 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:59 AM ""I'm sorry to say this, but you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I write I have never used the phrase "normal people" to describe heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals; please look back through the posts if you wish. I have said that there is an agenda by some homosexual radicals and bubble dwelling "liberals"(I wouldn't wish to deny the bubble dwellers)to normalise the practice of homosexuality, which is something quite different."" Sophistry, Ake. You can't divorce the description of homosexuality as other than normal, from your view of those who practise it. Stop trying to fudge the issue, be honest at least with yourself, and recognise that if you consider the first to be true, then the second inevitably follows as a corollary. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: goatfell Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:51 AM have a gay day |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 11:54 AM I'm supposed to be finished here Don, but as I have a lot of respect for you I will give a short reply. I don't agree with your statement that if you view homosexuality as an abnormal practice then you cannot view homosexuals as "normal" people. Homosexuals are human being, members of society and they are a fact of life, as such they are normal. They are different in that they feel compelled to have sex with their own gender, which to me is a very dangerous condition. Statistics tell us that those who practice this condition have in general terms a much lower life expectancy than those who practice heterosexuality. If this is taken in conjunction with other negative issues pertaining to homosexuality, I do not consider that it should be promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle. I view homosexuality as I would a psychiatric condition like depression or addiction and I certainly would not catagorise anyone with clinical depression as "abnormal". I realise that my opinion on this issue is different from yours, but I hope the above has answered your point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM When either you, Amos, or the other Don, bring me the gene....on a pink platter.....then I will believe....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM It's a red herring. Suppose it was a deliberate choice of sexuality? THEN do you t hink it would be acceptable to deny those that made that choice the civil rights that other couples get? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:35 PM Game, Set, and Match. Don Firth P. S. There's lots more where those came from. I note with some interest that most of the studies denying the genetic and/or physiological factors predisposing a percentage of the population to same-sex orientation come from religious web sites, and that supposed scientific studies that purport to disprove the contention are conducted by scientists who are avowed Christians. Want more? I've got lots more! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM And by the way, despite that fact that most things like Propostion 8 are put forth and supported by religious organizations (trampling on the Constitutional mandate of seperation of Church and State), not all Christian churches support this position. I know of several who have actively opposed such laws. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:10 PM AS well they might. Despite the caterwauling of unthinking Christian extremists, there is no mandate in Christian teachings--meaning the teachings of Christ--that reflects on the subject. The God of Gomorrah, I would remind you, was a God who came to his semnses and reformed, unlike some of his followers, in favor of cleaving to the more binding doctrine of affinity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:52 PM I'll broach it. If all living creatures have these two things in common, the will to survive and reproduce, and your sexual organs are the 'normal' way of doing that, what is so 'normal' about the practices of homosexuality???? Acceptance in a society, is NOT what defines a 'normal' function of the body. You guys are just too filled with the radical left, political view of things. By the way, are ANY of you, born in this life, on this planet, the product of 'normal' homosexual practices? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM "Normal." Let me raise an interesting question. Our opposable thumbs and prehensile fingers evolved so our forebears could grasp things and leap from branch to branch without falling on their little keisters. So—what's normal about, say, playing a guitar? That's not what thumbs and fingers evolved for. "Normal" is a tricky word. If one wants to claim that homosexual behavior is abnormal because it's not found in nature, that is patently false. Many animals engage in same-sex copulating behavior. Bonobo apes are particularly noted for this. I have seen male dogs mount other male dogs, female dogs mount other female dogs. How about the neighbor's dog who is always trying to hump your leg? Birds do it. Bees? Educated fleas? I couldn't tell you. So that idea of "normal" isn't going to wash Sexual activity that leads to procreation is normal, but not if it doesn't? Masturbation is almost universal in the human species, and other species as well. How about humans engaging in intercourse while using birth control? So that idea of "normal" isn't going to cut it. No, Ake and GfS, you're going to have to do better than that. Religious prohibitions? There is ample reason for keeping the Church and the State separate, and the Founding Fathers were profoundly aware of this, their families having recently come from countries where religious dogma and moral prohibitions had the power of secular law—and the abuses that invariably follow from such a mixture. There is much wisdom to be found in the play A Man for All Seasons. For example, this dialogue between William Roper, a hot-headed, religious young man, and the older and wiser Sir Thomas More: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!Or for those who would like to see religious dogma take on the force of secular law, this conversation: Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM I do not believe in "God"! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM And.....despite your fruit fly bullshit and furious searching by the homosexual lobby, no human "homosexual gene" has been discovered. All independent studies are in agreement that there is absolutely no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Of course you already knew that Don.....but perhaps readers of this thread did not. Those readers may view your posts rather differently from now on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:07 PM Are we not just a little more 'evolved' than animals?? If 'evolution' is correct, shouldn't we be PRO-gressing, rather than RE-gressing?? Your argument falls down at every turn! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM "All independent studies are in agreement that there is absolutely no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. "Of course you already knew that Don....." No, I don't know that, and neither do you! If we're all going to be honest about it, the most we (you, too!) can say is that the jury is still out. And your constant harping on a "homosexual lobby" is pure fictional nincompoopery. Right up there with the Hollow Earth and the Illuminati, with a generous mixture (if you actually believe it) of paranoia. "PRO-gressing?" "RE-gressing?" You do have a fascinating way with words. Let's face reality, GfS, humans are animals, whether some of us like it or not. You may like to think you're above that, but you're not. No. My arguments are sound and standing tall. Sorry. Not your day. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:32 PM The excessive protest, good Ake, comes from your own posts. You protest offering civil equality to a group of people, and jump to every corner scraping for rationale to defend this essentially bigoted position. The reproductive value of heterosexuality is certainly a survival trait, GfS, no question about it. However, law is not a matter of survival of the fittest, and if it becomes so, you will be among the early losers. The law is inspired by a sense of justice, a trait which also exists in nature, but is generally subordinated by tooth-and-claw destruction of tohers for the sake of one's own survival. Under a code of justice, however, destroying others for the sake of one's own betterment is generally outside the pale except in extreme exteuating circumstances. All your sarcastic labels add up to a fish's fart against the power of a simple fact: that we hold that all men are created equal. Regardless of their religion, sexual orientation, skin color or gender. Why don't you let that notion sink in a bit before you wave your arms any more? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:02 PM Some insights into the little-understood brotherhood of Man through genomics. Enjoy!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM Enjoy this, as well..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMZ73mT5zM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:42 PM Tony Robbins discusses emotion and motivation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:16 AM GfS: Thanks a lot for that link. This is a guy who UNDERSTANDS!!! LOL!!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:18 AM Hey Ake, You never mentioned what musical instrument you play..or the kind of music you gravitate to, or your influences.... As so far as this other stuff goes, it seems that the points I raise, they dodge, and comment about the minutia....of course only backing it up with political 'talking' points...so while there is a lull, in anything of substance(like most of their posts), I thought we could get caught up in something about music.....I'd like to know, if you'd feel free to post something about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM Amos, I thought you'd like it...He's a Ph.D in psychology, who does this bit, to try to help men and women to understand the differences in the way they think, and interact. When I first saw it, I cracked up, he has quite a way of explaining it....and the analogies, are quite clever. I could explain it to you, in more medical/psychological terms, but for some, that can be quite dry. Besides, on this thread, I don't think some people are ready to accept that there is a DIFFERENCE between the way men and women think, and that 'wiring' has to do with their natural instincts, in the rearing of offspring. (Not 'gay' enough) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:36 AM Well, don't iunderestimate the impact of "Mars and Venus" discussions which have been going on for years now. Back in the 50's this was called the War between the Sexes; now, it is more like the "Introspective Negotiation Between the Sexes". :} The differences may be wired, or they may be a byproduct of the self-selected belief systems based on culurally-imnposed roles and identities, or even bio-functional roles and identities. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:19 AM In your post you said "even bio-functional roles and identities." Now just what do you think that means??? "Bio-functional roles"? I hope in researching the question, a light goes on!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:33 AM GfS, anyone who doesn't understand that there are some differences in the way men and women think just hasn't been around very long, or hasn't been paying attention. But—that does have a lot to do with physiology and hormones and such. Along with, as Amos says, certain cultural factors. #### Fascinating debating tactics. "Homosexuality isn't natural!" says one of our resident homophobes. "How do I know? Animals don't do it!" So he/she is presented with overwhelming evidence that animals do do it! Then the resident homophobe says, "But they're just animals and we're human! We're supposed to be better than that!!" You can't have it both ways. (Just checking in before I shut off my computer. Past my bedtime. G'nite.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:06 AM Try this, okay...Go convince your wives, preferably those who you have had children, that a Homosexual man that you know, claims to have more maternal instincts than she has, and can do a better job at nurturing your kids...then have her explain, as to the 'why's', her answer....., listen carefully, Then argue that point, to her, as vehemently as you argue on here.....see what she says....or what happens. Report back at once....if she'll let you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM That an absurd argument. Maternal instincts? What the hell? I have known gay men who had plenty of maternal instincts, and Ihave known gay men who have an absolute disdain for children. Come to think, I have known straight people with equal extremes. They also (both sets) have other talents and instincts widely distributed. It is absolutely amazing how much difference is encoded in one hundredth of a per cent of a genome. This has nothing at all, though, to do with the legal question of Prop 8 and its unconstitutionality. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:35 PM "Go convince your wives, preferably those who you have had children, that a Homosexual man that you know, claims to have more maternal instincts than she has, and can do a better job at nurturing your kids..." GfS, that's just plain silly! I have never heard a homosexual man make that kind of claim, nor would I ever expect to hear anything like that. What Amos just said is right. I don't know where you come up with this sort of stuff. It certainly isn't from anything in the real world. Maybe you need to get out a bit more. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:37 PM Chicken! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:54 PM So who's a chicken and why? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM I think it's just fevered, but hollow, rhetoric. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:21 PM Not at all. You think my question was 'absurd'. I think that you're saying, a man can IMITATE a woman, by affectations of being effeminate, and be a 'wife, and/or mother'. To me, (and the majority of inhabitants of THIS planet), think that is absurd poppycock!! Do you think, a man, who can't even relate realistically to a woman, has any idea of what a woman goes through during childbirth, and hard labor??? Do you even have an idea, of the place a woman goes to, and experiences in those moments between hard contractions..and appreciate the wonderful beauty of what she is going through??? You think that merely going through the motions of being effeminate, is anything even close to that???? Nor will you accept that those two dynamics, upon getting together, to share their lives, and/or having children, and raising them, is altogether DIFFERENT than someone acting out a denial of their own gender, and through THAT inability, to accept the opposite sex, and bring something to them, that is an essential part of the union, that makes the two a whole!! Sorry, Charlie,..what I'm describing is a marriage, between a man, and a woman. What you are describing is two like gendered people who got together, for the reason of having sex. Those two things, are different in function, purpose and interaction. It has a different name. That name describes a definition. Homosexual co-habitation, is not the same in function, purpose and interaction. Marriage, and families, are the basic fabric of society. Homosexual co-habitation, is not!!! You are trying to say apples and oranges are the same thing, and it is YOU that is absolutely absurd. ..Along with the ability to experience childbirth, comes the psychological make up, and wiring, to both fully experience it, AND appreciate, and bond to that child, that a MAN IMITATING a woman's characteristics(and imitating marriage), can not achieve!! Just for that reason alone, should women be revered..and not be disregarded as merely a sex object, or the cute face of the day! Yes, homosexuality is a dysfunction....unless you are willing to accept, that a lesbian is a better man than you!!! Marriage is marriage....homosexual co-habitation, is something else..call it what you will, but marriage it is NOT!!! Perhaps, it is you that is unsure of YOUR role, or perhaps you've abdicated YOUR role, or never fully assumed it, that leaves you in the dark.....which must be apparent to your wives, for either the appreciation, or exploitation. Still, try to tell your wives that a man can be a better wive/mother,...you think I'M absurd??? ..you'd be chopped meat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:43 PM Your impassioned explanation makes a bit more sense, now, thanks. And I appreciate your point about what women go through, and how it forms their hearts. But the point is not about the dynamics of a good, standard marriage. Like you, I don't care what you call it, although it seems pretty clear to me that marriage is a separate phenomenon from child-making, or at least that they often occur independently from each other. You have a strong belief in the nuclear family founded on the traditional form of marriage, and that is admirable, well and good, and actually, not something I disagree with. I would not wanted to have raised Barky without BBW. It might have turned out alright, I suppose, but who knows? But the point about Proposition 8 is not about the nuclear heterosexual child-rearing pattern; it is about whether those who want to marry each other and form a life together, not geared to have children, should be less privileged in civil rights, as those whose lives cleave to the standard template. If marriage MUST be a function of the reproductive institution, then a lot of heterosexual marriages should expire, no? There are DINKs of child-bearing ages who have no intention of reproducing. There are thousands of older couples, who are past menopause, or are impotent, or have grown indifferent to sexuality, who still have marriages. The term is not, legally or even culturally, bound only to the child-producing couple. Should it be? I don't care, and evidently you do not either. Call them Type A, B and C marriages, if you want. But the point of this thread is that no law should be permitted under the Constitution that allows discrimination against a couple of the same gender as distinguished from a heterosexual couple in terms of legal rights and priveleges, including adoption, insurance, mutual inheritance, mutual legal representation, and so on. If you cure THAT discrimination, which is solely based on bigotry, then I don't care what labels get laid down. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM Guest from Sanity...just looked back in and saw your post. Amos is right it is impassioned, and much more,the best post on this thread by a mile...Thanks for sharing it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM You two should really get a room. Don't forget the birth-control. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM I have rarely seen such lack of empathy as you have shown on this thread- and now you presume to tell us that heterosexual men as opposed to homosexual men have a greater insight into childbirth, bonding and childcare? How would you know? Repeat: I have rarely seen such lack of empathy as you have shown on on this thread- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:56 PM . . . someone acting out a denial of their own gender. . . ." No, that's not the case with homosexuals, either gay men or Lesbian women. It is not a matter of "denying" their gender. You have a very limited view of what a marriage is or should be, GfS. People marry for all kinds of reasons: for the most part, couples don't get married just because they want to produce offspring. In fact, most people don't get married primarily because they want to have children. Sometimes children are planned, but more often than not, children happen. And sometimes inconveniently as far as the couple is concerned. There are all kinds of reasons people get married, and those reasons depend on the wants and needs of the two individuals in the relationship and how those wants and needs interact. Although it may look like it to the non-discerning—most marriages look very much alike from the outside—no two marriages come out of the same cookie-cutter. When Barbara and I got married, she was forty and I was forty-six. We talked about the possibility of children and then decided, for several reasons, not to have any. So there goes what some folks (apparently you as well) seem to regard as the only reason for getting married. So why did we get married? Just for readily available sex? No. Barbara was and still is a very attractive woman, and I have had sufficient indications that I am not exactly unattractive to women ("stud muffin," I believe is the expression). We could have had about all the sex we want without getting married. No. We got married because of mutual attraction, yes, but also because of shared values and interests, and mutual admiration and respect. We are both complete individuals, capably of living perfectly contented solitary lives. We each with our own careers. We enjoy our individual activities and pursuits and we enjoy the many things we do together. Our marriage is a matter of synergy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We had our thirty-first anniversary this past December. Go ahead, do the math. Neither of us is a kid, and we've both seen a bit of the world. In our wide circle of friends and acquaintances, we know a number of same-sex couples—couples who live together and are "out of the closet." One of these couples often joins us in our holiday get-togethers and dinners, and the other folks we celebrate with consider them to be just another couple. We have civilized friends. And I have described another same-sex couple above (CLICKY) who have adopted two children, pointing out that these two boys are certainly going to have a better life being raised by "Papa" and "Daddy" than they would have had if left where they were. By the way, were you aware that the population pressure on Bali is so heavy that the government is encouraging same-sex relationships in hopes of cutting down their local population explosion? It isn't working, because people are simply not going to get into a same-sex relationship unless they are predisposed to do so! No. All of the arguments advanced to support laws like Proposition 8, or misguided efforts to amend the Constitution (thereby displaying abysmal ignorance of what the Constitution is all about) in an effort to rigidly define "marriage" in a manner that limits the civil rights of a specific group of people fail on the grounds of ethics, morality, Constitutionality, and just plain good sense. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM Don: That was (like almost all of yours) a great post. Let's get a room. :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:34 PM Don't forget to bring a deck of cards. (Most same-sex people "just aren't that much into each other.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM Oh I don't know Ebbie.....I think they deserve one another. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM We'll put you two in a different wing, though, so we can sleep. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:48 PM LOL.....See you Amos,you're alright big man! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:16 PM I would love to sit and listen to Amos and Don Firth talk. Can't say the same about you, ake- at least not if you persist with your current squeeze. *g* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:33 AM Oh Dear Ebbie....sometimes...no, most all the time, I think you can't read, and comprehend at the same time. In my post, I was pointing out that a man CANNOT presume to even come near appreciating those sacred moments, in child bearing, by merely IMITATING and putting on effeminate affectations. You, of all people, are taking exception to that!!!!????!!!??? Amos and Donny, finally you come to the 'possibility' that homosexual co-habitation can be called by something else. At least you agree with President Obama, on that one! Now, that that is out of the way, maybe now, we can move to the greater subject...and that is equal rights and medical coverage for ALL Americans!...either co-habitating, or married!! By the way, I hope your lovely Barbara doesn't know about you hitting up on Amos, for a 'room away from home'...(wink)! Ake, What fucking instrument do you play..and what's your taste in music??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:50 AM Here, for your enjoyment www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDEgB_ibhLw&feature=related |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:55 AM Hi Guest...I've pretty varied taste in music, I'm a great believer in emotion in folk music. At the moment it's Gillian Welch and David Rawlings, any old timey music, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Iris Dement, The Punch Bros, Martin Simpson, June Tabor. I play guitar, not very well ....but I'm improving with age...just like Scotch Whisky. Decided to play the clip you left before I posted, it was really beautiful....I thought TLS were a pop group!! Thanks! Must download all their stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM Sure, anytime...I'll share some other stuff I like, if you'd like...but I have to get going, right no...this minute(feet are tapping.....lOl) GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:13 PM Go back and do some re-reading, GfS. I don't know where you get "Amos and Donny, finally you come to the 'possibility' that homosexual co-habitation can be called by something else," 'cause neither of us said anything like that. Also, you might double-check on who was hitting on whom. (blink) Besides, Barbara just shut down her computer, turned around, and made what some might consider an "improper suggestion." Back later. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM "...merely IMITATING and putting on effeminate affectations." Yep. That's me. :) By the way, you chose an awkward moment to mention my lack of comprehension when you got going on Amos and Don. Just who do you guess appears to lack comprehension? Too, too funny. lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:42 PM Lisdexia is hell! Don Firth |
