BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:56 AM

Ebbie - It's just normal human curiosity and past investment that keeps bringing me back. Same as most people who post here. ;-)

See, it works this way. At some point, for some reason, one drops in on a thread. It might even be a thread that is on a subject that one normally has no interest in...and believe me, I have VERY little interest in Proposition 8 and whether or not Californians support it or oppose it...I don't give a hoot one way or the other.

However, mere curiosity caused me to drop in here at some point, and I read some posts. The way that people were going after each other and some of the specific things they said in those posts kind of troubled me, and I felt an urge to comment on that.

That led to people reacting to my comments. Their reactions stirred me to make further comments. I got accused here and there of some things that really surprised me (such as the notion that I'm a moral relativist)...so, like anyone, I reacted to that also. And so it went.

After awhile I had invested quite a bit of time trying to explain my ideas and stuff. When you've made a significant investment of time and effort on any thread, it becomes ever more likely that you will return again and again and check on what's happening lately on that thread. It becomes a self-renewing process.

You get curious as to how someone else might have responded to the last thing you said, so you check in and take a look. Then you see something new that somebody said (like your last post where you are talking to me), and you feel like, "Well, I should maybe reply to that..."

And so it goes! ;-D

It's sort of like a perpetual motion machine, and it's driven by the most common and universal of human impulses. This thread, after awhile, becomes its own justification for why I return to it again and again, whether or not I have any interest in same sex marriage in California.

Like the USA in Vietnam or Elvis in Las Vegas, I have become quite accustomed to being here by now, and it's likely I'll be around for awhile yet....because I can't help wanting to see what happened since my last post. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:27 AM

"And that, my friends, is the point."

Good one, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:58 AM

No wonder, no one listens to folk music these days......they have nothing worthwhile to say!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 09 - 03:36 AM

Are there really social issues which are simply "none of our business"?....Then who sets the rules which govern the way we live?
Are we to be like the three monkeys ...See no evil Hear no evil speak no evil.
It is vitally important that the link between homosexuality and aids is thouroughly investigated, and that will never happen while we are coersed into a state of denial......denial of the obvious.

If it is found that the practice is a trigger or a causal factor in the incidence of the disease, then we must look again at the status of homosexual behaviour in our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 13 May 09 - 04:49 AM

Akenaton, if these points have been made earlier in this mammoth thread, then I apologise in advance (I don't have time to read it all).

You talk about the link between homosexuality and AIDS, but the genuine link is between certain kinds of sexual practices and AIDS, or the link between the foolishness of not using condoms and AIDS.

Plenty of gay men do not participate in anal sex (in my experience, it's only heterosexuals with anti-gay agendas who think that we do). Plenty more use condoms when they do. The overwhelming majority of AIDS cases outside the West are the result of heterosexual intercourse without condoms.

Those are three reasons why you are positing a false equation.

Homosexuality is an identity, and it is not the same as same-sex activity.

And just out of interest, if your forum name relates to the Egyptian pharaoh, did you know that a lot of scholarship now considers him to a person involved in same-sex activity ? (Not that this makes him a 'homosexual', as that is a term coined in the 19th century)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:12 AM

""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.""

We have dictionary definitions for English language words (which don't actually include liberalisation with a Z), so making up your own meanings is just more of your copious output of bullshit.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:21 AM

""Good Lord!..Don't go into a tizzy!. I was merely being facetious!.Referring to present day political rhetoric, ONLY!"

No you weren't. You were seeking to label me, and my opinion, with your own twisted version of my meaning.



""By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??(I mean the real one, not the political nonsense????)""

Because we don't believe in your oft expressed pseudo concern. And we DO believe in civil rights for ALL.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:28 AM

""Exatly so LH.....many so called liberal positions are simply political issues dressed in such a manner that any questioning of that position can be battered into submission by foul language and innuendo.....this thread is a typical example.

"Bigot", "homophobe" etc has been used in many of the posts here in place of reasoned discussion and to try to stifle debate....these people are "liberal" in name only, in reality they are fascists.

Closed ears...closed eyes....closed minds.""


WHEREAS, of course, YOUR decision to discriminate against a minority, for no other reason than that you don't like the way they live THEIR lives, is both reasonable and OPEN minded.

Ha bloody ha!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:33 AM

""What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals,..well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate...OR..you really can, consider another side.""

Now THAT'S the REAL GfS emerging. If I WERE a homosexual, I don't think I'd WANT that on my side, or pretending compassion for my "problem"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:06 PM

Don (T)...it appears to me that both you AND GfS are absolutely determined to be offended by each other and to STAY angry about various things the other has said in the past and to not let go of it. ;-D How does that help you? Has it helped the Palestinians and Israelis solve anything in the past 5 or so decades? Has it helped end the standoff between North and South Korea?

Sometimes people go on and on taking offence and being angry about something because they enjoy it at some level. It makes them feel righteous and justified. Ever noticed that? I have. In 3-D life I make sure to avoid such individuals as best I can, but on the Internet it's not such a big problem, fortunately. That's why I'm still hanging around here. If this thread was a 3-D life situation, I'd have walked away from it hundreds of posts back, and I'd have given it no more thought whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:07 PM

""Are there really social issues which are simply "none of our business"?....Then who sets the rules which govern the way we live?""

In the USA, the legislators set the rules, within the framework laid down by the Constitution, which guarantees certain civil rights.

In the UK, Parliament sets the rules, and only Parliament.

Any attempt to circumvent or change the rules by other persons or by other means, is simply Mob Rule.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:20 PM

""Sometimes people go on and on taking offence and being angry about something because they enjoy it at some level.""

There's no DETERMINATION, on my side, to take offence at what GfS has to say.

The offence is there for all to see, in the continuing(not PAST) rhetoric about the deluded, stupid, nature of all who disagree with GfS's opinions, which, I might add, are gratuitously offensive in themselves to anyone who cares about discrimination against minorities.

To try to cloak that agenda in a spurious display of concern for the mental condition of these "poor, psychologically disturbed creatures", is DOUBLY offensive.


But there is one area in which (although I've not checked) GfS and I MIGHT agree, and that is in finding it offensive being patronised, and lectured like naughty children, by someone who clearly states he doesn't care one way or another about the topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:22 PM

"...well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate..."

Yeah, Don T., I notice that bit of rational, dispassionate, clear-headed debate myself. He/she seems to be foaming at the mouth a bit, I'd say.

####

And there you are again, Little Hawk, taking your usual rock-solid position:   hovering a bit above we mere mortals and going "tsk, tsk, tsk. . . ."

Don Firth

P. S. I mean, what the hell, Little Hawk. You said as much a post or two up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:31 PM

Yes, of course, the legislators set the rules. That's excactly what people are debating about in California, isn't it?

The legislators are theoretically supposed to represent the "will of the people"....while simultaneously upholding the established rule of law.

The established rule of law normally derives from founding documents such as the US Constitution, plus a host of other laws and statutes that have been enacted in the years, decades, and centuries following.

Do the legislators really represent the will of the people in actual practice? Ha!!! Fat chance. What the legislators normally end up representing is the will of the most powerful monied sectors in a society, that is to say: big business, the banks, the rich, the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, the professional organizations, and the established bureaucracy, all of which are in it for their own maintenance and their own pecuniary interests.

The legislators do, of course, make an attempt to convince the public that they are acting in their interests...and sometimes they are, to some extent, but they are far more responsive to the above-mentioned most powerful monied sectors, because those sectors control the government. The public does not. The public merely gets to choose between a few talking heads every few years on election day, and right after that is over and done with the usual power groups continue running the show as they always have.

I mentioned that not to necessarily fight with you about anything you said, Don T....but just because I find it interesting in its own right.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:37 PM

". . . colorless neutrality. . . ."
      --Dante, from The Inferno

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:38 PM

""What the legislators normally end up representing is the will of the most powerful monied sectors in a society, that is to say: big business, the banks, the rich, the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, the professional organizations, and the established bureaucracy, all of which are in it for their own maintenance and their own pecuniary interests.""

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but, given that the legislators are (mostly) upholding the civil rights of a minority, to equality of treatment, how does that gel with pandering to the monied sectors?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:08 PM

So the usual flock starts squawking because of one sentence that objects to the practice of name calling and labeling..and now you're back at it???
Your pseudo argument about being a 'civil rights' issue looks more to me, like an avoidance of responsibility, of being kind of parents who got closer to their kids. Here, let the government take care of it, I've got more important things to do. Hogwash! ..Meanwhile, that type of disconnect has bread a myriad of societal ills...and as so far as calling out the name calling, so called 'open minded liberals' ...all I called for was to 'consider the other side'..which if you weren't so trigger happy with your finger pointing denials, you would soon recognize, that what I told you was true, applicable, and far deeper in understanding that you may have even ventured. Try the plunge..try understanding something further than what your perception of the political rhetoric dictates to you, and the rest of the flock.
The only valuable post, following mine, coming your that side was from 'Smedley', which I'd love to respond to, and plan to, as soon as time permits. He, obviously may have a disagreement , or question about what I posted, but he laid it out, in a more honest, less vindictive way. Perhaps something in my post, caused him to consider, and think, maybe hit a resonating node, and he RESPONDED, rather than some of these knee jerk RE-ACTIONS..usually by those who know nothing about what they are talking about, further than 'talking points'!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:08 PM

For the record.

I have never pretended to be anything other than exactly what I am. Anyone who alleges differently bears the burden of providing a link to a post where I pretended to be a woman, and another where I pretended to be a man. Put up the links, shut the piehole, or keep it flapping with credibility in tatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:22 PM

GfS, you are assuming that all of this is an entirely new thought to we "pea-brained liberals" and we have never considered the question before. That is where you are dead wrong.

I can readily understand why a person with a close blood-relative who is homosexual might just be a little upset at the recent scientific evidence that homosexuality could be genetically predetermined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:28 PM

Um, GfS...nobody said the government should take care of "it"--if by "it" you mean the terrible problem of some people being homosexual.

All anyone has said, which you keep careening away from like a psycho pinball, is that the civil status and priveleges of marriage should be extended equally.

You keep frothing at the mouth, insisting you are being ignored, but the only part of what you are saying that is perhaps being ignored is the part where you change the subject.

I GOT that you feel all homosexuality is a deep emotional aberration born from abuse or neglect. I don't think that is uniformly the case. But as I said upthread, in a post you probably ignored, that issue is neither here nor there--etiology is not the concern, anymore than the etiology of race is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:31 PM

You're not misunderstanding me, Don T, except in this respect: I am not speaking in absolutes, and that is the part you seem to be misunderstanding.

I am saying that in general the legislators end up serving the most powerful monied interests in this society...and in any society. This does not mean that they NEVER serve the public, nor does it mean that they NEVER take a principled stand on some specific issue or another. Sometimes they do. It depends on a great many factors, including the personal convictions of some of the legislators involved.

No man is entirely ONE thing and one thing only. We are all creatures of great variety, agreed?

I'm sure the monied sectors have some concerns in regards to the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, but those concerns may vary a good deal depending on which part of the monied sectors you're talking about. I doubt they all see it the same way...and I doubt that in most cases they're are even affected by it.

Thus, it is a complex situation, as usual, and there are many factors involved. I certainly don't think I am aware of all of them, and I doubt that any of us are aware of all of them.

Most arguers don't want to consider the complexities of life. They simply want to beat their own drum beat as loudly as they can and they want to drown out the people on the other side of the debate...and THAT is what poisons the political dialogue.

I find Obama very refreshing, because when he talks he also takes time to listen, and he WILL give consideration to a variety of views differing from his own, and he WILL acknowledge the complexities in a debate. This indicates reason and intelligence on his part as well as goodwill toward those he is debating with. Sounds like a good way to go to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 09 - 06:30 PM

Well Smedley of course when the disease is transmitted to the heterosexual population we are bound to see many more cases in the heterosexual sector. This is simply because the hetero sexual community is vastly larger than the homosexual one...and it is still a fact that human aids always shows up first among homosexuals.

In every country worldwide, in real percentage terms, homosexuals are the largest sector of people "living with aids".
If a proper medical study of homosexual practice and the incidence of aids were to be set in motion....perhaps millions of lives could be saved.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 07:43 PM

". . . it is still a fact that human aids always shows up first among homosexuals."

Wrong, Ake. It first showed up in Africa among hunters who were trying to supply the market for what is known as "bush meat." The meat of monkeys. AIDS, like the Ebola virus, first showed up among African primates, and was then transmitted to humans, probably via bites.

The first appearance of AIDS in the United States WAS among homosexuals. And that's how it got—erroneously—labeled a "homosexual disease." It is no more a "homosexual disease" that tuberculosis is (tuberculosis first showed up in cows).

I know, Ake, I know. . . .   Facts are such a pain in the ass!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:21 AM

TIA:"You really can't live without me can you."
"For the record.
I have never pretended to be anything other than exactly what I am."
"..Not reading any more of this..."
Oka-a-ay?? How about deluded?

Amos: "I GOT that you feel all homosexuality is a deep emotional aberration born from abuse or neglect. I don't think that is uniformly the case"
I know you THINK THAT.....so what? Not how I look at it at all!

Don: "
Wrong, Ake. It first showed up in Africa among hunters who were trying to supply the market for what is known as "bush meat." The meat of monkeys. AIDS, like the Ebola virus, first showed up among African primates, and was then transmitted to humans, probably via bites."

Wrong! First showed up at Fort Kendrick, in a bio-lab.(Actually, that might be a 'news flash' to both you, and, Ake...but at least his concerns are far more real, and less personal).

(Don)"GfS, you are assuming that all of this is an entirely new thought to we "pea-brained liberals" and we have never considered the question before. That is where you are dead wrong."

Again, (and you are getting renown for it now, you are misquoting me, and changing the context. I was, as you know, was referring to those who resort to the name calling, and labeling of those who disagree with you as 'pea brains' which they are!....co-incidentally, they are those driven by a liberal agenda, over facts.

(Don, again)"I can readily understand why a person with a close blood-relative who is homosexual might just be a little upset at the recent scientific evidence that homosexuality could be genetically predetermined."

Afraid to mention that 'fine young man' who comes to dinner, and who he is?? I was being polite, and that last long post was partially meant for you. I know you overcame some difficult realizations, to be accepting, and I would expect that you may have chosen that path, as the most pragmatic to heal old wounds, and to draw closer, for 'mutual acceptance', as perhaps a way to make up for past regrets and damage,..so you copped a lesser plea, a compromise, which I understand. I also understand why you are so vehemently confronting this issue, rather than owning up to the fact that your life has been so much about YOU, that this is the best amends you can offer. I think you may have had a clue, when I alluded to this in earlier posts, but oh well, I guess the last longer post of mine hit a little too close to home...Did it ever occur to you, that because I broached that subject, where I did, and as sensitively that I did, that maybe, just maybe...I was being more of a friend than you even thought??
After all, who else could speak to you there?..not stick salt in your wounds, and be open to talk about it like you never have had before?? But, you still think its all about you, and can't admit or see it, and say 'I'm needing'?
So you twist(phrases) and turn(meanings around), hide(avoid replying to facts, you wish not to address), duck(dodging directness) and weave( lies, things that you say others said that they didn't even come close to meaning), and attack(posted assaults, calling names and trying to discredit) those who understand that your efforts for reconciliation, was short stepping.
Yeah, quite a guy!..and yet, you could be exchanging real dialogues with those who, just may have real insights, and are not fooled by your tactics...and who could actually help you, and your family.
Genetics?? No, try terror stricken, of facing some accountability, then moving onto being able to be a real role model to him, instead of a coward who is afraid. So you turn around on here, and vent the anger you have toward yourself, because of the frustration of knowing that. I would be glad to be of service to you..free.
Hearts only break..that will not bend!
You are only fooling yourself, if you think you portray anything else.
Scroll back....then ask yourself, 'How long did GfS know?' Why was GfS being polite, after all the crap I threw?' Instead of, 'How can I nail him/her now?' What?..Are you afraid that just because someone can see inside you, that I am going to dislike and disapprove of you, who I see?..as opposed to offering something to you? Are you going to stay defensive, because of your sense of guilt and failure? Hey, Maybe I'm on your side...just not the side that you put up, but more on the side of who you really are, inside.
Wanna' talk?..I'm here...I might even surprise you.
Now that's two longer posts, with compassion toward you, and your situation. Attack me?..or get down and get real?
Again, hearts only break, that do not bend.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:22 AM

(Forgot to sign in, again)

TIA:"You really can't live without me can you."
"For the record.
I have never pretended to be anything other than exactly what I am."
"..Not reading any more of this..."
Oka-a-ay?? How about deluded?

Amos: "I GOT that you feel all homosexuality is a deep emotional aberration born from abuse or neglect. I don't think that is uniformly the case"
I know you THINK THAT.....so what? Not how I look at it at all!

Don: "
Wrong, Ake. It first showed up in Africa among hunters who were trying to supply the market for what is known as "bush meat." The meat of monkeys. AIDS, like the Ebola virus, first showed up among African primates, and was then transmitted to humans, probably via bites."

Wrong! First showed up at Fort Kendrick, in a bio-lab.(Actually, that might be a 'news flash' to both you, and, Ake...but at least his concerns are far more real, and less personal).

(Don)"GfS, you are assuming that all of this is an entirely new thought to we "pea-brained liberals" and we have never considered the question before. That is where you are dead wrong."

Again, (and you are getting renown for it now, you are misquoting me, and changing the context. I was, as you know, was referring to those who resort to the name calling, and labeling of those who disagree with you as 'pea brains' which they are!....co-incidentally, they are those driven by a liberal agenda, over facts.

(Don, again)"I can readily understand why a person with a close blood-relative who is homosexual might just be a little upset at the recent scientific evidence that homosexuality could be genetically predetermined."

Afraid to mention that 'fine young man' who comes to dinner, and who he is?? I was being polite, and that last long post was partially meant for you. I know you overcame some difficult realizations, to be accepting, and I would expect that you may have chosen that path, as the most pragmatic to heal old wounds, and to draw closer, for 'mutual acceptance', as perhaps a way to make up for past regrets and damage,..so you copped a lesser plea, a compromise, which I understand. I also understand why you are so vehemently confronting this issue, rather than owning up to the fact that your life has been so much about YOU, that this is the best amends you can offer. I think you may have had a clue, when I alluded to this in earlier posts, but oh well, I guess the last longer post of mine hit a little too close to home...Did it ever occur to you, that because I broached that subject, where I did, and as sensitively that I did, that maybe, just maybe...I was being more of a friend than you even thought??
After all, who else could speak to you there?..not stick salt in your wounds, and be open to talk about it like you never have had before?? But, you still think its all about you, and can't admit or see it, and say 'I'm needing'?
So you twist(phrases) and turn(meanings around), hide(avoid replying to facts, you wish not to address), duck(dodging directness) and weave( lies, things that you say others said that they didn't even come close to meaning), and attack(posted assaults, calling names and trying to discredit) those who understand that your efforts for reconciliation, was short stepping.
Yeah, quite a guy!..and yet, you could be exchanging real dialogues with those who, just may have real insights, and are not fooled by your tactics...and who could actually help you, and your family.
Genetics?? No, try terror stricken, of facing some accountability, then moving onto being able to be a real role model to him, instead of a coward who is afraid. So you turn around on here, and vent the anger you have toward yourself, because of the frustration of knowing that. I would be glad to be of service to you..free.
Hearts only break..that will not bend!
You are only fooling yourself, if you think you portray anything else.
Scroll back....then ask yourself, 'How long did GfS know?' Why was GfS being polite, after all the crap I threw?' Instead of, 'How can I nail him/her now?' What?..Are you afraid that just because someone can see inside you, that I am going to dislike and disapprove of you, who I see?..as opposed to offering something to you? Are you going to stay defensive, because of your sense of guilt and failure? Hey, Maybe I'm on your side...just not the side that you put up, but more on the side of who you really are, inside.
Wanna' talk?..I'm here...I might even surprise you.
Now that's two longer posts, with compassion toward you, and your situation. Attack me?..or get down and get real?
Again, hearts only break, that do not bend.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 May 09 - 09:04 AM

The piehole is flapping all right.
Now the assignment includes posting a link to this quote:

"..Not reading any more of this..."

Good Luck.

Remember, the credibility is on the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 May 09 - 09:52 AM

Don't forget to search TIA and Guest, TIA...the cookie comes and goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:40 AM

Here's an interesting discussion in the NEw York Times about the silliness of anchoring the legal rights of couple-hood to gender. Well worth reading.

"Similar rulings have left couples in similar situations in Florida, Ohio and Texas. A 1999 ruling in San Antonio, in Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes. The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal.

A lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the country's gender laws as they pertain to marriage: "Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.""...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12boylan.html?em

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:12 PM

Ah, yes, and further to that, Amos, there is the very comparable silliness of anchoring the legal rights of couple-hood to species. My friend Chongo Chimp, for instance, cannot legally marry his lady friend Renata Carson in the state of Ohio...or anywhere in the USA, because he's a chimpanzee and she's a human being! Can you imagine the heartbreak that has caused to both of them? Can you? Furthermore, they have faced gross discrimination and public harassment merely for declaring their love for one another. Truly, we have a long, long way to go before real social justice and equality is established in this world.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of ANY pair of adult beings who freely indicate their mutual desire to marry one another (only and if such mutual consent can be confirmed by impartial witnesses) to have the right to get legally married to one another...regardless of gender, creed, color, nationality or species.

So there. Think you're "liberal", dontcha? Think again, buster. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:07 PM

Just to refresh, the topic revolves around civil rights, being granted based on our constitutional rights. Race creed and color, is not the same as acquired behavior. Genetics, it is not.
Another thing, why is President Obama opposed to it? Hillary Clinton has changed her stance, as well. Why is that? Look at the venom being poured out to Prejean (Miss California runner up) just for giving her opinion? Who is the hostility toward, and from?
TIA. Scroll back and find just one constructive comment from yourself. You come off like a miniature silver poodle yapping at the ankles of grown ups, with your immature snipes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:16 PM

I suggest that the law, being an ass, is not qualified to dictate the nature of gender based on plumbing. Your refusal to examine the other vectors, because of your predilection for psychobabblogical explanations, does not change the experimental results. Why you think the psyche should be defined by genitalia quite escapes me, though. How do you feel about your father's cigarbox?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:50 PM

Can't do it, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:56 PM

GfS, you are a very arrogant and egotistical person.

Frankly, your posts are so convoluted that I find I can't divine what the hell it is that you are trying to imply about me. Are you still rattling on about my allegedly being guilt-ridden over the fact that my son was raised by another man? Well, first of all, I had no choice in the matter. And second, there is nothing to be guilty about. My son thoroughly understands the situation, and he and I have an excellent relationship (apparently a lot better than your relationship with your father). You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Or is it that you are trying to imply that because, often during holidays, one of my wife's and my dinner guests happens to be homosexual, this indicates that I might be homosexual myself? Sorry, Charlie, ain't now, never have been. He and his partner are both invited, along with about eight or ten other people we know who either live alone or do not have relatives living nearby with whom to celebrate such things as Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Frankly, I can't figure out just what the hell you're talking about.

You, sir or madam as the case may be, are going all around Robin Hood's barn in an effort to mask the fact that your veiled implications about my psychological well-being are little more than a convoluted form of the argumentum ad hominem.

Besides, when you offered me "counselling"—unasked for—in open forum—which, in and of itself may be a breach of ethics, if you are, indeed, a licensed counsellor—you operated on the basis of the kind of stereotyped case studies one might find in a Psychology 101 textbook or something one might hear from a radio call-in shrink, and your scenario bore no relationship whatsoever to anything in my real life.

You are quite a piece of work!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:00 PM

Well, if my interpretation of what you say is inaccurate, you must not have been stating it very clearly. Can you offer a few unconvoluted sentences describing your view of the etiology of homosexuality? I can. And mine will include all the evidential work done to date.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:02 PM

You must be planning to type for several days at a single stretch, Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:46 PM

Not at all. I am expert in the use of the back-handed super-dense bullet point.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:34 PM

The most commonly accepted theory for the origin of AIDS is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.

####

Four of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
2. A lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female, also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
4. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s.

####

It is likely that we will never know who the first person was to be infected with HIV, or exactly how it spread from that initial person. Scientists investigating the possibilities often become very attached to their individual 'pet' theories and insist that theirs is the only true answer, but the spread of AIDS could quite conceivably have been induced by a combination of many different events. Whether through injections, travel, wars, colonial practices or genetic engineering, the realities of the 20th Century have undoubtedly had a major role to play. Nevertheless, perhaps a more pressing concern for scientists today should not be how the AIDS epidemic originated, but how those it affects can be treated, how the further spread of HIV can be prevented and how the world can change to ensure a similar pandemic never occurs again.

####

IF, indeed, homosexual men are the primary vector in the transmission of HIV (the truth of which is controversial at best), it would seem that one major step that would reduce the spread of the virus would be to discourage promiscuity and promote stable relationships by encouraging the passage of same-sex marriage bills.

####

Side question:

The first outbreak (of Ebola hemorrhagic fever) took place on August 26, 1976, in Yambuku, a town in the north of what was then called Zaïre. The first recorded case was Mabalo Lokela, a 44-year-old schoolteacher returning from a trip around the north of the state.

Why, then, is Ebola hemorrhagic fever not refered to as "the schoolteacher's disease?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 09 - 06:12 PM

""The only valuable post, following mine, coming your that side was from 'Smedley',""

According to WHOSE criteria?

YOUR credibility as a judge of value has been seriously DE-VALUED by your good self and your interminable rants about HOW homosexuals are made, and how YOU would like to see them re-adjusted.

There was another expert in human rehabilitation some years back. You two would have got on like a house on fire. He KNEW how to rehabilitate homosexuals all right. His name was Mengele.

The subject of this discussion is about HOW homosexuals are TREATED by the LEGAL establishment, and the keyword is EQUALITY.

---------------------------------------------------------------

""Well Smedley of course when the disease is transmitted to the heterosexual population we are bound to see many more cases in the heterosexual sector.""


Same old same old, and just as scientifically baseless as all the comment from these two.

HIV takes ten years plus to develop into full blown AIDS, but it is FAR from consistent in its progress, and the first that doctors knew of it was when patients with AIDS turned up with compromised immune systems. The medics then worked backward to discover that "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" was caused by a virus infection they named HIV.

So, although the first cases discovered happened to be among the gay community, there is NO scientific justification for assuming that it transferred from gays to heteros, rather than vice versa. The truth is that, despite what you DESPERATELY want to believe, NOBODY actually knows for sure.

So, come on Ake. You want to be the great protector, and save a few million lives. Right, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, AND WHY?

1. Ban homosexuals? Been tried before! Didn't work!
2. Ban Heterosexuals? BETTER! You would save many more millions that way. NAAAAH! Wouldn't work either, theres too many of 'em.
3. Ban sex altogether? BEST SO FAR! Would save all those lives, but you would need an awful lot more cops.

NO! OF COURSE NOT! Failing any SENSIBLE response, you would advocate discriminating against gays, such that they enjoy NONE of the marital and concommitant financial rights that you youself enjoy.

Tell me my friend, what is YOUR carefully researched best estimate of the number of lives that will be saved by this remarkable example of lateral thinking?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:00 PM

"I suggest that the law, being an ass, is not qualified to dictate the nature of gender based on plumbing."
Umm, what do you judge it on??.....a fantasy of the mind?

Don, Never offered to counsel you online, in an open forum...that could, and would be done privately...but judging by your response, you seem to think, anyone who thinks they need to see a psychologist, or psychiatrist, oughta' have their head examined!

Oh, and your thingy on what you 'thought' I said, was inaccurate, as well....but you do that a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:20 PM

If all you can do is invalidate others' views, you a pretty thin gruel as a helper.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:38 PM

I've lived in California since 1971, except for a military-required exile from Sept 1971-Nov 1973. I've always thought of California as a progressive state. It seems like San Francisco has forever been the World Capital of Homosexuality. That being the case, it seems strange to me that the voters of California have outlawed homosexual marriage.
Wikipedia tells me that homosexual marriage is allowed in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine (soon), Massachusetts, New Hampshire (soon), and Vermont (soon); and recognized in Israel, New Yor, and Washington (DC). It's also allowed in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden. How can it be that California, of all places, does not allow same-sex marriage?

I just can't figure it out.

Of course, we don't allow taxation to pay for state expenditures, either. That's why we're on the verge of both fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Somehow, we got ourselves in a spot where our state is ruled by talk radio listeners.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:43 PM

GfS, it sure looked like an attempt at counseling to me. It was certaily trying to offer me advice on how to reconcile myself with my son, which was totally unnecessary because there was no animosity at all between us. His mother had explained our situation, and being very bright young man, he understood. And as I said, you went ahead and offered all kinds of advice without having a clue as to the real situation. Your behavior verged on the kind of thing a freshman student of Psych might try to come up with.

And I am not as you would like to think I am:   if I feel that I need the services of a psychologist or psychiatrist--or if someone who knows me well seriously suggests that I do--then I know who to go to and I would go without reluctance. I know the value of psychiatry and psychology and undoubtedly know more about it than you obviously think I do. And I know a charlatan when I encounter one.

If my "thingy" on what you said was inaccurate, then--let me offer you a bit of unsolicited advice:   I have worked as a writer and an editor, so I have no problem understanding the written word when it's written by someone who knows nouns and verbs from pints and quarts. You might try to learn how to write coherently and strive to say what you actually mean instead of trying to be cutely subtle about it so you can slip in your little digs.

And no, it's not all about ME. Nor is it all about YOU!

Try sticking to the subject of the thread for a change.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 09 - 05:47 PM

Don Firth...Guest has suggested that a lot of what you write is "inaccurate", I would go further and say that you deliberately distort and misrepresent; and what you present is in the interests of no one save your own precious ego.
You deny the obvious link between HIV and homosexuality,helping to ensure that no serious medical study is undertaken, and welcoming a destructive and disasterous(to homosexuals)lifestyle, into mainstream society.

Some time ago you linked to a website, when I quoted the infection and mortality figures given on that website, you lied and accused me of fabricating the figures

Here they are in full, if you still deny a serious and deadly link, then you are incapable of meaningful debate
HIV STATISTICS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 09 - 06:44 PM

". . . deliberately distort and misrepresent. . . ."

Coming from you, Ake, that's a laugh! It's your distorted interpretation of the statistics that's the problem. You can make a pie-chart mean damned near anything you want it to.

Those are not the only statistics I checked.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 09 - 06:57 PM

Ake, I'm not going to type it out again just for your benefit. I suggest you find my post at 14 May 09 - 04:34 p.m. and actually read it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:16 PM

""So, come on Ake. You want to be the great protector, and save a few million lives. Right, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, AND WHY?

1. Ban homosexuals? Been tried before! Didn't work!
2. Ban Heterosexuals? BETTER! You would save many more millions that way. NAAAAH! Wouldn't work either, theres too many of 'em.
3. Ban sex altogether? BEST SO FAR! Would save all those lives, but you would need an awful lot more cops.

NO! OF COURSE NOT! Failing any SENSIBLE response, you would advocate discriminating against gays, such that they enjoy NONE of the marital and concommitant financial rights that you youself enjoy.

Tell me my friend, what is YOUR carefully researched best estimate of the number of lives that will be saved by this remarkable example of lateral thinking?

Don T.




NO ANSWER, AKE? It's a question that destroys your claims, if you answer it honestly. Why is it that YOUR side feel that ignoring the facts will make your case stronger?

GfS uses the same tactic, and it is ineffective. All it proves is that neither of you HAS A CREDIBLE ANSWER. I expect that level of ignorance from GfS, but I always thought YOU capable of rational thought, rather than blind prejudice. Was I TOTALLY wrong about you?



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:00 PM

Equal protection under the law. I can't see why this is so complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:18 AM

Don T. Re-read your post to Ake....its so twisted around, its a pretzel.
Ake posts stats from the CDC..and then accused of fabricating???? Now that is a spin to beat all spins! You must have studied under Pelosi.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 09 - 03:03 AM

The data from the CDC is compelling. These guys should be forced to settle down and marry one partner.


If I ran things, you betcha.

Ake's excellent statistics, however, have absolutely no bearing on whether the legal status of marriage should be granted on an inclusionary or an exclusionary basis. From the point of view of that question, it is a very loud red herring, pardon the mixed metaphor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 09 - 03:19 AM

Don, Icant solve a problem of this magnitude.

It will take the combined skills of all the agencies, medical, scientific, psychiatric, even the people who construct our moral codes

You post ridiclous questions about banning homosexuals, heterosexuals and sex.....I take it that those questions are supposed to be a form of satire, as it would be impossible to "ban" any of the catagories you mention.

All I am doing is pointing out the serious health risks associated with homosexuality,and most importantly of all,the madness of denial and the pretense that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, safe, healthy and a suitable environment in which to bring up young children.
The more people who become informed on the hiv statistics, the more chance there is of affecting a change in homosexual behaviour.

As I have said from the start of this thread, "rights" should be conditional on the behaviour of any sector of society, and the effect of these "rights" on all other sectors.

In conclusion Don, I cannot underestand your very aggressive tone, to one who has tried to answer honestly every question which you have posed. I have nothing resonal to gain from my stance here, a stance which seems to have alienated many whom I presumed to be friends....However I always try to give my honest opinion, to be anything other than honest on a forum like this is a complete waste of everyone's time.....Ake