BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

Hmm. Seems that we just reached 2100.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

Well, just between us mindless parrots from the Orwellian mind-controlling thought-police Liberal conspiracy, Little Hawk, you have agreed with my points, except one on which you cleverly disagreed and agreed simultaneously, a deft art of avoidance indeed.

I think you will find the name-calling and mud-slinging on this thread has not been unidirectional, and Ake and the unlamented sister in panic, GfS, have between them waved their arms and spat out reviling characterizations more energetically than the rest of us. I have no objection to Ake defending his opinion, and supporting it with data if he can. I expect as much from him as a stout Scots lad.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Oh, but you're not directing these observations to anyone on this thread, right? Or are you, as seems to be the case, accusing anyone who tells Akenaton that he's acting like a bigot of being a fascist? If you're not making that accusation, why are you bringing this issue into this thread?

One more thing: how is dismissing peoples' opinions as being part of some "politically correct climate" not an attempt to marginalize and silence them?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM

". . . perched high on the pillar of their own smug self-righteousness and using it to personally attack other people. . . ."

And you are doing exactly what, Little Hawk?

I am not adding my voice much at this point because I just looked in this morning and found that both John and Amos have said very much what I would say.

Ake is the master of the personal attack and the collective attack as well, dismissing both moral argument and established scientific data with epithets like "Orwellian liberalism" and accusing those who don't agree with him of trying to force their agenda on people like him--when it is he who wants to force his agenda on a whole category of people.

And Ake also uses the term "hypocrisy." Yes, indeed, Little Hawk, there is a lot of hypocrisy going around. You and Ake need to look in a mirror.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM

Amos: "Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread."

Little Hawk: "I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument."

Can you be more specific, Little Hawk? Exactly what merit? Exactly how would this miraculous infection work? Before you respond, remember that your answer, in order to make any sense, has to refute all the rebuttals to that idea that have been posted here. Or are you just talking out your ass again?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM

You all insist on taking everything I say about society personally, eh? I have not named any of you as being a fascist, a hypocrite, a bigot, or anything else like that. It would be wrong to, because you are all complex people, and you can't be summed up by one derogatory word. I'm talking about the behaviour of human beings in general. I'm discussing philosophical things about human nature.

John, I don't have to agree 100% with either side of this argument. It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument. I don't think in "all or nothing" terms.

You guys seem to resent that. I have to assume you do think in "all or nothing" terms, and your rhetoric certainly suggests so.

Is it not good enough that I agree with most of your points?

Why must I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING you or Don or Amos or Akenaton say on this thread? And what prize would I win if I did?

Really, I think you all protest overmuch. I think you're getting carried away with your own need to completely win something here...not a prize...not a medal...not anything that will last...just a longwinded argument here on an obscure internet forum that doesn't matter and that won't change anything for gays in California. You won't quit until you think you've "won" or until anyone who says differently from you stops posting and goes away.

Well, I don't care. (shrug) I see it in shades of grey, I see some reason on both sides, I see that you all have high ideals and are defending something you deem valuable, I mostly favor you guys on the legal arguments, and I respect the fact that you all are sincere in what you say.

And if that ain't good enough....too bad. ;-) I have no emotional need to prove anything to any of you and it would be a waste of my time trying to. I come here because I like to talk. Period. And so do you. But you can't talk and remain friendly, it seems, unless you get your own way on everything. That's unfortunate.

I will continue posting here until I get too bored to bother or until it's just not fun anymore. And so will you.

Anyone want to hang in for 3000 posts? Man, I wish I was getting paid a penny letter for all this bla-bla....I'd be able to retire by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM

HELLO CLONE??? Could you remove those links please? The Café has been loading SLOW ever since they were posted.

IF this has nothing to do with the fact the site is so slow... nevermind.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Amos....you're at it again you little devil!

You know very well that I never said homosexuality brings about Aids, what I did say....for the thousandth time, is that the figures state that percentage wise homosexuals are many times more likely to be affected by Aids than heterosexuals.
I don't know why this is so, but it patently is so!

As I have said many times, I would like to see an extensive medical inquiry to determine why this is so.

Now would you weasels leave Little Hawk alone, he has explained his position many times, he does not share my views on homosexual "marriage", he is simply a fair minded individual who hates to see bullying and mob rule, he is quite correct to say there is merit in my argument regarding the health statistics....no one could seriously refute my argument without refuting the CDC figures! Little Hawk is very well respected in this forum and you are unfit to lick his boots.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

"It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument."

Not all that rare, Little Hawk. There are moral and ethical issues—such as this one, the denial of civil rights to a specific group of people—where that is the case. And you can't dodge them. You have to take a stand when you encounter them. Not to do so is moral cowardice (and you fall into the category that Dante spoke about in The Inferno).

Don Firth

P. S. And you keep chanting this mantra about "winning." That indicates to me that you simply don't understand the issue. You're the one who seems to be hung up on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

Ake:

Fair enough; if you do not believe that homosexuality causes AIDS but are just curious about the statistical correlation in some areas (not world-wide) I can understand that. But it is no argument against equal civil rights. The exclusion based on sexual orientation should be limited to privileged clubs, like churches, where discrimination is not reviled. In matters of civil law it is anathema.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:14 PM

""I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy.""


A very neat piece of work this. In two sentences you have managed to state that all the epithets used by Akenaton and GfS are perfectly acceptable, in spite of being demonstrably untrue when applied as a stereotypical description of a whole group, and at the same time all the descriptions applied to the demonstrably biased, one sided, attitudes and language displayed BY them, are unacceptable and amounting to bullying.

As a self styled supporter of the underdog, you have ably proved that your support bears no relation to truth and honesty. I for one am happy that you support bigotry, because I would begin to doubt the honesty of my own position were I suddenly to find you agreeing with me.

Tell me LH, WHO appointed you arbiter on the rights and wrongs of a situation you, by your own admission, don't give a damn about.

My advice?........Tend your own potato patch, and leave us to tend ours.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM

The latest figures from the Cuban outbreak show between 78 and 85% of Aids sufferers are homosexual or bi-sexual.

Amos and Don seem to think that the reason for the large number of homosexual Aids cases compared to heterosexual Aids cases can be explained by extreme promiscuity and dangerous practices by homosexuals, if this is indeed the case,should this behaviour not be taken into account when we decide whether or not to accept homosexual practice into mainstream society.

Extreme promiscuity, and the practice of anal sex appears to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle in general terms, if this behaviour does cause Aids(as you suggest)....where does that leave your argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Amos...I have already given instances of other minorities who are discriminated against regarding civil rights, not just marriage rights, but fostering rights etc
These minorities are deemed to be disqualified through their behaviour or their psychological condition.

Do you think that everyone should have the same civil rights regardless of their behaviour or psychiatric history?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:51 PM

You all insist on taking everything I say about society personally, eh? I have not named any of you as being a fascist, a hypocrite, a bigot, or anything else like that. It would be wrong to, because you are all complex people, and you can't be summed up by one derogatory word. I'm talking about the behaviour of human beings in general. I'm discussing philosophical things about human nature.

OK. But you still haven't said why you say things in response to other people that you don't mean to apply to the conversation, and don't mean about those people. I ask again: why are you answering people with generalizations that you don't think apply to them? If I may say so, that's a really stupid thing to do. If nothing else, it makes people think you are talking to them while you're talking to them.

John, I don't have to agree 100% with either side of this argument. It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument.

No one says that you have to agree with anything. I do think you should either support the things you say or shut up.

You guys seem to resent that. I have to assume you do think in "all or nothing" terms, and your rhetoric certainly suggests so.

This is where you are on shaky ground. Our rhetoric has been directed toward encouraging Akenaton to support his statements with both facts and logic.

Really, I think you all protest overmuch. I think you're getting carried away with your own need to completely win something here...not a prize...not a medal...not anything that will last...just a longwinded argument here on an obscure internet forum that doesn't matter and that won't change anything for gays in California. You won't quit until you think you've "won" or until anyone who says differently from you stops posting and goes away.

Really shaky ground here. Saying this just shows that you don't know squat about me or my motives. I don't feel any need to win anything. I do feel a need to confront injustice, since I believe that not doing so is going along with it in a way.

Well, I don't care. (shrug) I see it in shades of grey, I see some reason on both sides, I see that you all have high ideals and are defending something you deem valuable, I mostly favor you guys on the legal arguments, and I respect the fact that you all are sincere in what you say.

Thank you. That's a much nicer thing than just about anything else you've said on this thread.

And if that ain't good enough....too bad. ;-) I have no emotional need to prove anything to any of you and it would be a waste of my time trying to. I come here because I like to talk. Period. And so do you. But you can't talk and remain friendly, it seems, unless you get your own way on everything. That's unfortunate.

Back on shaky ground again. Trying to draw conclusions about my inner emotional state. Please stick to things it is possible for you to know about.

Here's the deal, Little Hawk: I'm tired of being taken to task by you, especially since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about most of the time, and you really don't know what's going on in my head. Every time you come up with one of your rude "generalizations" about what's going on in this discussion, I'll demand that you support what you're saying in more than general terms. I've asked three times now why you think that we've not been trying to understand what Akenaton has been saying. You've said that several times, and haven't offered any evidence for the statement. Since you repeatedly haven't answered, I am left to assume that you can't support that sentiment. So is that one off the table now? Can we trust you to not wait two or three days and then say it again, as has been your pattern here?

Here's time two for the next question: Why do you say insulting things to people in the middle of a conversation, and then, when you are called on it, say that you are just making general comments? If you don't mean the statements to apply to the people you are talking to, why say them? Don't you understand that both sides of that are rudeness? Either you are insulting people, or you are putting up straw men and wasting everyone's time.

You see, Little Hawk, your involvement in this thread has largely been what looks to me -- and apparently to Don and Amos as well -- being a sanctimonious prig who doesn't pay attention to what other people are saying, and who says outrageous things without bothering to support them in any way. Perhaps you should consider following your own advice and consider what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

See what I mean LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

Ake:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, a challenge you to do so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM

Amos, we've been over this ground about a dozen times now. Akenaton doesn't have an answer for this. He either won't respond, or will say something about the figures speaking for themselves and nothing further needing to be said. Then he will, in two or three days, make the same claim that you so elegantly and effectively refuted just now. During those two or three days, he will make one of his other off-base comments, and they will get refuted, and he won't answer, and then we're back at the beginning again. This is what causes the debate to go in circles and why a while ago I declared -- facetiously, of course -- Akenaton to have lost the debate.

Why do we keep going? Perhaps because Akenaton comes across as an intelligent person who believes he's doing the right thing, and we just can't believe he can't see the error of his ways. Maybe we just like debating issues, and this is a favorite. Maybe we can't stand not confronting injustice. Maybe just to see how deep Little Hawk will actually dig his hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM

"Extreme promiscuity, and the practice of anal sex appears to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle in general terms, if this behaviour does cause Aids(as you suggest)..." Just for the record, ake, no one is saying that "...this behaviour does cause Aids ". Not cause, ake, but facilitate the transmission perhaps due to torn tissue.

And again, just for the record, you and a host of thousands can parade past a host of AIDS sufferers and not a single one of you will pick up a single AIDS germ.

So relax.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:34 PM

Even if they are married!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM

". . . you weasels . . . are unfit to lick [Little Hawk's] boots. . . ."

No, I don't think Ake cares to debate anything in good faith. Too many times he resorts to that sort of thing. My natural reaction is to respond with some truly acid remark, but I will not lower myself to his level.

As to Little Hawk, I regard him as intelligent and knowledgeable. However—he seems to have a streak of shallow frivolity larded over with what he probably regards as being some kind of "peacemaker." "Now, children, let's not raise our voices. . . ."

He lectures us from the viewpoint of his dabbling in Eastern philosophy, and this is old stuff to me. Back in the 1960s, there were hordes of self-appointed Zen Buddhists and Taoists, and God only knows what all, wandering the streets, especially around the University District. I've talked with dozens of them (which is to say, I have been talked at), and all too often Little Hawk sounds just like them. The problem is that their dipping into Eastern philosophy is on the dilettante level and they never really gain any kind of deep understanding of what it's all about. They get off on the ideas being exotic and different, and they never seem to get beyond the feeling that they now know something beyond what everyone else knows. And behind the mild and pacific exterior often resides a monumental ego!

I knew a lot of foreign exchange students when I was at the University of Washington, including many from India and Southeast Asia in general. Deb Das was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, and he and I spent many long hours in fascinating conversation. And I also went many times with a friend to the Vedanta Center on Seattle's Capitol Hill and listened to lectures (I wouldn't call them sermons) by a genuine Hindu swami.

Comparing what I learned from Deb and what I heard at the Vedanta Center with some of these self-appointed gurus who have read a book or two and gone all "spiritual," I find the self-appointed gurus to be shallow in the extreme and often a royal pain in the ass to their friends and acquaintances. It's always their air of detachment and superiority.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM

Oh I see! the "we are right you are wrong" default position, haven't you used that before somewhere?

The head of that pin must be getting very crowded....what with all the dancin' that's going on.....wriggle, wriggle.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:44 AM

Well Ebbie you may or may not be correct in suggesting that homosexuals spread Aids by their promiscuity and sexual practices, but personally, I would rather wait on the results of a proper medical study before making such a suggestion.

I agree that the figures do point in that direction but the issue requires a scientific examination before anything regarding homosexuality and Aids can be proved or disproved.

You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "homophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.

It would be a tragedy to see someone with so many decades of "life experience", reduced like myself and Little Hawk, to the stature of a "non person"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:49 AM

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, a challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:26 AM

Are all Scots so ignorant? I don't think so - I know Giok - but it does make me wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM

This thread certainly has become all about a small vocal minority demanding special rights (in this case the right to not have their viewpoint challenged) and avidly embracing victim status if others do not acknowledge this "right".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:02 PM

This thread certainly has become all about a small vocal minority demanding special rights (in this case the right to not have their viewpoint challenged) and avidly embracing victim status if others do not acknowledge this "right".

This is profoundly mistaken interpretation, TIA.

This thread is about a long-suppressed but now vocal minority demanding equity of rights under civil law, and dispelling the slightly obscene rationalizations used by the majority to deny those rights.

It seems clear that you are a subscriber to those rationalizations. If you peruse this thread you will find all the known ones trotted out and individually countered with reason and facts. If you, in your depths of understanding and compassion for your fellow human beings, have one that has not been addressed which informs your summary judgement, by all means express it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM

Amos -
I am referring to a "victimized" vocal minority other than the one you seem to think!
Second time in the last few weeks that you've missed my point in this fashion.
If you've caught many of my posts in the last year, it should be quite clear where I stand on this issue.
Perhaps I am too cryptic?
Cheers,
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "Scotsophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.   ;^)

TIA, why should anyone have to put up with being disagreed with? Are you seriously suggesting we should take away their right to have the world be exactly what they want it to be?

Taking away someone's right to live in a world that doesn't include gay marriage is also a very serious matter. How could they hold up their heads in society if somewhere there are gays or lesbians with the right to inherit property from each other? Or if the government isn't regulating what happens in their bedrooms? Unregulated sex! I shudder to think of it!

One of the things that I wish they understood is that if we give the government the right to regulate any sexual/marriage relationship, that means we are giving them the right to regulate any other relationship. It's not much of stretch to go from denying rights to gay people to denying rights to, say, left-handed people. After all, left-handed people are, or so the story goes, the sons and daughters of Satan. I just don't know why people think they should be allowed to have jobs, at least not until we've done a thorough study of the results of having the children of Satan sitting next to us at work. How do we know it doesn't rub off on us? How would you like to wake up some morning to find that you've become Satan's step child?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

TIA:

Yes, entirely too cryptic. Let us be clear, as there has been entirely too much misdirection, indirection, and passive aggression in this thread to make for a good discussion.

1. Specifically what minority are you referring to? In my various posts I have generally been referring to the minority of adult, consenting citizens wishing to enter the civil state known as marriage by mutual choice, who happen to be of the same gender as each other.

2. What "special rights" are you referring to? In my mention of denied rights I am talking specifically about the legal privileges of spousal representation, joint ownership, beneficiary status, insurance coverage and any other civil privileges that are endowed on people in married status.

I am being clear and specific. Do me the courtesy of being likewise and do not ask me to go trawling through your posting history in order to perform an exegesis on your obscure referents.

Thanks and cheers,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM

ormer President Bill Clinton said in a conference for progressive students that he supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

"Yeah," Clinton said when asked after a speech at the Campus Progress National Conference, according to The Nation . "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from honoring marriages for same-sex couples. He Also approved the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" law, which banned openly gay military personnel from serving.

In a 2000 interview with The Advocate, Clinton said that "people who have a relationship ought to be able to call it whatever they want. And insofar as it's sanctified by a religious ceremony, that's up to the churches involved."

He added about the fight in Congress over DOMA, "I think what happened in the Congress was that a lot of people who didn't want to be antigay didn't feel that they should be saying that as a matter of law, without regard to what various churches or religions or others thought, that the United States policy was that all unions that call themselves marriages are, as a matter of law, marriages. I don't think we're there yet. But I think that what we ought to do is to get the legal rights straightened out and let time take its course, and we'll see what happens."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Amos, TIA was being funny. The vocal minority he's referring to are the ones who get angry when we disagree with them, mostly Akenaton in this thread. Ironic role reversal.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

Thanks, John. My apologies, TIA--I guess I have become somewhat short of patience and I deserve to have my better perspective refreshed!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "Scotsophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.   ;^)" John P

I know, John P. I would have preferred to use a stilleto rather than a bludgeon but I couldn't find one. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

TIA:

I have revisited your earlier post, and find I have an entirely different view of it and agree with it quite cheerfully between guffaws.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:31 PM

Amos-

My brilliant humour seems far less so when explained, but here it is:
I find it terribly "Orwellian" that those who are arguing to deny a civil right to a group of citizens have wriggled themselves into the role of victim in this thread. They deride the "vocal minority" (while clearly behaving as one); they claim to be subjected herein to oppression, because some challenge their advocacy of oppression of others; they claim they are being silenced, when a simple scan through the list of postings indicates anything but silence emanating therefrom.

Summary (in liberal fascist doublespeak); we are the intolerant ones because we will not tolerate their intolerance.

Clear as mud, eh?

Best Regards,

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:52 PM

Please try to get yourselves into some sort of order girls, you are all over the place at the moment.
This is the trouble in concentrating on personal attacks, you yourselves losing the thread .....as it were...:0)

Instead of getting yourselves into such a muddle, why don't you have a try at discussing the points I have made regarding the homosexual lifestyle and whether we should be promoting it.
Don and Ebbie appear to feel that homosexual promiscuity and the practice of anal sex cause the health problems which have been highlighted by the Centre for Disease Control; and certainly the figures on homosexual promiscuity make shocking reading....even for a Scot!

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

I think we would all agree that promiscuity and anal sex increase the risk of health problems. Now why do you keep inserting homosexuality into that discussion? And how does marriage promote promiscuity? If you can answer those we will be right back on track.

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

Oh yes, the irony fountain continues to bubble:

"Please try to get yourselves into some sort of order **girls**, you are all over the place at the moment.
This is the trouble in concentrating on **personal attacks**..."


Emphasis by me of course.

Brilliant humor explanation number two for the day: "girls" is clearly intended as a *personal attack* (now be honest). And isn't it insulting to actual girls to use that word as an epithet? But I would certainly not want to be oppressive and intolerant and object to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

Episcopalians were moving today toward ending a de facto ban on the ordination of gay bishops and toward sanctioning marriage blessings for same-sex couples despite warnings from church conservatives that the liberalized policies could further divide the influential denomination.

The actions by leaders of the 2.1-million member Episcopal Church at their General Convention in Anaheim are likely to deepen a theological fissure that already has led to the departure of traditionalist congregations and dioceses.

And they are almost certain to trigger a backlash among the wider Anglican Communion, whose members in Africa, South America and elsewhere have asked their U.S. counterparts not to relax their positions on the two controversial issues. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the communion, which has 77 million members.

The church's two governing bodies -- bishops preside over one house, clergy and lay leaders head the other -- already have endorsed the gay bishops measure. A final procedural vote is expected today.

Meanwhile, the bishops this morning are debating a resolution that would effectively allow them to oversee the blessing of same-gender couples in states or jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal. Clergy and lay leaders have been supportive of the measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

Just for the information of anyone who may be interested, I never get "angry" on internet forums, and very rarely in real life

You flatter yourselves if you think that you have the capacity to raise me to anger.
I know what you are and I know the "game"!

Mr Peekstock on the other hand, admitted to "anger" just a couple of posts ago....his anger is evident in his writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM

AKe:

What point have you made about homosexuality that has not been addressed? I mean, one that has any bearing on the civil rights issue?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM

Yes Amos...very interesting, I have been reading that article in today's Times. It certainly looks like the church is heading for the inevitable split.....interesting times ahead eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM

Sorry Amos...Looks like we've been cross posting.
There is no point repeating our differing views another time, I think we both understand one another pretty well.
You always address the issues.....surely you and I can move on?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:40 PM

Ake:

Well, sure, then, lad. But dinna be faschin' about non-response to yer points if one of our lads has done answered 'em!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:51 PM

Amos, there has been no satisfactory response to the health or promiscuity figures.
You maintain that these figures have no bearing on the civil rights of homosexuals...I respect your view, but disagree, for all the reasons I have already given.

The accent is showing marked improvement old boy...have you been taking lessons?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:58 PM

There can be no satisfactory response because you cite them, and say they speak for themselves and when we say "whaddaya mean by that?", you say "I will not waste my time repeating myself". So, by all means you are entitled to your opinion - whatever the heck it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:50 PM

Akenaton, just trying to keep things on track here. I'm a very goal-oriented person and would like to get to the bottom of the various ideas that have come up in this thread. In the interests of putting one of them to bed, please answer this post from Amos:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:34 PM

My mother used to claim that none of her children ever saw her angry, that she was merely 'wounded.'

We knew better.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anger, in itself, is not indicative of bad character. I, for one, would rather that a person be passionate in his or her beliefs and actions than detached and supercilious and uninterested in truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM

i am confused by where you mean in cuba, do you mean the rich part, the smaller part or do you mean the run down ghetto side of cuba who's rights are severely curtailed as it is?

tia, i understand your humour as mine is very similar, thanks for making me giggle.

the transmission of HIV is seems to me the way we should be trying to tackle the spread of this horrble disease. anal sex is just another way of contracting it, whether gay or straight. the 'normal' way is just as risky if you are having unprotected sex just as sharing needles.

heck in the good old days you could even get it by a blood transfusion.

i know yoiu all are very busy and those of you from overseas will not know who i am going to talk about, but the rest of you should maybe skip through a weeks worth of jeremy kyle.. i know, but it will show you all the lack of care that people have towards sexual health. in fact you watch any talk show..ricki lake.. jerry springer...any of them and they all do the same thing. "i slept with too many people and i don't know who the father of my child is"

you will see what i mean.

if we cannot get people starting to take some responsibility(?) then we will have more and more infected people not just gay but this will become a serious problem..again.

in everyday life we are forced to be responsible why not in bed, well anywhere that takes your fancy?

take care all

jade x x x