BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:31 AM

Done.


"Overturning Prop 8 would reaffirm basic American rights

If the California Supreme Court overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage in the next few days, it would give renewed strength to two fundamental and deeply cherished American ideals and operating principles.

The first is that though majorities rule in democracies, majorities cannot tyrannize minorities, deny them rights, criminalize their very existence on subjective grounds or religious grounds, or on any grounds whatsoever, nor turn them into second class citizens.

This fundamental principle applies to everyone and every group, save criminal gangs and conspiracies, because all of us are potential victims of the tyranny of the majority. All of us — women, people of all colors, all races, cultures and religions, the disabled, people who hold dissenting political views, and members of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered community.

Because the founders understood that everyone is a potential victim of some majority's prejudice against their ideas or communities, the U.S. Constitution was designed to safeguard all of us through the principle of equal protection under the law.

The second fundamental principle is that when you are a citizen of the United States you are entitled to the full rights and privileges of citizenship. There is no hierarchy of citizenship. We are all equally citizens and all equal under the law. That is why laws that discriminate against minorities, of any kind, are unconstitutional, including any statute anywhere that supports mandatory segregation or diminished citizenship for anyone.

In this country, there isn't one group which gets all privileges and other groups who are cheated of their equality and denied their basic rights. And though the founders made mistakes in the Constitution regarding the so-called superior rights of property owners, and the status of African Americans as property, American principles of equality and fairness have worked to correct those errors so that no caste system, no social hierarchy, no aristocracy exists in the Constitution.

The California Supreme Court's decision to overturn Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage late last year, would almost certainly do so on the grounds of equal protection under law, which would make any kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. Such a decision would also indirectly reject the overwhelmingly religious nature of Proposition 8's support. As the First Amendment makes clear, religion cannot be used to deny full citizenship to minorities either.

Proposition 8 supporters would be aghast at such a judicial decision, decrying that the voice of the people, expressed in the referendum, would have been denied. But the courts are the voice of the people too.

Elections can't be used to turn minorities in American culture into pariahs, into second rate citizens, into legal serfs and untouchables. That kind of thinking, associated with many contemporary conservatives, is based on old views of hereditary hierarchy which hold that some people are inherently better and more deserving than others...." (from Examiner.com).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:56 AM

On the matter of choice, aside from all the scientific findings, have any of the anti-gay folks here actually talked to a gay person about it? From the standpoint of the people experiencing puberty, it usually doesn't feel like there was any choice.

Think back to when you were 12 or 13 and started getting interested in members of the opposite sex. Did you decide to be interested in little girls or little boys? If you're anything like I was, and like everyone else I know, you were single-mindedly focused on one or the other. What makes you think it is any different for anyone else?

If it is a matter of choice, perhaps we should hire gay people to teach our children how to control their sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:25 PM

John:

A wonderful idea. But I suspect even if the only driver was individually selected change, it would be impossible to teach the art, or replicate the emotional pressure leading to the choice; even if it were NOT for the purely biological drivers that dictate it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:28 PM

"Overturning Prop 8 would reaffirm basic American rights"
Hogwash!..You mean to tell me president Obama, is on the side of not "reaffirming basic American rights'????????
Amos, how dare you??..Are you two breaking up?

John P: "On the matter of choice, aside from all the scientific findings, have any of the anti-gay folks here actually talked to a gay person about it?"
Did you just come upon this thread?...if so, scroll back..there is a long post by me, explaining a story, about Dale and Mark. It might be on the previous page...I'll see if I can find it for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:34 PM

John P, The post I was referring to was, From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:15 PM

GfS, there are men who have had the same sort of relationship with there fathers that you describe in you post above, who did not become homosexual, and there are men who have perfect fine relationships who did grow up homosexual. So all you have is anecdotal evidence.

Read the Scientific American article.

####

'Twould appear that this thread is pretty well winding down. Little Hawk won his bet that it would go to 1300 posts, so there must be great rejoicing in that quarter, with Chongo buying the beer all around and all of the world's dachshunds wagging there tails and smiling broadly.

It's pretty hard to quarrel with the overwhelming weight of the latest scientific evidence published in those Scientific American articles on the origins of gender orientation, establishing that discrimination on that account is, indeed, a civil rights issue, and there is just no rational response to the argument that stable same-sex marriages should greatly reduce the transmission of HIV.

Sorry, guys. But life can be a bitch sometimes.

Get a more defensible cause next time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:09 AM

As usual, you lose all accuracy when you start deploying rhetorical devices. Obama has not offered any position about Proposition 8. Although he personally prefers marriage, as a term, be reserved for hetero breeding, and civil union be used for other cases, he has never suggested enforcing this with a Constitutional amendment, as his dim-witted predecessor once did.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 09 - 01:07 AM

Don, Get a life! There are articles, and there is reality. This issue, can be argued forever, if you base your 'proof' on the trend d'jour, or what really is. Here's a tidbit for you....I mentioned a while back, that the majority of people were tired of getting their noses rubbed into the over hyped wonders of homosexuals. Little Hawk weighed in and agreed...so I'm not alone in this. I've said repeatedly, though it somehow escapes your one tracked mind, that equal rights are there because of our citizenship, in a country that believes in it, so we all have them...and not because a person CHOOSES his or her sexual preference, for one reason or another. You argue that churches must accept the 'affirmation' dealy..when churches DO NOT HAVE to accept anything of the sort...That's YOUR DEAL. Whether or not, a church accepts homosexual marriage is irrelevant in California, anyway...so it is a non issue here. Either way, your argument is based on giving homosexual marriage some sort of legitimacy, and therefore bringing acceptability to homosexuality into the mainstream, which of course, Hollywood is trying overtime, too. That being said, here is a little bit of something that has happened over the last few days that you should, of all people take notice to. Note, this may sound trivial, but it DOES point out my point in case. (I can't believe I'm citing this, but it's true, nonetheless. In regards to the American public's response to homosexuality being so acceptable...this week, an infinitely more talented showman, singer, dancer and personality lost on 'American Idol' due to one simple thing....He flaunted his homosexuality...and it cost him winning to another lesser performer who came across as wholesome, married, and a church going Christian, with family values. Why?..Because of exactly what I've been telling you, as well as Ake, in the beginning...That society, as a whole rejects the whole idea, as far as being 'acceptable' or desirable. With 100 MILLION votes cast, THAT'S HOW IT SHOOK DOWN. So you may be impressed with all the so called 'studies',(refer back to what I said of who was funding those 'studies'), and or anything you want, but you will NOT VOTE IN RESPECTABILITY!! ..and as I said, and you should have noticed BY NOW, people really are tired of having their noses rubbed in it!..Like it or not.
Not only that, Obama has favored the 'Don't ask, don't tell policies' in the military, he does not support it, will not endorse it(unless it becomes politically expedient), and even in your state, there is going to be a challenge to it, whose results will be of interest to both sides, as to the outcome. Hilarious Clinton has done an about face on it('Why?' would be interesting to find out..I doubt it has anything to do with 'personal conviction'). Numerous 'celebrity's) careers, have tanked out, because of it, when they 'come out of the closet'(some have done better than others), but on the most part, they took a hit. Now don't get pissed off at me, because I merely point this out to you, and others..but take an objective look at it. Even with the ramming down our throats, on the subject, and the hyping of it, the most that the majority is going to go for ir, AT THIS TIME, is placating them, by throwing them a 'bone' of 'Civil Unions'. That, my dear pal, is the plain and simple truth, as to THE WAY IT IS!
And, by the way, a question I've asked, a few times on here, but it gets 'conveniently' ignored, is, 'if two, same gendered people live together as room mates, and NOT sexually active with each other, how does the homosexual community feel about them being able to claim certain 'benefits' as a 'married' same sex couple?..(as in tax dependencies, insurances, so on and so forth). Shoe goes on the other foot now, doesn't it? Just what, and how does that issue get resolved, without infringing on the 'rights' of a same sex couple, living as 'married'.
No, my opinionated fellow Mudcat poster, married is a different ballgame as live in lovers, homosexual or hetero,..and marriage, IS and should be continued to be regarded as the union between a man, and a woman...not 'role play' pretenders...it just doesn't work.
Anyway, think about it, first, before you jump on the keyboard. Think about the lost revenues, as tax deductions, that the politicians think about before they endorse such nonsense. Think about the fraud, that anyone could claim....and think about the fact, that the majority of the public, not only disrespects homosexual behavior, but resents having to be force fed a steady diet of it, and their children, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:47 PM

PShaw, GfS. You must lead a shallow life indeed. Thousands of perfectly heterosexual, married couples have little or no sex. They are wed, share their lives, and turn their energy to other things.

Focus on the core importance: two adult, free human beings choose each other for a permanent partnership.

There is no fraud that a same-sex couple could claim, that has not already been discovered by hetero couples--marrying, for example, to change their tax rules or manage their citizenship or work permits. Sex is a wholly independent variable, which I think hs been pointed out frequently on this thread.

The right to claim marriage with another for life is the key, and it is typically supported socially by priveleges of mutual representation, certain insurance priveleges, right of survivorshoip, right of co-ownership, and so on.

There is no rational reason why that status and those rights should be denied a minority because you disapprove of their orientation, no matter how histrionically you voice you disapproval.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 09 - 02:29 PM

GfS, get a brain! And get a pair of reading glasses. You claim I have said things that I haven't said at all, such as "You argue that churches must accept the 'affirmation' dealy..when churches DO NOT HAVE to accept anything of the sort..."

I do not argue that at all, which you know perfectly well, but you do have a penchant for putting words into other peoples' mouths and then attacking them on that basis ("straw man" fallacy, Philosophy: Logic 101). You are grossly disingenuous.

A substantial percentage of Christian churches have already signed on to the "Affirmation of Welcome" of their own volition, after a vote of their congregations. Get that through your thick skull! Other that participating in the discussion and the voting in one congregation, I had nothing to do with it. I am in no position to dictate to any religious persuation.

Your invoking of the American Idol thing (I never watch the show) is really pretty pathetic, and yet another example of non-thinkers fixing on the unimportant, both on your part and on the part of those who voted.

As far as the many scientific studies that I have cited and linked to, your blanket claim that they were all funded by the "gay lobby" (including the Swedish study) is just plain asinine, and you know it.

Let's cut to the chase here, GfS:

Face it, counselor. The reason you are so adamant about gender orientation being matter of choice rather than a genetic predisposition is because your father lived most of his earlier life in denial, then finally gave in to his genetic nature and embraced his true gender orientation. The thing that has you trembling in your boots is the possibility that you may be carrying that genetic time-bomb yourself.

That's called "denial," counselor. And my suspicions about you are more that supported by your passionate devotion to trying to convince others of the rightness of your position in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. The fact is that you are trying to convince yourself.

Methinks you protest much too much.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 09 - 04:21 PM

""You Amos and Don Firth probably don't deserve to be given this information, you would all certainly be more at home in the company of Mr Peekstock, the foul mouthed idiot who now posts under John P.""

Thank you Ake, for confirming that your argument is based purely on prejudice, and making it obvious to anyone who reads your post, that, without any knowledge of who or what we are, you feel qualified to make judgement of the sincerity or otherwise of our thoughts.

We are simply Mudcat members posting under monikers which may or may not bear relationship to our real world identities. You know just as much as we have told you about our lives, and that small amount may or may not be true, and yet YOU profess to know what we are thinking.

Talent for mindreading?.........I THINK NOT!
Talent for mindless prejudice?..........DEFINITELY!

I WILL tell you this. My views come from an absolutely sincere abhorrence of prejudice and bigotry, and as a result YOU are a person with whom I shall NOT communicate in the future.

Ditto Guest Gone from Sanity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 09 - 11:22 PM

Prejudice has nothing to do with it. Common sense these days is about as elusive as being apolitical! Sanity has nothing to do with either side of the political wings....Hop aboard the 'clue train', boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 12:55 AM

I think prejudice has everything to do with it, and the rest is just crass rationalization and justification.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 09 - 02:31 AM

Little Hawk has won his bet, everything worth saying on this subject has been said, endlessly repeating the same stuff and becoming more and more abusive proves nothing.

This could have been nothing but a cheerleading thread for homosexual marriage, garnering in a few mindless votes for the Dems in the process, but thankfully a few here like Guest from Sanity have turned a taboo subject into a thought provoking article.
Little Hawk's defence of free speech was also valuable.

Indirectly, the abusers played a valuable role, showing future readers how not to conduct a debate, and the real nature of the abusers themselves.


I intend to say no more on this thread other than to thank GfS for his/her support and contributions.....Little Hawk as always for his admirable fair mindedness...and to absolve my friend Amos from any abusivness and congratulate him on a well thought out and conducted debate.
To many this must have been a long and boring thread, but I think Mudcat is a better place for allowing every voice to be heard
Thank you for that Joe......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 09 - 06:21 AM

I have to echo Akenaton's post, and add one more thing. The people from California, have democratically voted twice, to ban homosexual marriage, and for the non stop whining of the LOSING side, whose banner is FALSELY accusing the electorate of 'bigotry' and not being as 'smart' as they are in this matter, shows that the freedom's that we have enjoyed, as being a FREE country, of self determination, are nearing their end...not just on this matter, but other things as well. A lot of you just won't 'get it' until you finally see, that when it is all said and done, and all the policies that you so ignorantly, and foolishly bought into, are implemented, and the quality of your lives, go into the toilet, will you scratch your heads, and ask, "What happened?"
When you see that the rhetoric from Washington, is directly OPPOSITE from their ACTIONS, when you finally are trapped, because you believed, the lying propaganda, that has indoctrinated you into WHAT to think, and like a bunch of blind lemmings, you so recklessly followed, without questioning, or educating yourselves.
I, in NO WAY, know that what I've posted on here, was motivated by hatred, bigotry, or anything less than sound facts, proven time and time again...only to be ignored by the frothing band of mob mentality, flock of babbling parrots. Your posts, and you know who you are, are, in the nature, and content, MORE than proof, that what I've said, all along is absolutely true. But, as Akenaton, has said, nothing new is being posted, and that which is sound, is not being addressed..so why try to turn on a bunch of rocks? I'll be checking in, once in a while....
By the way, when you see, that the mindset that you have, demonstrates to you, once in for all, that voting will effectively be 'useless' when the will of the people is ignored, and deferred to by a 'political' committee, to make your decisions FOR you, and TELL you what is 'good for you', then it may occur to you, that YOU are the people, that the civil rights movement, were trying to be free from! After that, its just a matter of who makes what policy..right?
And one more note, especially for Amos, who was mostly a lightweight in this issue, so that issue is not a biggy, Amos, note the difference in what Obama SAYS, and what he actually is doing..this is a continuation of the policies, that we've had, no accountability, no paper trails of the money, that he promised we could follow, online, foreign policy the same, continuing the 'bailouts' started under Bush, and virtually a take over of the private sector..Yes my dear friend, the was no change, as I said earlier, during the campaign..but to his blind 'supporters', at least he can make you FEEL good, while he's ripping you off, from the freedoms you once enjoyed...just as his predecessor. See you around..maybe even on this thread, if anyone posts something new, and enlightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:22 AM

Calling something a fact--even vehemently--does not make it one. Your posts have continuously tried, for example, to invoke lifestyle choice as a basis for supporting proposition 8. You assert repeatedly that this is the key behind homosexuality.

You do this in sheer despite of evidence. "LIfestyle choice" is a straw man..

Ake has sturdily and steadfastly brought the conversation to another straw man, health issues and STDs. But marriage has not hinged on health issues for decades. I don't know if anyplace still requires the blood test for a marriage license. And in any case, that was not the core issue of the thread.

Nor have either of you spoken seriously to the actual issue, which is discrimination against minorities.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 03:16 PM

"Blind Lemming." Wasn't he a blues singer from days gone by?

I find GfS's last post really kind of pitiful. His/her efforts to write off all the scientific evidence that has been cited here as presented by "a frothing band of mob mentality" and a "flock of babbling parrots" is pathetic. Simply asserting that the evidence that yanks the rug out from under his/her position is merely propaganda from scientists who have been bought off by "the gay lobby," without ever trying to substantiate that claim, is in the ream of the message T-shirt and the bumper sticker—a flat assertion with no substantiation whatever. It's like screaming and stamping one's feet.

It reminds me of the woman from the Flat Earth Society who got into an argument with a young astronomer. When asked what her flat earth rests on, she responded, "on the back of a huge turtle." To which, the young astronomer started to ask, "And what does the turtle rest on?" when she interrupted him, saying, "That's no good, young man! It's turtles all the way down!" then turned on her heel and stalked away.

Amos is right. It is a civil rights issue. A matter of discrimination against a minority.

And what are people who insist on doing that generally called?

Don Firth

P. S. And just a little reminder:   neither GfS nor Ake has answered my question as to how same-sex marriage adversely affects Barbara's and my marriage. Or affects it in any way whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:01 PM

... And just a little reminder:   neither GfS nor Ake has answered my question as to how same-sex marriage adversely affects Barbara's and my marriage. Or affects it in any way whatsoever.

Who said you were really married to a woman..for all we know that is a ruse...

As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big foreheads, too!

You are so phony..it staggers the imagination!
Amos, you dodged my questions about Obama...........AGAIN!

I guess a minority is defined as anyone who makes a choice, that everybody doesn't make..according to you!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM

My guess is that you, sir, are not long for this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM

Yes, GFS, I am married. Have been since December 17, 1977. To a woman. Most definitely a woman.

And you, sir or madam as the case may be, are really showing the level of your desperation. In fact, your last post is downright contemptible.

You have really revealed yourself!

In times past, people with physical or mental disabilities were considered a matter of shame, to be locked away in a back room or institutionalized and never spoken of—when in actuality, they were perfectly capable of leading full, satisfying, and useful lives. Fortunately, civilization has advanced to the point where this is no longer true.

Yet, there are still people out there who are so medieval in their outlook who, when they see someone with a limp or with a speech impediment (or, God forbid, both!), automatically assume that they are mentally deficient as well. Or someone who needs to use crutches or a wheelchair. There are people who assume that, because parts of the body don't work well, that the mind doesn't either, failing to realize that the person may be a college professor, an artist, a musician, or—seventy years ago, the President of the United States.

"As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big foreheads, too!

"You are so phony..it staggers the imagination!"

No one ever suggested that someone, be it a sports team or a construction company or an accounting firm, should be required to hire someone who is physically or mentally incapable of doing the job. I know a woman, the daughter of a good friend, who is developmentally disabled and who works for a local Ikea store. Her comprehension is not keen, but she has a very tenacious memory, and she knows where everything in the store is. She works as a greeter, asks people what they are looking for, then directs them to where they can find it. She enjoys the job, feels (and is) useful, pays her own rent, and pays taxes.

And you would lock her away in a back room somewhere, out of sight of the rest of the world? It sounds to me like you would favor rescinding the Americans with Disabilities Act. It sure sounds like it.

You? A psychological counselor? I don't think so! You are grossly in need of psychological counseling, GfS. And a major dose of general humanizing!

The level of your vitriol sprayed in my direction undoubtedly comes as a result of the palpable hit I scored regarding your fear of the very DNA that you carry yourself.

As far as having anything worthwhile to say on much of anything, you have just committed suicide with the same weapon that Samson used to slay the Philistines.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 07:33 PM

My bona fides are solidly established, GfS, by the fact that I have been a regular on these threads since 1999, and am well-known by many Mudcatters, including a fairly large number of people here whom I have met in person, and even more who, on one occasion or another, have been present when I performed somewhere (such events as the Northwest Folklife Festivals, one of which is currently running). Some of these people also know my wife, Barbara.

In fact, one regular Mudcatter is the daughter of late John Dwyer, a former guitar student, good friend, and the best man at our wedding in 1977.

And who might you be? You haven't even registered, and word has it that when you wear out the credibility of one identity with your deplorable ideas, you simply bail out and come back with a new identity.

So who, exactly, is the "phony" here?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM

GfS:

I don't recall dodging any questions relevant to this thread. I ignored about fify red herrings between there and here, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM

In the meantime, however, GfS dodges my question by accusing me of not being married at all.

Okay, GfS, just suppose I'm not. How about answering the question theoretically?

Hmm?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:34 PM

I was away for a bit....busy....but I see that you DID reach 1300 posts in my absence. Bravo!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I knew you could do it.

I have won my bet and am now the proud owner of a gilded birdbath that rests upon a marble likeness of Winona Ryder. Life is good. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM

SOme folks never learn. LH is one. Sheeshe!!

Are you sure you don't want to lecture us about the triviality of our discussions?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:39 PM

Congratulations, Little Hawk. I rejoice in your happiness.

It's a boon and a blessing to know what's really important in this life, isn't it?

Don Firth (smiling beatifically)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:51 PM

Too true, Don, too true. (grinning back atcha in a good-humoured fashion...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:35 PM

Come on boys....you're starting to talk to yourselves.
Don't you realise that the arguments have all been made, bad, good, for, against,leave it to the Mudcatters of the future to pass judgement. To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM

""To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.""

?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM

Far be it from me to paint you 'desperate', ake. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM

And there go GfS and Ake, streaking toward the horizon with their asses on fire.

prejudice   def.   Suffering from premature evaluation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:19 PM

Does he who posts last "win" then...? ;-) Remember, I once started a thread devoted to such a premise, merely for laughs, and after a vast number of posts Bearded Bruce decided to post his sonnets on it endlessly until finally everyone else around here just gave up and left him to it, so I guess he "won". (?)

But what is the prize for such a victory? And is it worth the time consumed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM

Little Hawk, I don't know what planet you're from, but you just don't get it, do you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:57 AM

Well, I was in the studio, working on some stuff, couldn't get 'right back' to ya'...but I think this covers it!!
IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME, BUT I HOPE YOU ENJOY IT, AND IS ENLIGHTENING!!!
hAVE FUN!!--GfS

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM
"To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.""
?
Don T."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sPDV-ERLIs   Don T

From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM
"My guess is that you, sir, are not long for this site."
...and the perfect musical note, just for you...(reminds me of you)....

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

"From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM.
"And you, SIR OR MADAM as the case may be, are really showing the level of your desperation. In fact, your last post is downright contemptible.

You have really REVEALED yourself!......."

Huh? Did you proof read that?? If I 'really revealed" myself, why can't you make up your mind???? (sir OR madam)......so a song for you...and its all about you, too!....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5BnCEPr7cU   and...

In times past, people with physical or mental disabilities were considered a matter of shame, to be locked away in a back room or institutionalized and never spoken of—when in actuality, they were perfectly capable of leading full, satisfying, and useful lives. Fortunately, civilization has advanced to the point where this is no longer true.

Shit!..You're older than I thought!!

"Yet, there are still people out there who are so medieval in their outlook who, when they see someone with a limp or with a speech impediment (or, God forbid, both!), automatically assume that they are mentally deficient as well. Or someone who needs to use crutches or a wheelchair. There are people who assume that, because parts of the body don't work well......"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug6EISLttG4

"..that the mind doesn't either, failing to realize that the person may be a college professor, an artist, a musician, or—seventy years ago, the President of the United States......"...do you mean?....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxhcMyn8rU&NR=1

    "As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big
foreheads?"

Well, being as you were so concerned about "differences in the hypothalamus"..Where is your crusade for those who really have big ones?? Why can't they play Pro football???? You have two homosexuals 'playing' married, don't you?? You seem a little selective here! (actually, I've done a benefit that autistic people had their bills paid..what did you do?) ..and besides THEY, UNLIKE HOMOSEXUALS, REALLY ARE THAT WAY FROM BIRTH...DUMMY!......so, here's another song for you......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4

From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM
"GfS:
I don't recall dodging any questions relevant to this thread. I ignored about fify red herrings between there and here, though."

What?...IGNORED????...LIKE DODGE, RIGHT??
Jeez!..Those liberal double talkers...no wonder this guy loves Obama!!

From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM
"In the meantime, however, GfS dodges my question by accusing me of not being married at all.
Okay, GfS, just suppose I'm not. How about answering the question theoretically?"

You mean ignored??..you know, like Mrs. Amos Obama?..Here, here's a song for you, being as your married,and so steadfastly obsessed with the homosexual issue, perhaps this explains your dilemma....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMXnk16kiE    ...AND/OR...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_zyy51iOY4&feature=PlayList&p=FAA35986A785C3DD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45

From: Amos
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM
"SOme folks never learn. LH is one. Sheeshe!!
Are you sure you don't want to lecture us about the triviality of our discussions?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6rAD3Tcq4

From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM
"Far be it from me to paint you 'desperate', ake. :)"
Here's a good one!!...(too good!!)

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

From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM
"And there go GfS and Ake, streaking toward the horizon with their asses on fire"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIPv9AtZ2zE

From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM
"Little Hawk, I don't know what planet you're from, but you just don't get it, do you?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8qMUuQTdc&feature=related

And to JOE OFFER...FOR WHAT HE MUST HAVE TO PUT UP WITH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWzbZGk3eA&feature=related

Signing off!....    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4heQyu1bijs

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:34 AM

There are lots of ways to destroy a communication channel; one is to pepper it with vitriol; another is to glut it with too much traffic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:05 AM

It was meat for humor~

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:09 AM

And yet another is to have little or no respect for the people whom one is debating with, and to attempt to prove over and over again that they are in some way evil or bad people, people of lower moral stature than oneself, and whose opinion should be silenced.

Ping!

(I now await the "pong!" which should naturally be coming back across the net any time soon...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:12 AM

The operational phrase was "red herrings". The place is crawling with them. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:15 AM

I'd hate to disappoint!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlbQPmXg08

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM

There is a sentiment I can agree with. In fact I just performed that number--minus the shadows--at a wedding last month, at the bride's request.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM

Little Hawk:
And yet another is to have little or no respect for the people whom one is debating with, and to attempt to prove over and over again that they are in some way evil or bad people, people of lower moral stature than oneself, and whose opinion should be silenced.

Well, when the people on the other side of the debate really are evil and bad people, it's pretty hard not to notice that and call attention to it. These people believe in denying basic rights to a class of people (bigots), and think they have a right to legislate what other people do in bed (perverts). Do you deny this?

Akenaton is very angry because I started talking about his sexuality, even though every statement he's made on this subject is talking about someone else's sexuality. He calls me an abuser, while he is busily abusing a whole class of people. Do you not understand that?

If they were white supremacists who were going on about how blacks shouldn't be enjoying any "special" rights, would you think we should be careful about saying what we think of their moral stature?

Little Hawk, your silence is golden to the bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:28 PM

Well, it's just been announced that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, with a 6-1 majority. The one vote to overturn the initiative was from the sole Democrat on the court. You can see more details here (LA Times).

The court upheld the validity of gay marriages performed last year, but outlawed future gay marriage. I think getting Prop 8 overturned was a long shot, but it seems to me that this sort of bullying by the majority doesn't follow our principles of government. I thought our constitution was set up to protect the rights of minorities.

But the people have spoken with a 52% majority, and the Court has spoken with a 6-1. I guess people feel more comfortable controlling what gay people do, but I wonder what it is that they're afraid of. One guy drove to San Francisco from Sacramento today so he could show off a sign that says "Gay = Pervert." Whey do people even care whether gay people get married?



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:46 PM

My feelings about this issue are well documented in this thread.

The California Supreme Court, however, was not passing judgement on the issueof same-sex marriage, but on the qualification of the process of modifying the State constitution by means of a popular referendum. They did not, apparently, address the issue of whether the act itself was counter-constitutional, merely the porocess of enacting it.

I believe this is a flawed method, because it allows no dampening effect against mass reactionary thinking, one of the most severe dangers to a constitutional democracy. The contrast between mass reactionary thought and the ideal model of educated and informed citizens debating and then voting is dramatically illustrated here, as it was in the McCarthy era, and as it has been in many other moments in recent history. California's referendum system has a certain beauty to it, but it needs to be said that it does enable rash thrusts to be embodied in law. It could be argued the the same thinking that laid down Proposition 13 is a contributing vector to the current near-bankruptcy of the State budget, in that it slashed a revenue stream without responsibility for meeting budgetary commitments.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:01 PM

I can't say I have any faith in the California government-by-referendum process, Amos. The California voters have enacted a lot of bad law over the years, and they have bankrupted the state by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a budget or raise a tax.
If they're going to require a 2/3 vote for anything, it ought to be required for things like restricting the rights of minorities. Outlawing gay marriage by a mere majority, just doesn't seem fair to me.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:08 PM

Hear, hear, Joe. The simplicity of it is that it not only does not seem fair, it is unfair in fact.

The core of the problem, back when, was a conflation between religiously-imposed moral strictures and legal standards. ONe of the reason we HAVE a constitution is to prevent this kihnd of bleed-through from tainting the circus of law with the stench of bottomless reactions and opinions based on moralization. Or at least dampen the infiltration! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:17 PM

John P, I already have a long enough acquaintance of both Akenaton and GfS, based on their many, many postings both here and on a great many other threads, a long enough acquaintance to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are neither evil nor bad people...nor are they bigots. It's that simple.

You imagine them as being someone they are not.

Now, there are people out there who definitely fit your definition of "bigots"...people who truly hate gays and wish to do them harm.

Akenaton and GfS are not among those people. We've only had one such person post on this entire thread that I recall...they posted once as a supposed "Guest"...and it was either a troll trying to stir up trouble here or it was some Mudcat member on your favored side of the argument here who was trying to be an "agent provocateur" to embarrass the people on the other side of the argument (stir up trouble, in other words). Members also act as trolls when they do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:33 PM

Thank You, Little Hawk,..just for that.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkkM78lcjDU&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:44 PM

"The California voters...have bankrupted the state by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a budget or raise a tax"

Sorry, Joe, wrong. The legislature has done that almost by itself. As a life long (emphasis long) Californian, I have seen the state spending increase sales taxes from 3% to, now, nearly 10%, and that doesn"t count special taxes on fuel, or so called sin taxes that have also ballooned, making the actual sales tax rate much higher.

The legislature, and the special interest groups...prison guards, teachers' unions foremost among them want more an yet more...good times or bad. One would have thought that the taxpayer revolt culminating in the passage of Prop. 13 would have made these groups realize that programs and spending needed to be both prioritized, and kept at reasonable rates.

The legislature blew off Arnold when he came into office, and likewise the voters, when he had subsequently gone to them, by rejecting his program...all of which was opposed by the groups I mentioned.

There are many and complex reasons aside from the above that the state is in trouble...the least problem is the common voter like you or me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:48 PM

Little Hawk, I am so touched by that eulogy that I feel a proposal coming on......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 04:02 PM

I'm honored, but I have already given my heart to Winona. ;-)