 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM Re: your last post addressed to me, GfS, it sound to me like you're getting a bit desparate. If I'm wrong and you're right, Let's have some documentation. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:43 PM Are you afraid that gays are going to outbreed us and take over the world? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:45 PM Homosexuals out breed...what?????....I think you just said it all...Don't bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:58 PM So--no documentation then. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM ""But, that is not what they want, nor is it the goal, of those exploiting their grievances, with all the ballyhooing about their rights being 'denied'!..and if it wasn't for the emotional immaturity that is inherent, in their nature, they'd be doing just that...and no one would hardly notice or care...Have you ever seen a 'hetero pride' parade, where functioning, married, hetero couples flaunt their sexuality????...especially in the manner the homos flaunt theirs??? Why do you think that is?? What is with the 'shock value' that goes along with the disgusting, and lewd behavior these people parade around in public??"" And these are the words of a person who claims NOT to be bigotted. Words which positively DRIP malice and prejudice. ""For anyone's information ONLY.02% got that??..2/10,000, are born, with a gene that is claimed by 97% of homosexuals claim they are born with, that makes them 'unable' to be attracted to the opposite sex, and in fact, gives them the 'attributes' of being a female being trapped in a male body,"" And the words of a person who refers to "junk" science, while being unable to distinguish between a homosexual, and a transexual. That reall helps your argument GfS Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM This is the kind of thinking of people who are obsessed with the subject. So over the top it verges on the silly, if it weren't for the harm it can do. Look up "gay conspiracy" on google. You'll run into a lot of the same kind of anti-gay, anti-same-sex marriage nonsense that's being spouted on this thread. And these folks are saying that it's gays who are sick. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:04 PM "'Hey, I'm gay, I'm Jewish, and I'm left-handed! How much harder can it get!??'" Nothing you can do about being gay, or left handed, but being Jewish is a choice, so it doesn't belong in there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:20 PM Yeah, but that's a whole nother subject. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:27 PM Rig: You crack me up sometimes, man. :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM It's important to inject some gaiety into the conversation sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 09 - 10:12 PM Borrowed from another post on another forum, some excerpts: "Family fears of catching homosexuality, or of being recruited at school or elsewhere are utterly without scientific foundation." ~ Dr. Jack Weinberg, President American Psychiatric Association, October 6, 1977. "Sexual orientation is deep-seated and not something one chooses to be or not to be." ~ Dr. Alan P. Bell, senior author of "Sexual Preference", Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, Indiana University Press, 1981. Gays and Lesbians are not recruted into homosexuality and are not brainwashed into it: "Gay and lesbian children are often aware of being different at a very early age. They generally become aware of their sexual orientation during adolescence or early adulthood. ~ R.R. Troiden, "The Formation of Homosexual Identities", The Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 43-73. "The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." ~ The American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association, July 1994. "Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments." ~ Taken from the American Psychological Association Statement on Sexual Orientation, July, 1994. "No scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any therapies that attempt to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals." ~ John C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich, eds., Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, Newbury Park, Calf.: Sage, 1991. "All attempts fail when gay people try to become heterosexual." ~D. C. Haldeman, "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, p.221-227, 1994. "Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help."" ~Dr. Raymond Fowler, American Psychological Association Executive Director "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." ~American Psychiatric Association "1. According to scientists at the University of Texas, the cochlea (a structure in the inner ear) in lesbians is different than in heterosexual women. 2. This difference was discovered by using a test which measurs the sound that the cochlea makes while responding to a soft clicking sound. The results show that lesbians have weaker click responces than heterosexual women and are more like those of men (the cochlea in heterosexual women is more sensitive than in men). Dennis McFadden, who was the lead conductor of the study, believes that the cochlea of lesbians might be affected by hormone exposure from before birth and presumes that unknown sites of the brain which influence sexual orientation might also be affected. 3. In 1991, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, Simon LeVay, examined the brain tissue from 41 people. He found that a structure within the hypothalamus called the INAH3 of heterosexuals was twice the size of the INAH3 of homosexuals, thus pointing to a bilogical origin of homosexuality. 4. J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura from the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada, compared the number of ridges on the index finegr and thumb on the left hand with the number of ridges of the thumb and index finger on the right hand. The study found that 30% of homosexuals have more ridges on the left hand while 14% of heterosexuals shared the same trait. This indicates a genetic origin of homosexuality, perhaps even before birth, since finger prints develop during the 17th week of the fetus stage. 5. Dean Hamer from the National Cancer Institute led a study which compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. They discovered that nearly all shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (which is one of the two sex chromosomes), thus pointing to the conclusion that homosexuality has a genetic component. 6. Scientists have observed homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Gay chimpanzees, gay sheep, gay fruit (no pun intended) flies, and gay penguins. While some may argue it is simply animal lust, the gay penguins counter this... gay penguins have been seen in lifelong relationships thus indicating loving feelings and not just animal lust (which we all have in us). The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a given and cannot be changed by doctors; and trying to do so is harmful to the patients and often leads to suicide attempts, and sadly some of the attempts are successful. Sources of the information in this essay: http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/studies.html www.qtonline.com/columns/birdsandbees/penguin.asp www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/961212behavgene.html" (All cited at http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayrelig/743.html I include these not to bolster the legal case, which stands alone, but to rebut some of the kneejerk homophobic mealy-mouthed twitterpates. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM To be fair, there is a good deal of opinion amongst professionals that essentially says it is the particular confluence of genes, experience, environment and education which combine as formative elements in individual cases of homosexuality. One group of such quotes can be found on this page. None of which changes the legal issue a whit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:46 PM Two questions arise: 1) If those who so vehemently denigrate the gay "lifestyle" were to discover irrefutably that homosexuality is caused by physical differences, would they then change their views? Or would they insist that those who are homosexual must deny themselves and remain celibate all their lives? 2) Would these same people be willing to deny themselves? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jan 09 - 02:45 AM Well, now that mob rule has once again gone a muck.......and all you are so sure, as to put your best 'arguments' on the line(because some argue for arguments sake).....check this out.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:53 AM Amos, I read carefully your lengthy and researched post. Because I shouldn't 'paste and cut' and answer each of the assertions, one by one, to completely debunk them, I hope you may have watched the video, which certainly refutes the erroneous 'findings' (which dates, I noticed began exactly when I said political pressure was put on the medical and psychiatric community). This video, I'm surprised you didn't come across in your search...or maybe you did, but nonetheless, I found it on my first try. His assertions are near identical to what I told you before..and I had not seen it, until moments before I posted it. Though his techniques differ from mine, it is based, as I said before, on understanding, compassion and sensitivity toward his clients...not a political stance or proving a point, to justify bogus claims. Therefore: All finding and policies based bogus data, are in part, or in it's entirety, erroneous!!!! Sorry! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:39 AM Interesting thesis about bonding with the opposite-gendered parent. I have only seen the first few minutes of the gentleman's interview. I am not sure what quality of evidence a talk-show clip is. Is his bok, and its research, available on line? The debate over etiology is really not germane, imho, to the proposition that legal marriage should be uniformly applicable to any couple regardless of their orientation. Under the law, how do you apply the doctrine that all humans are created equal with the Orwellian porposition that heteros are "more equal" than non-heteros? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 05 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM From GfS: "'junk science'...which is no science, at all.....Sorta' like global warming is caused by SUV'S" At the request of GfS that anyone not expert in the field should not debate him or her on the causes of homosexuality, I have stayed out of this. In the interests of reciprocity, this would be the time to request that non-experts in earth systems science should stay out of the climate change debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM The Southern Medical Journal reports (Aug 1980) that "the range of expression of homosexuality and its association with certain cultural, environmental, and genetic factors are most consistent with the concept of a multifactorial trait. Additionally, genetic heterogeneity in this phenotype (alternative mutants corresponding to a single phenotype) is highly probable. In certain nonhuman and presumably in human species the normal sexual development of the hypothalamus is guided by an appropriate exposure to androgen at a critical early stage, and this in turn presumably contributes to sociopsychologic sex development. Particularly instructive in this regard have been the monogenic experiments of nature in man--XY females with insensitivity to androgens, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and male pseudohermaphrodites (5-alpha-reductase deficiency). Additionally, in the human, sociopsychologic sex also appears to be molded by sex assigned at birth and sex of rearing. Several of the intersexuality syndromes and psychoses are accompanied by increased homosexuality, but a majority of homosexuals are not in these categories. A limited number of family studies, including twins, tentatively suggests a heritable risk, at least in some families." (Italics added). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM I wonder what all of that would mean if it were written in Hemingway-esque sentences? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM Good one, Rig! Get to work on it, Amos. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM Or in the style of Mickey Spillane - Amos or Rapaire could do it, I know. Or Norman Mailer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM Rig, To answer you question, they would be short sentences. Amos, ok, I see you are really trying to ferret out the truth..so, because of that, which I respect, if you want to get to the bottom of the discrimination, I would certainly look in the direction of the insurance lobbyists, and their connection with the medical community, and who fund the 'studies', and the politicians, who legislate the laws. It is in that direction that the misinformation is sent out, and exploited. Ever notice, that through a home owners policy, everyone in your home can be covered, whether they are related or not, even renters, if you rent a portion of your home...but not, a homosexual, through your employer, as one poster correctly posted. This is not a matter of laws, and civil rights, this is a matter of the insurance industry's policies. So, all those who look to the civil rights issue, are barking up the wrong tree, which, of course, is where they want you barking! In several posts I have posted, I have repeatedly sounded off about corruption. This is just one area to which I am referring. Because of these lobbyists, we have an unaffordable health care system, which is also in shambles. I am sure they will vehemently oppose any heath care reform, and certainly oppose a one payer system, as proposed by Obama, during his campaign. Fortunately, there ARE some physicians, and counselors, in the field who understand this, and will work with a client. Ever notice new medicines coming out for never heard of diseases???..who's side effects are worse than what is being treated??..I think it would be safe, to include the pharmaceutical, companies as well(duh)! Many doctors, only back up the false studies, because, they get paid from the insurance companies..who in turn only pay out a fraction of what is being paid in, on premiums!!..So there you have it in a nutshell. Instead of 'shooting the messenger'(me..or Ake, who understands what I'm saying), I thank, and am grateful for Mudcat Forum, for a place, to give you accurate information..about what has been a devastation of our medical community, and corrupt politicians...for which we all have fallen victim to. Well I've got a hammer And I've got a bell And I've got a song to sing All over this land It's the hammer of justice It's the bell of freedom It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land...(Pete Seeger) 'You've been lied to for so long, that when I come and tell you the truth, you do not believe me'...(Jesus of Nazareth) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM Sometimes Norman Mailer doesn't make a lot of sense, though! I'd settle for Raymond Chandler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM Heinlein, is pretty good too |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:18 PM The Pope, leader of the worlds billions of Catholics, has said that the practice of homosexuality is as much a danger to humanity as the destruction of the rain forests. Pope Benedict is reckoned by the experts to be the most learned Pope in history, but I would disagree with his opinion. My view is that homosexuality is in our society, strongly promoted by a vociferous pressure group and we must accept that fact and try to deal with it fairly. However society should not allow the practice to become "normalised" through apathy, fear, or coercion, The male homosexual life expectancy and health statistics should be a warning to society that "normalisation" as in "marriage" (the word), or the fostering of children, is not in the interests of all. AS no proof whatsoever has been brought forward on a genetic link, I am inclined to agree with guest that the condition is largely psychological in nature, and a symptom of a society in decay. That is my view as an atheist....not a religious fundamentalist and if you "liberals" don't like it I dont give a flying fuck. If you think either guest or myself bigots, what is your opinion of the leader of the Catholic Faith? If my friend Benny had said "Liberals" are a bigger danger to humanity than deforestation, I would certainly have agreed with him....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:27 PM It is not a question of "liking it", Ake. It is a question of pinning down the truth as well as we can. The point where civil rights become involved is when the public seeks to set aside the State Constitution in order to express a bias against a minority. Your moral indignation, or nausea, or your sweeping generalizations about the decline of society, have no bearing on the issue. Let me point out that there were just as many homosexuals per capita during the more-conservative Fifties--but they were suppressed into hiding in fear. You think that would be an improvement, I suppose? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Nick Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:38 PM >>Don, As I posted in an earlier post, political pressure was applied to get the medical community, and its training, in the professions, to change homosexuality from a dysfunction, as all living things on this planet primary attribute is to survive and reproduce, to merely an 'orientation' or 'preference'<< What a wonderful post. A lot of zoologists would agree with you that the urge to survive and reproduce is pretty fundamental. At the same time they marvel at the choice that living things have to choose not only their orientation but also their sex and reproductive choices - eg sex choices I presume that means one of a few things * they are wrong * they are misguided * the clownfish and wrasse have political friends in very high places * to generalise ("all living things on this planet...") is to invite others to test your hypothesis/ theory / blanket statement and test it with obvious things first and more detailed criticisms after * the zoologists have been nobbled * the theorists evolved to confuse things Or that you didn't mean what you said. My name is Nick by the way and I at least have the wherewithal to not hide behind the sadness of a guest. If you believe in something at least have the bollocks to stand up for it. As an aside from somewhere in this thread - "most Mudcatters are liberals". That came as a shock to me. Is that an American liberal or a proper British one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM Ake, Jeez, I thought I was the last person on the planet still using that expression..'Flying fuck'!! In addition to your post, history shows us, and shows us clearly, for those scholars of world history, as you have alluded to. that homosexuality, and the open acceptance of it, has ALWAYS proceeded the fall, of world powers, and powerful nations. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, do your homework, (as Amos so wisely did) and argue with history...not me.....(I've gone through enough of this shit to bring to you the truth) Oh, by the way, TIA, I just drove my SUV to the Pacific Ocean, about 1500 miles west, off the coast of South America, where the ocean floor has been heating up, so I could re-fuel up, to bring that 'warmth' back to the continent, and deliver a fresh batch of 'global warming'...but that's a different subject for another thread! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM I have written the truth as I see it Amos, and if homosexuality is in part psychological and in part learned behaviour,do you really think that there were as many homosexuals around in the forties and fifties?....Just look at the high profile homosexuals in the entertainment media, and the effect they have on confused youngsters. I have no nausea or indignation personally towards homosexuals and the decline of society is surely accepted by everyone....would you like a few examples? I have said on many occasions that the criminalisation of homosexuals was wrong....so try to confine yourself to the truth...evenwhen your argument hits the rocks. And your opinion of Pope Bednedict is???. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM Nick...to answer your question, it is not a liberal of any known species, but more akin to a genetically modified vegetable! Guest.....I dont just say it!!:0) Sorry but the link you left didn't work, perhaps you could re-post....thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM My opinion on Pope Benedict is that he is an old man in a funny hat, and if you think the people in Gay Pride parades dress strangely, I think the high jinks of the Council of Bishops and Cardinals doing their ritual obeisance to His Holiness is easily on a par. Let me point out that bemoaning the decline of society has been a favorite pastime since the days of Socrates. As for the illogical assertion that tolerance toward homosexuals has preceded the fall of every historical civilization, I would argue that this is an absurd statement. The Incans did not condone their homosexuals, although I am sure they had them. The Greeks did. In both cases, through political miscalculations, they lost their lands to invaders. Obviously homosexuality is not the common denominator here. But let me make myself perfectly clear: I do not give flying fuck if you welcome or shun homosexuals in your personal lives. I DO care that you choose to deny them a civil status which you are happy to grant to the most perverted heterosexual pairings. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM A google search on Richard A. Cohen shows that this "gay-conversion therapist" was expelled in 2002 from the American Counseling Association for six violations of its ethics code, which bars members from actions which "seek to meet their personal needs at the expense of clients, those that exploit the trust and dependency of clients, and for soliciting testimonials or promoting products in a deceptive manner." Of course, he claims that he was expelled from the American Counseling Association because of its—as Cohen maintains—adherence to the "gay agenda." Quelle surprise! Cohen claims that he was gay until twenty years ago, but now he is now straight. One phase of Cohen's treatment is to "cuddle" his male clients. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM Adams, Henry E. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105(3), pp. 440-445. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: pdq Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:05 PM GUEST,Guest from Sanity ...perhaps you are a slow learner. You persist on spending your Mudcat time tilting at windbags. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:35 PM Clever wordplay, pdq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:39 AM pdq, thanks for your observations.....now for something you may never see from those 'windbags'>>>>>>>> 'Perhaps you're right!' Ake, Really????????....give me a call!!!!! come fly with me..(as the song says)..or,....Fly the friendly skies of United......... Don, (and I wasn't going to reply to your nonsense anymore, after your ridiculous statements before) bot, I'm sure he was censured, it wouldn't surprise me. Do you actually think the medical organizations are free from bias, from those whose message runs contrary to their policies, and corruption????? Whoops! there goes another pig flying overhead....and it has 'restless leg syndrome'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:28 AM I have observed male nautiloids inserting their spermatophores into other males. Clearly the nautiloid lobby has joined the conspiracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Nick Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM >>In addition to your post, history shows us, and shows us clearly, for those scholars of world history, as you have alluded to. that homosexuality, and the open acceptance of it, has ALWAYS proceeded the fall, of world powers, and powerful nations. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, do your homework, (as Amos so wisely did) and argue with history...not me.....(I've gone through enough of this shit to bring to you the truth) The fall of nations has always been preceded (I presume you meant something that comes before not something that "moves on in an orderly fashion". Proceed is going forward. Precede is something that happens before. It makes a nonsense of your comment) by an increase in the price of fruit as well. You are confusing coincidence with causality. Alternatively you are trying to link unconnected things to try and prove your argument. It doesn't work. If you are going to dispense or present 'truth' you need to firstly hone up your logical skills, secondly try to use the correct words, and thirdly try to come to terms with the use of the humble comma; especially the difference to sense that a malformed sentence makes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:24 PM By the way, GfS, it is most disingenuous of you to pose as one who rings the bell of freedom and the hammer of justice in order to squash a group of people of whom you have a derogatory opinion. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM Just thought I would poke me head in the door and see if youse all are still having a pissing contest. Ahyupah. Nearly got wet! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:06 PM Nah, I yam done here, Gnuzer. These folks don't speak Civil Rights. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Jan 09 - 04:27 PM Amos.....You are neither "civil" nor "right".....:0) How's that for a double homo....graph missus!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:12 PM Guest from WHERE!?? See ya, folks. I'm outta here. (You know, when I suggested that some folks look in a mirror and ask themselves "Why do I care?" I guess I really hit a raw nerve.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM You flatter yourself Don, you couldn't hit a "coo on the erse wi' a stick.....if ye were haudin' it by the tail"...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 09 - 07:51 PM I guess the lads are like me. Can't be arsed any more. Pun definitely intended. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM But it seems that I did get up somebody's nose. Hence the quite savage responses. Such as yours and Guest from Paranoia's. But— Some astronomers are carefully following the orbits of several ECA's (Earth Crossing Asteroids), of which there are many. The earth has been struck before with cataclysmic results, and Near-Earth Asteroid (99942) Apophis [2004 MN4] is considered very dangerous, dangerous enough to cause a number of astronomers to urge preparing for an asteroid rendezvous mission in order to alter its orbit enough so that it will miss the earth when it approaches in 2029. Wolf-Rayet-104 is a gamma ray burster. It's highly unstable, ready to explode-implode into a supernova at any time, and when it does, it will emit an intense burst of gamma rays jetting out from its poles. This could extinguish life on any planet in line with either pole. And the earth is in line with its axis of rotation. We are staring down the barrel of the gun that could kill us all. At any moment. But forget all that! There are more imminent, more catastrophic dangers!!! There are gays among us who want their civil rights recognized!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM My opinion of Pope Benedict is that is is indeed an old man in a funny hat - but he is generally a very wise and rational old man who speaks in well-reasoned paragraphs that frequently get condensed and sensationalized by reporters into irrational sound bytes. Reuters really got this one wrong, I think. Ake paraphrased it, "that the practice of homosexuality is as much a danger to humanity as the destruction of the rain forests." That's not exactly what Reuters said, but it's close. Here's the exact quote:
Google says this horrendous misquote appears in 750 places on the Internet, and it most probably appears in countless newspapers. I found the cited speech at the Vatican Website, www.vatican.va. I also found This San Francisco Examiner article, which provides a view of the speech that is quite different from the Reuters perspective. See also this Irish Times article. No, it's not a speech in favor of homosexuality, but neither is it the silly statement that Reuters attributes to him. My summary of what the Pope said is that we have to practice an ecology of humankind as much as we practice ecology of nature - that we must treat both humanity and nature as sacred. That includes our attitudes about many aspects of human life, including marriage. The message does make it clear that the Pope believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it certainly is not the strong statement against homosexuality that Reuters portrays. Ake, I'm sorry, but I don't think that the Pope would agree with your extreme position. He wouldn't agree with the extreme on the other side, either. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 09 - 12:45 PM Thanks for that Joe, I did wonder what your take on Pope Benedict's comments would be......Pretty measured, as I would have expected from a man with his feet in both camps. I of course disagree with some of what you have said,the speech is unequivocally against the practice of homosexuality...any speech which condemns homosexuality in today's social/political climate, is a strong statement. I agree with your other comments on the "ecology" of humanity, as i grow older, I find myself becoming disgusted by the way in which "life" is viewed by most people, from disgarded foetuses to disgarded octogenarians. I am disappointed that you find my position on this issue "extreme" I did not intend it to be so. It is certainly less extreme than the position held by Pope Benedict Perhaps my views seem extreme because they are opposed by so many here who on this issue are motivated more by political expediancy than common sense....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM Ake: You've added a lot of weight of your own to what the Pope said. "Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public. Note the complete absence of the words "transsexual" and "homosexual" or anything about "saving the world from gays." Maybe Reuters balked at having to report the stuff denouncing "manipulation."" (SF Examiner) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM Amos....I believe you are an atheist like myself, so you should know that these guys speak in code, the code in this address is pretty easy to decipher.................."One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation." Well done Amos, you homed in on the biggie, "Manipulation" is the word which cuts through all the bullshit like a hot knife through butter...Ake |
