BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

Yes, it's true. I have no shame. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 06:32 PM

To take such a serious subject and turn it into a trivial came of supercilious quantity; and then to goad others about that game, instead of discussing the proper, serious topic of the thread; and then, finally, to CHEAT at your own game, denying others even the dubious satisfaction of winning at i...you are scurrilous, sirrah, a margay, a coarse and contumacious scamp, a coarse and unworthy blackguard, a reprobate rapscallion, an opprobrious ne'er-do-well, scandalous and lascivious lowlife, deformed and sullied in the eyes of all right thinkers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:49 PM

VERY well said, Amos! Ooo-wah! You are so right. I am all of that and MORE. I am unconscionable, pesquitatious, and concupiscient in the extreme.

But....you used the word "coarse" twice in your otherwise brilliant description of me...or rather of my character flaws. That was not so good. I shall therefore have to reduce your A+ to just plain A. Watch those little slips. Other than that, you are clearly well on the way toward some sort of literary prize, possibly even a Pulitzer. Your name will one day resound amongst names such as Faulkner, Twain, Walt Whitman, Henry Miller, and Harry Lee Wigley. I get a small frisson just thinking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM

little hawk,
could you explain those big long complicated words that i can't even pronounce please?
i would be grtaful as i feel lie the dunce of the class, standing in the corner.

cheers
jade x x x

PS you did cheat abit!! i don't think you should accept whatever is was going to be next since alot of the last 100 has been you! x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:15 PM

Those big long words? Well, Amos and I sometimes make up big long words that just sound good...but you won't find them in the dictionary. ;-) You have to imagine what they mean. We also may use a real word, but out of context, just for effect.

As for cheating, well, yeah....the thing is, I stood to win a night of passion with Bette Midler this time around....and, well...I just find her a bit overwhelming.

So I deliberately arranged to break the rules and lose the bet...

There's method in my madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM

Jade:

Man invented the dictionary just to help his fellows in situations like this.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:59 PM

that may be true amos, but the thing is my tiny mind won't let me remeber them long enough to make sense of them from a dictionary, so i thought that LH could explain them like he would to a really thick person.. i.e.... me.

i also wanted to check that he knew what they meant.

are you a he LH? just wondering, i assumed you are.
fair enough for losing the bet, i would be intimidated too, although she is just a woman with womanly needs.

my brain is calling for sleep, so i will try and oblige.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM

Sorry to break up the cosy climate of goodwill, but the Orwellian "Liberals" have suffered a long overdue set back to their agenda.
They had tried to sneak through legislation which would make it a "hate crime" to criticise homosexual practice, by removing a clause in a bill which cited "free speech" as a defence against any such charges.

The house of lords has thrown out the amendment Here

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Royston
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:52 AM

Sorry to break up the cosy climate of goodwill...

Akenaton, forgive me if you know this (I don't know who is UK-based and who is not).

The House of Lords is an unlected chamber whose only statutory power is to house the "Law Lords", who form the highest court of legal appeal.

The HoL has no function in the passage of legislation except to review legislation and, if they object, to send a bill back to the house of commons for legistlators to think again and choose to ignore the HoL or not.

I am not up to speed on this piece of legislation, sorry, but thought it was worth explaining that anything the HoL can do can only ever be a temporary - couple of months - setback to the will of the Government, if it is not minded to change its direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:56 AM

This is important in the context of this thread, as Ebbie and others have tried to equate "race" and "sexual practice".

The agenda is of course to silence all opposition to any given issue,
race is already covered by legislation and no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....but we should all be FREE to criticise others, and be criticised ourselves on our behaviour......how we treat our fellow humans, and what we practice.

This is more than anything else, what has motivated me over the last few months on this thread.....not "hatred of homosexuals", not being a "homosexual in denial", not being "afraid of homosexuals", but simply understanding that if we do not start protesting about the "liberal" agenda, we will soon be tethered by laws to such an extent that we have no voice and will have become what George Orwell termed "non persons"

Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights and must be defended strongly, if they take that right from us, we are nothing...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 AM

Yes Royston ...I am from the UK and understand the need for vigilance......Thank you for your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:26 AM

Earlier this week a move to remove the threat of prosecution from those who go abroad with a loved spouse or relative to help an "assisted suicide" was defeated in the unelected House of Lords.

Peers and bishops heve also again thwarted the government by voting 186 to 133 to keep a "free speech" defence to the law on inciting homophobic hatred

Lord Waddington, a Conservative peer whose voting record has opposed equal rights for homosexuals, argued that the government should be "declaring boldly" that letting people express their views, including views other people may not like is what a free society is all about.
He argued that strongly urging someone to change their sexuality or criticising homosexuality does not constitute any intention to 'stir up hatred'

"In theory this means that individuals – such as bishops and comedians – are free to criticise homosexuality without fear of legal reprisals"
points out Riazat Butt in yesterday's Guardian
but adds
"gay rights groups said the threshold for prosecution under incitement to hatred laws was set so high there was no danger that people who criticised homosexuality would be subject to police investigations should the clause be dropped.
This being the case, what is it that really worries the bishops?"

The new law against incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlikely to be used frequently.

Similar laws against inciting racial hatred have only been used around 20 times in the 30 years since they came into force.


Law in practice?

Pentecostal Christian Theresa Davies, 58, is appealing her demotion to a desk job on the same salary after refusing to oversee same-sex civil ceremonies saying that it was contrary to her religious beliefs.
Her case mirrors that of Finsbury registrar Lillian Ladele. Ms Ladele, a devout Christian who believes gay couples are "sinners", took Islington Council to a tribunal in 2008 after they demoted her

Ms Davies wrote to every member of the Lords asking them to vote against Clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which would remove a previous law allowing people to criticise homosexuality.

"This clause, if enacted, will have devastating effects on freedom of expression for citizens like me... The introduction of civil partnerships has caused many Christians (and adherents of other faiths) considerable disquiet; whilst they can exercise legal rights, it is entirely wrong that someone should be made to act in a manner contrary to their conscience. I do not want to participate in civil partnership ceremonies as I believe I would be violating clearly mandated biblical principles."

In a recent discussion on UK radio it was pointed out that the bible clearly 'mandates' the punishment for any woman living under her fathers roof who is not a virgin

"Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

As it also decrees -
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..... for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
I may be looking forward to a warm afterlife unless I get rid of my walking trousers etc :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:52 AM

"anything the HoL can do can only ever be a temporary - couple of months - setback to the will of the Government, if it is not minded to change its direction.

'Fraid not Royston on this occasion - it's all down to the 'timing'

'The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill had to become law by May 8th 20088, when prison officers' right-to-strike provisions expired under an industrial relations procedural arrangement.

For that reason the Waddington amendment was kept in the bill, but ministers made clear they were unhappy with it.

Justice minister Maria Eagle described it as "undesirable and unnecessary; it does not add anything to the law as it would stand without its inclusion." '

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:05 AM

20088? - good grief that should have given them enough time! :)

sorry, not my typo, just posting something that was in the press to explain why the ammendment will not be taken back to the Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

Akenaton,
This really sums it up well. You say:

"...no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....but we should all be FREE to criticise others, and be criticised ourselves on our behaviour......how we treat our fellow humans, and what we practice..."

No one is being Orwellian here, and I don't see anyone trying to shut you up.

Your sentence addresses the very crux of the disagreement.

You think race is congenital and sexual orientation is a choice.
Many, many others think they are both congential.

Thus, we completely agree with your statement "...no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....", but we add "or sexual orientation".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM

Having a religion is a choice, but religious people get legal protections. Ake describes himself as extremely non-religious, but he doesn't seem to see the dangers inherent in the religious lifestyle. Given the number of religious wars that have been fought, and the number of religious people who have extra-marital affairs, it is completely obvious to any rational person that we need to make sure that religious people aren't brought farther into the mainstream of society. It's really just the "religious" agenda to get more and more special rights for church-goers. Trying to convince us that believers are normal is truly an example of Orwellian doublespeak. Pretty soon we won't even be able to say what we think about them! The God fearing minority will impose their will on the rest of us -- a mockery of freedom! A generation of silence! By allowing believers to run around just like normal people, my right to a life untainted by any contact with religious people is being trampled.

Nothing more needs to be said. The figures are there in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:48 AM

my right to a life untainted by any contact with religious people is being trampled.

Excuse me?

Since when is that a "right"? As a matter of fact, it contradicts the constitution!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:53 AM

jeddy - Yes, I'm a male. I would be quite willing and happy to be a female...provided I could also be a lesbian, that is. In other words, that's what I'd opt for if I was gonna be a female at present.

The marriage issue is not one I have much direct personal interest in, though. I've never married and I've never wanted to. I think it has to do with unresolved family issues. That is: if you go out with someone or live with them...then they're your friend. I feel safe and good around friends. But if you marry them.............they become....FAMILY!!!! Ouch. I do not feel particularly safe and good around family.

Yup. I think that's it in a nutshell. A troublesome issue indeed.

I've seen any number of couples who lived happily together for many years...then they got married and the relationship broke up in a year or two. I think it was possibly their subconscious ideas about "family" that brought things crashing down.

Actually, my friend Daylia (a female) put that forward as a theory awhile back when we were discussing why many people seem to get along fine living together and then they don't get along soon after they get married. She suggested it's because their "friend" has now become "family" in their mind....and I think that was quite perceptive on her part.

This would not be a problem, however, for people who are NOT deeply conflicted around issues of family. If family, to you, means safety, happiness, and good times....well, then, this issue would not come up when you get married, would it?

And that could account at least partially for some of the happy and enduring marriages I have seen around me.

Not that I'm saying there aren't other significant factors. I'm sure there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM

The situation in the UK

The Lords Spiritual of the United Kingdom, also called Spiritual Peers, are the 26 bishops of the established Church of England who serve in the House of Lords along with the Lords Temporal.

The Lords Spiritual normally do not vote on matters of law or state in the House of Lords, but they have done so in special cases

The presence of religious leaders in the British legislature is strongly opposed by secularist organisations such as the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society who have consistently campaigned for their removal.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Reverend Michael Scott-Joynt, in the debate in the House of Lords declared that the current orthodoxy was that sexual orientation was "more akin to ethnicity than it is to religious belief".

Rt Rev Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester -
Criticised by Cheshire police after suggesting homosexuals should seek medical help to reorientate their sexuality.

The newly formed Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which counts five homegrown bishops among its backers, is aimed at congregations and clergy unhappy with the Church of England's position on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women as priests.

One of the English churchmen supporting the FCA is Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, who continues to draw criticism for his views on homosexuality, he has issued a 'warning' "The values of culture are not necessarily values of the Christian faith" adding: "We will resist compromise ... We need to make sure that God's will for human beings and their flourishing is set forth clearly."
He advocates in the press and the pulpit that homosexuals should "repent and be changed"

The bishop, who retires in September, was one of several high-profile clergymen to address congregations in the Greater London area recently to rally support.

Not all UK bishops share these views however, many in the Church of England are concerned about the tail wagging the dog

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

MMario, I was being facetious, ironic, making a parody. A joke, son. I'm experimenting with channeling Akenaton, tying to see how writing the things he does feels from the inside. All I can say as a result of this exercise is -- Let me out of here! My brain can't contain this much faulty logic, disinformation, and mean-spiritedness.

I'd try to channel Guest from Insanity as well, but the comma key on my computer is broken and the paragraph return key works too well. Besides, my fingers automatically put in periods when I come to the end of sentence-length thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:07 PM

(MMario, read it again- you'll see that John P was doing the same thing I did, using the analogy of 'putting up' with religion as compared with 'putting up' with homosexuality. I used race, not religion, but the approach is the same. Thanks, John P.)

"I've seen any number of couples who lived happily together for many years...then they got married and the relationship broke up in a year or two. I think it was possibly their subconscious ideas about "family" that brought things crashing down." Little Hawk

You may be right, LH, in fact, I'm sure that is the case at least sometimes. However, in my observations, I think that more often when a marriage breaks up relatively quickly even though the couple had lived together for years, it is because in all likelihood their relationship had gotten rocky- and they got married in an effort to shore it up. Just as people sometimes have a baby in the same effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM

That's a possibility too, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM

although i have read the posts since my last one i will have to reread them for them to make sense.

LH, i don't blame you that if you had to be a woman then you would be a lesbian, are you a boobs or bum man?
sorry to be silly.

since when can't gay people be productive and caring nieghbours and a help in the community.
let me give you an example, when we lived in sheffield, there was a very old lady who fell over in the road because she couldn't lift her leg up high enough. ... there was a man in a suit walking right past her at the time and all he did was step over her. we had to run, yes us run, down the road to pick her up and help her up the curb. is that man the sort of person you would prefere to have in your society, just becuase he wears a suit and has the respectabilty, of being a profesional, rather than the scruffy gayness of me and my other half?

i do hope not.

i will get back to you on the subject of this bill, or non bill, when i fully understand it

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:21 PM

It's baa-aack; I thought for a couple of days that everyone had agreed that my last post was so stupid that it was time to let the thread die.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:39 PM

Frogprince - You were close, man! But no cigar. (grin)

jeddy - It's their legs and faces and eyes that I like best. The other parts are nice too, of course. As the saying goes "it's all good".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:42 PM

There is a great deal of deep-grained stupidity afoot in this thread, FP, to the point it has lost its value as a discussion. Once people start invoking "liberal conspiracies" and confusing free speech with incitement to hatred, all responsibility for intelligent offerings goes by the boards. The next thing you know, gay people will be the same as Hitler... ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM

i don't think hilter was gay was he??

so in fact he was better than gay folks, at least he was normal!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:18 PM

Amos...would you please explain why criticising homosexual practice, equates with incitement to hatred?

If the amendment had been withdrawn, I could have been charged with incitement to hatred for what I have written on this thread.

I have written nothing which incites hatred to homosexuals.

Ebbie.....slipped off the hook quite well there...didn't you?
But I'll remember what you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

All credit for this thread continuing lies with LH!
*We* had ended it quite nicely (for us, that is).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM

This thread has done at least some good.....The Pro's are no longer able to scream, shout, and throw their toys out of the pram, they have been forced to address the issue and that must be good for free speech....and bad for the "Liberal" agenda.

Unfortunately most of them find it impossible to address the issue from their perspective and fall back on posting rubbish like trying the equate homosexual behaviour with race or religion.

I may be an atheist, but I have learned in my fairly long life that many people need a helping hand to make sense of their lives and their mortality. Given the type of society we are in the process of creating that is completely understandable.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:31 PM

Just out of curiosity, what does the liberal agenda include besides equal rights for all?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:35 PM

I don't think anyone is trying to equate things as you claim, Ake.

What has been said is that your position against equal CIVIL rights is discriminatory, and as such it is ANALAGOUS (not equal)to discrimination on other organic grounds such as race.

What I have said is that incitement to hatred should not be considered the same as free speech; I said nothing about your own posts or even defining what incitement to hatred would consist of. That is a whole other discussion. "Kill him!! He's a fucking iummoral commie bastard faggot!" is not an examle of free speech anymore than yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is.

I don't know if defining the boundaries between the two would not be an impossible can of worms. But, like the difference between farts and butter, I think I know it when I smell it.

How do you feel about (a)incitement to hatred of others? (b)legally discriminating against monorities?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM

"Unfortunately most of them find it impossible to address the issue from their perspective and fall back on posting rubbish like trying the equate homosexual behaviour with race or religion." Ake

I hate it when someone says it to me but I will say it to you, ake: You just don't get it, do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM

Hi Amos...nice to meet up again :0).

I don't believe in incitement to hatred of any group, any minority, any person.

I have tried to back my opinions here with a reasoned argument, chiefly the health issues, as I've said one hundred times, the health statistics suggest that homosexual practice is very bad for homosexuals and very bad for society at large, as such I do not think it should be promoted by our respective govts and accepted into mainstream society.
That does NOT mean that I hate Homosexuals or wish to incite others to hate them.
Although I am not personally bothered too much about the redefinition of marriage, I know a large number of people who are very concerned....and I fully understand their concern, even if I don't share their religious views.

Many minorities are discriminated against, for many reasons....reasons we have discussed several times above.

The "Liberal" agenda does not consist of "rights for all", it consists of rights for certain selected minorities, especially vociferous powerful minorities with control over the media and entertainment industry!    In other words the "liberal" agenda is to support any cause which may be useful in its quest for total power!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:48 PM

Oh I get it alright Ebbie, took me a while to figure you out right enough. Gave you the benefit of the doubt several times, but no more.

In my "bible", the writings of Lewis Grassic Gibbon, the unlikely heroine Meg Menzies coins the phrase "Ye hae tae hae SMEDDUM tae be richt coorse....or richt kind!!".

Ebbie you do not have SMEDDUM.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:57 PM

Although I am not personally bothered too much about the redefinition of marriage

Then why do you spend so much time and effort on here talking about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM

I'm following my uncle's advice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:30 PM

So, how old were you when you decided to become heterosexual Akenaton. It's a very important choice. You must have some recollection, if not of the exact moment, at least of your thoughts at around that time. I suspect it was an easy choice for you (which is good). But if you put some thought into it, you must recall at least a little.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM

Frankly, he may not have got there yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:58 PM

I can only speak for myself, but I was falling in love with little girls by age 2 or 3....and the first female I fell in love with, in fact, was my Mother, so it started at birth. I adored her. Isn't that fairly common? There wasn't what I would call any sexual component to my adoration of females, however, until I hit my teen years. I didn't think about any sexual stuff before then. It was strictly a matter of the heart and the head for me in the pre-teen years...but I sure loved females, although I was pretty picky about which ones at any given time.

Maybe if less energy was put into trying to prove that another poster is "bad" or "stupid", there'd be less hostility generated on this thread. Whaddya think? Too revolutionary an idea? Not enough fun? Too boring? Whaddya think, eh? ;-) I know one thing: if you growl at a dog, it will usually growl back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

"SMEDDUM" being what?
Class?
Intelligence?
Wisdom?
The insight to interpret a word no normal human ever heard of?

Ake, I'm just not sure you have the frubidush to be the right kind of person, or find the right course in life...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

My first recallable sexual thoughts involved my third grade teacher. I sure didn't plan them, and at the time I wasn't sure what they were, but thinking back a few years later when I did understand, and saw the teacher again. Yup, that was it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Yeah. ;-) I did used to get a funny feeling like butterflies in the stomach over my art teacher and various other ladies when I was in grade school. I didn't figure out what it was all about until much later.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:03 PM

Maybe if less energy was put into trying to prove that another poster is "bad" or "stupid", there'd be less hostility generated on this thread.

People who want to deny civil rights to a minority are bad people. Sorry, Little Hawk, that's just the way it is. People who willfully ignore scientific data, put forth ideas that are devoid of logic, and refuse to learn when they are told about it are stupid. They have no one but themselves to blame if they are held up for public ridicule.

People who don't care about civil rights for all, like you, are fellow travelers with the bad people and part of the reason the bad people are still able to spread their badness around. Failure to confront injustice is a choice that supports injustice.

Do you really think that denying civil rights to other people isn't bad? Do you really not care?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:22 PM

The "Liberal" agenda does not consist of "rights for all", it consists of rights for certain selected minorities, especially vociferous powerful minorities with control over the media and entertainment industry!    In other words the "liberal" agenda is to support any cause which may be useful in its quest for total power!!

Whew! Thank goodness. I was worried there for a while. Pretty much everyone I hang out with are liberal, and it's good to know they aren't pushing the liberal agenda as you understand it. None of us have control over the entertainment industry, and none of us are interested in having power over others. Wait a minute! Since we are the liberals, and don't want power, it must be some other group that has you so worked up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:31 PM

I think you missed the exact point, John P. I think the implication is that the homosexual minority control the media and entertainment industries.

You know, like the Fox Network for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:34 PM

You are using the word "liberal" in some local way, or convoluted distorted way, that makes no sense to me, Ake. The word, its meanings and its roots, have been discussed extensively on this thread and on others to which previously gave you links.

I would ask you to define the word "liberal" as you use it. I am sure there is some word in English that fills your definition much more fittingly -- you are using this one turned inside out and backwards. For one thing, it is antithetical to power-questing, generally speaking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:51 PM

The way Ake seems to be using the word "Liberal" reminds me of the folks who blame all the ills of the world on "The Illuminati" or "The Freemasons" or "Alien infiltrators" or any of how many dozen mysterious (not to mention, nonexistent) groups who, presumably either run the world or who are trying secretly to take it over.

It makes a convenient pigeon hole to cram those folks who don't agree with one's position, and a convenient scapegoat for those who like to couch things in terms of conspiracies.

If I'm wrong, Ake, kindly set me (and others) right by explaining just exactly what you do mean.

Don Firth

P. S. And Little Hawk—once again, remember what Dante said: "The lowest level in Hell is reserved for those who, when faced with an ethical or moral conflict, chose to remain colorlessly neutral."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:44 PM

"Do you really think that denying civil rights to other people isn't bad? Do you really not care?"

John...you are asking me those old "Have you stopped beating your wife and kicking your dog yet and do you still hate Jews and blond people?" kind of rhetorical questions. ;-)

Don't. It's damn silly. You know perfectly well that I think it is bad to deny civil rights to people, and so does Akenaton. I know him plenty well enough to know that. He is in favor of civil rights, as are all the other people in this discussion.

It works this way, John. If you are bound and determined to see bad intentions in what someone else says and ascribe the worst motives TO whatever he says, then you WILL see nothing but bad in what he says no matter what he says, and you'll never have a worthwhile conversation with him because your own ill will toward him and your own need to prove how "bad" he is negates the possiblity of a worthwhile conversation.

And that is the problem on this thread. Period. People's own hysterical righteous posturing is interfering with their ability to actually listen to and understand anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

And what else is new? ;-) I've been watching this ridiculous reactive BS go around for years here between the terminally righteous and the terminally vain.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 PM

You miss the point completely, Little Hawk, despite your posturing and condescending didactic style.

There are simple fundamentals involved which include differentiating between opinions and rules of law, facts and biases, and correlations and causes. When you lump things together unduly you make inaccurate or unjustified conclusions.

All of Ake's apprehensions about the dangerous side of homosexuality practice is insufficient grounds for a legal, civil discrimination such as he recommends. If those ills exist in fact, there are better remedies for them than de-legitimizing the whole class of people.

That is the only point about Prop 8., which asserts that a class of people is to be judge and excluded from certain civil privileges by reason solely of their sexual orientation. Ake has tried to justify this egregiously wrong action by claiming other reasons, which are different issues.

A