preferences surely when it comes to what he finds disgusting and what he doesn't? That does not classify him as a bigot.

I find anal sex disgusting...whether it is done to a man OR to a woman. I think it's a disgusting practice. I would not, however, pass a law against it or persecuate couples who freely chooses to do it...because what I find disgusting doesn't have to be made illegal for me to feel "safe"! ;-) I accept the fact that other people will do a certain number of things that I find disgusting....and that's life!

The fact that Akenaton is disgusted by the idea of men having sex with other men does not make him a bigot...it simply indicates his particular taste, that's all.

I find the sound (and attitude) of most rap songs disgusting. Does that make me a bigot? No. It just indicates my own taste in music. I don't go for rap music. Many teenagers don't go for classical music. They're not bigots either...it just isn't to their taste, that's all.

Any comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 12:26 AM

Just a thought before I turn off my computer and retire, Little Hawk:

If someone lives in a society that condones slavery and he comes out strongly against a movement toward emancipation, is he merely a "traditionalist?" And should he be excused on that account?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:30 AM

Don Firth obviously has a "ghost writer" among his weasel minions, his letter of "congratulations" to GfS and myself, although admitting that he has run out of credible responses, is padded out with lies and crass bad tempered insults, which appear a little beyond Don's satirical abilities.

Firstly ....for the umpteenth time,I do not hate homosexuals. Is there no one on the pro homosexual "marriage" side who can carry on an objective discussion? Why does "hate" have to brought into the discussion other than to smear ones opponent?

In answer to Don T's point, I believe homosexuality is a combination of learned behaviour and psychiatric imbalance. It also has been shown to be an extremely dangerous lifestyle....the aids figures clearly show that, but are routinely denied by the pro homosexual "marriage" lobby
This denial has ensured that no proper independent medical study of homosexuality and AIDS has yet been carried out and this state of affairs is neither in the interests of homosexuals nor society at large. The agenda is "normalisation" of homosexual practice....the "rights" to foster children or have their union blessed by the church are huge milestones on the road to normalisation and very soon those "rights" will be used to block any move towards a much needed medical study.
Basically that is why I think the "Homosexual rights" issue affects everyone not just those in a traditional marriage.

I do agree with Little Hawk when he decribes how I feel about traditional marriage....Personally I dont care too much about any sort of marriage other than from the legal perspective, but I know hundreds of ordinary couples who believe that traditional marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, blessed by god, to spend their lives together and bring up their children as good citizens.
They feel they are being used as pawns in a cynical political charade.

Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", buthave just been taken in by modern "liberalisation", which is of course the very antithesis of what a real liberal stands for...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 09:58 AM

Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation", which is of course the very antithesis of what a real liberal stands for...Ake

So very well said!!!

The whole same sex marriage push, is not about being sympathetic towards homosexuals, and their synthetic, over dramatized plight! It has far more to do with non-thinking 'sympathizers' trying too hard to be 'tragically hip', and using the issue, for self aggrandizement, by 'jumping on the bandwagon', to weaken, a society based on the(at least at one time) Constitution, by parsing it, in an attempt to show it being less relevant. While attempting to mock the Constitution, religions, Civil Rights, traditions which our society was based on, they only mock themselves. When it is pointed out to them, that the basis on which the foundation of their cause is based on, is clearly flawed, and erroneous, then come the charges of 'hatred', and the misuse of the term 'bigots', come spewing forth...and that is far more from frustration. Instead of being reasoned with, accurately, they fear facing certain embarrassment, which is, of course, the direct opposite, of their desired goal of being lauded, and noted for being on the 'right side' of being 'hip'. Others, who have posted on here, might have personal reasons, because homosexuality has personally touched them, either directly, or through a family member, and in accepting it, they have had to try to legitimize that jump.
Whether or not, one actually has empathy towards homosexuality or not, some just like the trend of shaking the pillars of our present society, completely oblivious that when the pillars finally go, the temple will fall with crushing force on them, and everyone else. This practice is being carried out quite well, in our nation's capitals (U.S. and U.K.), and is merely the latest trend d'jour...and possibly a fatal one at that.
Now, if what I just posted, was only an opinion(to some), then they are not thinking this, along with other trends, through very deeply...and hence their protestations are equally as shallow.
Usually, the deeper the game, the shallower the motive!
Folks, this nation and founding principles are under a severe attack, by many issues, using whatever cause and arguments to support that attack. The family is under attack. The fabric of our culture, structure, politics and governmental system is under attack. This issue of homosexual marriage, is only one front. As states approve same sex marriage, is only the indicator of how popular the trend, and notion are being received.
Virtually anyone can live with anyone else, doing anything they want, under the present system. This is only being used as a political ploy, and promoted by politicians who don't give a rat's ass, about the quality, nor integrity of the system which they were elected to represent....and that, my friends, is the plain, honest, and simple truth.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:01 AM

Oh, and by the way..Happy Mother's Day!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:28 AM

Don F., you asked:

"If someone lives in a society that condones slavery and he comes out strongly against a movement toward emancipation, is he merely a "traditionalist?" And should he be excused on that account?"

Good question! Okay, let's take a look at that. In ancient Rome, for instance, slavery was a normal practice, and it was a huge and absolutely necessary part of their economy as they did things at the time. So everyone simply took it for granted...well, everyone except a few radicals like Spartacus who led a gladiator and slave revolt against the power of Rome...and almost won it!

All Roman citizens at the time regarded Spartacus as a dangerous criminal. Many slaves, however, regarded him as a freedom fighter. Who was right?

Looking from our present day perspective, we would say that Spartacus was right. If we were Roman citizens back then, though, I bet that virtually all of us would have said that Spartacus was a dangerous criminal and a threat to society...a terrorist, in fact.

People's views are shaped by what they have grown up with and what is in their own interests of survival. This was certainly true of Southerners who fought for the Confederacy.

I would not characterize the entire population of Roman citizens in 100 B.C. or the entire population of the Confederacy as bigots because they thought it was okay to keep slaves. I would characterize them as conventional people, maintaining the social customs of their own time, and looking toward defending their own survival as a culture.

But ideas change as time goes by...

There comes a time in human affairs where some great philosophical minds may publicly question a former assumption, such as that slavery is a legitimate practice.

When they question it, most people are initially shocked! That stimulates a lot of vigorous debate...accusation...counter-accusation, and so it goes.

Anyway, the crucial matter in the debate, the matter to focus on, is NOT whether so-and-so is a bigot. The crucial matter is the subject of discussion itself (slavery, women's suffrage, same-sex relationships, etc).

What we should be focusing ON here is NOT whether so-and-so is a bigot, but we should be discussing the subject OF gay relationships, gay lifestyle, same-sex marriage, medical considerations, and so on....without sinking to the level of personally attacking other people as "bigots" and trying to prove that they are "bad people" for having the opinion they have about something. Look at the bandwidth that has been consumed here by all these attempts to prove that another poster is a "bad person" (a bigot). And to what useful effect?

Discuss the subject. Drop the personal attacks. That's my suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:01 PM

""but I know hundreds of ordinary couples who believe that traditional marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, blessed by god, to spend their lives together and bring up their children as good citizens.
They feel they are being used as pawns in a cynical political charade.""

So, Ake, it's not just Homosexuals you want to disenfranchise, but Mormons, Hindus, and Muslims as well.

The Hindus and Muslims both have a TRADITION of polygamy, whereby marriage is a contact between a man and several women. This tradition goes back, in the case of Muslims, nearly as far as yours, and in the case of Hindus, even possibly further.

The ancient Egyptians had a tradition of rule by a brother/sister pair united in marriage.

There have been multiple cultures practising polyandry, whih predate, in many cases, the Christians.

The Christian tradition of one man/one woman marriage is a man made convention, and as such has seen many changes over the centuries, according to the moral codes of various ethnic cultures.

In view of the above, you will I'm sure, excuse me if I say that your argument on the basis of keeping traditional values is weak, maybe even specious.

As to your oft repeated claims that Homosexuals are responsible for the existence of aids, and form the majotrity of carriers I can only say:-

ASOLUTE BLOODY NONSENSE.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:12 PM

""Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation",""


That is the classic comment arising out of an utterly bigotted mindset.

Translated it reads as follows:-

""I BELIEVE THAT SUCH AND SUCH IS TRUE, AND ANYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH MY VIEWPOINT IS A) DELUDED OR B) STUPID, OR C) BRAINWASHED.

THIS MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE ANY INTELLIGENT, SANE PERSON WOULD KNOW THAT I AM RIGHT!!""

It is arrogant, insulting, and ultimately bigotted, and only two people on this thread have used thi argument.

I rest my case, folks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:19 PM

""The whole same sex marriage push, is not about being sympathetic towards homosexuals, and their synthetic, over dramatized plight! It has far more to do with non-thinking 'sympathizers' trying too hard to be 'tragically hip', and using the issue, for self aggrandizement, by 'jumping on the bandwagon', to weaken, a society based on the(at least at one time) Constitution, by parsing it, in an attempt to show it being less relevant. While attempting to mock the Constitution, religions, Civil Rights, traditions which our society was based on, they only mock themselves. When it is pointed out to them, that the basis on which the foundation of their cause is based on, is clearly flawed, and erroneous, then come the charges of 'hatred', and the misuse of the term 'bigots', come spewing forth...and that is far more from frustration. Instead of being reasoned with, accurately, they fear facing certain embarrassment, which is, of course, the direct opposite, of their desired goal of being lauded, and noted for being on the 'right side' of being 'hip'.""


That's the way GfS. You are digging a very large hole in trying the old, largely ineffective, technique of hiding the fact that you DON'T have a logical answer by accusing the other side of doing what , in fact, you are yourself doing.

Do feel free to dive into said hole and pull it in after you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 02:45 PM

Don..I don't think you are deluded, stupid, or brainwashed, I do think you are deeply committed to your point of view....just as I am.
From other threads, I know you to be a fairminded and sincere man, just the sort of person I enjoy debating with and I hope when this thread is over we can get back to discussing current events more amicably....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 02:58 PM

No, Ake, I have not run out of "credible responses." They're all right out in the open here for all to read. It's just that you and GfS don't like them, so you cavalierly blow them off. Which doesn't mean they are not credible or true, it just means that, as I say, you and GfS don't like them.

And by the way, thank you for the compliment:   The idea that I'm such a brilliant and versatile writer that I must be more than one person warmed my heart.

####

And Little Hawk, according to quite a number of philosophers, and some religious figures, there are such things as moral imperatives, derived, not from society or custom or the times in which one lives, but by the necessities of and for human life at all times, among other things, the matter of simple equitable justice. These are things that the human race has been gradually stumbling toward throughout history. The Magna Carta and many of the things the founding fathers endeavored to incorporate in the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights are examples of growing recognition of these moral imperatives.

I have frequently quoted here on Mudcat a statement that I believe describes our condition in a nutshell:

"Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized man. It is us."

There are things that are just plain wrong, regardless of the customs of a particular society or the historical period in which that society exists. And there are actions that people are called to perform, indicated by these same moral imperatives, such as responding to examples of inequities and injustices when one encounters them.

Moral imperatives are not merely matters of opinion.

Don Firth

P. S. I've had my conversation with my state legislator friend. Much good information. And the folks in our monthly writers' group are due to arrive soon, so I'll be busy for the rest of the day.

P. P. S. A little food for thought:—

Moral absolutism:
There are moral judgments (claims of good and evil and right and wrong) that are absolutely true, regardless of the moral framework (society, culture, value system) in which they are uttered.

Moral relativism:
There are no moral judgments that are absolutely true. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the moral framework in which they are uttered. The same judgment may be true in one, and false in another, and there is no exterior standard by which to compare them. It does not make sense to try to judge the truth of moral claims without a frame of reference.

[e.g: The public beheading of a woman accused of adultery. Is this right merely because it's the custom of that society?]

Nihilism:
Begins by accepting moral relativism as true. Then claims that, because moral judgements are relative to their frame of reference, and there is no standard by which to determine the true frame of reference, all moral conversation is meaningless. Morality is entirely abandoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:22 PM

More disinformation:
"P. S. I may look in from time to time to see if this thread is still going. As I said before, it's well past its "sell-by" date."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:30 PM

Petty petty petty. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:43 PM

GfS and Ake,

You both assert you are not bigoted, and yet you persist in your diatribes, insisting they are reasoned and based on facts; yet I see no facts presented, and I hear a lot of impassioned rhetoric full of grand conclusions without any analytical basis.

It would be one thing if your rhetoric was in favor of your favorite kind of sherbet or the preferred interpretation of Tolkein's runes. But when you bring the same infatuated gusto and unreason to bear on an issue like whether or not a civil status should be exclusive, you are standing up for an intensely misguided and harmful view which supports close-minded bigotry. Even though, with your layers of rationalization, you see clearly you are not bigoted, it is clear to me that you both esouse an unreasoning dislike for, and a willingness to mistreat, a group of citizens of this country on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Why you think sexuality should be such a compelling and important issue is not clear to me, but there is no question in my mind that prejudice and factless emotional bias based on prejudgement is what you are both dipping in to when you make your enthusiastically antipathetic posts.

I have nothing to add, here, except that you have won no ground, shown no factual case, and said nothing to persuade me you are trying to reason or find truth or even common ground.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:08 PM

Thank you Amos.....hope you enjoyed your holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:16 PM

Why, yes, Ake, I enjoyed it IMMENSELY!! Tropical paradise, perfect diving, good rum, fine new friends, even p[layed a one-night gig at a very posh restaurant. Fun and games and not a care in the world-0-who could ask for more?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 07:43 PM

""Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation",""


""Don..I don't think you are deluded, stupid, or brainwashed,""
...Akenaton.


'SCUSE ME?

Now I'm confused.......Is there some other meaning of "taken in" that DOESN'T translate as DELUDED?

Or do you mayhap think that "liberalisation" is affording me living accommodation?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:21 PM

Now I'm confused.......Is there some other meaning of "taken in" that DOESN'T translate as DELUDED?
Well, not exactly. 'Taken in' is more like being a true believer to a deception.
'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work...so, I guess you can be tolerant of other points of view. Make's one empowered to feel 'wide open' to other opinions, as long as they're willing to pay your way.
Well?? You asked!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM

I need drugs . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM

Soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:36 PM

Look in the back of the ambulance, in the triage stuff....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:38 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:47 PM

Don F. - Definitely there are moral imperatives. Absolutely. Unquestionably! We are mostly fairly clear on what they are too.

We all know that it's wrong to steal, wrong to commit unprovoked violence on someone, wrong to lie with the intention of deceiving innocent people for one's own personal gain, wrong to rape people, wrong to cheat people, wrong to murder people, wrong to wantonly break the civil laws just because you feel like it, wrong to slander people, wrong to blackmail people, wrong to commit fraud, etc.

We know these things. I know these things. I am not a moral relativist.

We all know NOW that slavery is wrong. That has become obvious to virtually everyone in North America, for example, since roughly about 1865, but it took a long time for it to become obvious. It took thousands of years before the great mass of humanity reached an awareness level where virtually everyone (if not everyone) could plainly see and AGREE that slavery is wrong. That was the point I was making about the Romans, the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, and other ancient peoples. They did not yet know that slavery was wrong. They thought it was totally normal, fully justifiable, and most of us would have thought so too if we'd been born back then into those societies...specially if we'd been born among the slave-owners rather than the slaves.

I was alluding to that not because I am a moral relativist, but to demonstrate how people in one society can take fully for granted a practice that is later seen as VERY wrong in other societies.

Very few people are moral relativists. I don't think I've ever met one in my life, and I am not one. Most people have very definite ideas about what is right and wrong, and I know you and I certainly do...and we probably agree on almost all points.

Nevertheless, I think it brings a discussion to a standstill when someone starts telling someone else he's a bigot or that his opinion is "bigotry". It just derails the entire discussion from that point forward.   People get lost in defending themselves or in attacking the other person, and that gets no one anywhere.

What you need for a productive discussion is to discuss the issue itself and all its various social ramifications, not to set about proving who in the discussion is or who is not a "bigot".

Everyone here has some useful ideas to offer about gay relationships, the institution of marriage itself, and other stuff like that. Let's talk about those ideas instead of fighting about whether someone else on the forum is a "bigot" or some other negative character assessment like that.

Everyone feels at heart that he or she is a good person. You do. I do. Akenaton does. GfS does. Don T does. Everyone here does. We all feel at heart that we are good people, and I think we probably all are good people. It does no good for one of us to say (in so many words) to another, "You're a bad person." It causes an angry defensive response, a counterattack, and things just get uglier from there. I see no point in it.

Instead, let's discuss the actual issues (of same sex marriage and gay relationships and etc). Present your ideas about those issues. See how they fly. Listen to other people's ideas. See if you can relate to what they mean.

There are some useful possibilities there.

There are no useful possiblities in any one of us trying to prove that someone else here is "bad"...a "bigot"...a "racist"...or some other condemnatory definition along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:39 PM

Unfortunately, morality IS relative, and the reason you meet fewer moral relativists than you might expect is because many people live in fairly static conditions. Any act can be a harmful one in the wrong context. And even murder may be the greatest good in the wrong context. We should not confuse the probability of a contextual weighting with the inherent "absolute" goodness of an act.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:46 PM

That's true, Amos! There are almost always, it seems, a few odd exceptions and variations to any moral rule we think we can come up with. ;-) I could have gone into that at length in my last post, but hell....I figured I'd already done enough damn typing already! (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:54 PM

Murdering Hitler, for example, could have been quite a public service to Germany (and the world) anywhere from the 1920's on...although it would still have been, technically speaking, a crime according to German civil law.

Stealing food to save the life of a starving person could also be justifiable.

There are any number of examples one could come up with, but it doesn't change the fact that we all think that murder and stealing are (normally speaking) morally quite wrong.

****

Now, stealing horses was considered a glorious and commendable act among the Indians of the western plains...an act to be proud of...provided you didn't steal the horses from a fellow member of your own tribe!

Tricky business, isn't it? ;-) Those Indians were not moral relativists, they just had a different set of customs, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:55 PM

1000?