 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:33 AM Don, in the interest of a non combative exchange of opinion may I just consider your points in more detail 1. Some homosexual couples want to be officially able to marry, and intend by that to commit to a stable monogamous relationship. At present, as you point out later, in the UK at least legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).which affords same-sex couples almost all the same benefits as heterosexual married couples i.e. gain rights to survivor pensions, recognition for immigration purposes, hospital visitation rights, and equal treatment for tax purposes. Inheritance tax is waived as it is with married couples, and there is a right of succession for tenancy. They will also be exempt, as married couples are, from testifying against each other in court. In addition they will be deemed stepparents of each others' children, and able to formally adopt. As with U.K. marriages, civil partners will not be able to file for dissolution until they've tried marriage for a year. Indeed the term 'marriage' is commonly used synonymously with civil partnership as reported on the UK Immigration Workpermit.com web site "Sir Elton John, 58, and his partner of 11 years, David Furnish, will be married in the Guildhall in Windsor, the same place Prince Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles" 2 Such a relationship, by its nature, would tend to reduce promiscuity, and because of that, have a beneficial effect on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals. I tend to agree with you on this point although in countries where same sex marriage has been practised longer than the UK, like Sweden, the breakdown rate is considerably higher than heterosexual marriage 3. Legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law). This is now true in many counties and, in the UK, there are few differences. One technical difference is that a civil partnership becomes legal when the registration certificate is signed by both partners without the necessity of 'witnesses' This does not mean that it must be signed during a ceremony that is public or during any specific event. This allows the partner to enter into the partnership on a private basis. There need be no words exchanged. During a civil marriage, typically words are exchanged and then the register is signed. But now comes the crunch……..! A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage often contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership. 4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts. This is also true but they are in a minority. Many heterosexual people can be, and very often are, refused marriage in the Church of England during the lifetime of a former spouse whether the 'innocent' party in a divorce or not The Judeo-Christian religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are too numerous to mention here According to Reverend Rick Warren, the spiritual leader chosen to launch Obama's inauguration, homosexuals are people who "think they are smarter than God" and who choose "to disobey God's sexual instructions." My point is Don that it is primarily a religious stance, - as reflected in the attitudes of the 'current leader of the free world' and the likes of Rick Warren the Megachurch leader praised in Obama's second book "The Audacity of Hope." - that opposes same sex marriage and inequality of recognition, benefits etc in the US and that, until there is a separation between state and religion in America, this is likely to remain a major obstacle to the equality that has been advocated by many people in this thread and elsewhere. My apologies for a very long thread but I feel it is an important subject |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM Ake, I am beginning to think that you envision yourself on this thread as being a gadfly attempting to expose, a devils advocate, rather than exploring your own beliefs. Is that it? (Thanks, Emma. "Scott" was a slip of the finger; I have several friends named Scott but I do know the difference.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:41 AM My last post to this thread. Not with the intention of "winning" (what would we win anyway, a f***ing medal), but purely in the hopes that our self styled "more an asker, than an answerer of questions", might break his lifelong embargo on answering. 1. Some homosexual couples want to be officially able to marry, and intend by that to commit to a stable monogamous relationship. 2. Such a relationship, by its nature, would tend to reduce promiscuity, and because of that, have a beneficial effect on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals. 3. Legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law). 4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts. My question is:- WHO or WHAT is damaged by this, and why is there such determined opposition? I think I already know EXACTLY what the answer is, but I'd like to see it spelled out in some manner that bears critical examination, because all I've seen thus far is obfuscation and prejudice, and denigration of those who have asked the question. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM since i am english i tend to think of everything in an english way, i know nothing of america, or what it means to be american. i can't imagine that the feeling is that much different to being proud of being english, there have been alot of folks who contribute to UK threads that have the same problem, but you don't get the same jump down your throat response,so please be a little more patient and understanding? we are always taught that our american cousins are forward thinkers and true freedom fighters, it has been a revelation to learn differently. ake, since i haven't read the book in question (even if i tried i don't think it would make sense to me) i cannot get the full picture, as i have said most of the labels in existance are self made, even someones name is a label. hello my name is jade, i am english, i am 31, i have 3 dogs and i am gay. oh and i am a short arse. you see what i mean? to say that then would mean the opposite just confuses my tiny brain. i think george might well have been stoned!! lol i don't understand the not answering questions but asking them, unless you mean philosophical questions and not personal ones but i always thought the two were similar, surely you cannot think they are not related? i hope this makes sense as i am off my face on painkillers right now. take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:13 AM Amos, I don't doubt that the report you quoted is 'accurate' but it seems unecessary to point out to you that journals/journalists can be extremely partisan in their reporting of the same event and a certain 'filter' is required when digesting tedious, repetitive large tracts of copy/paste articles such as the ones that dominated the threads during the US Election campaign. For example, it's unsurprising that an article by Rex Wockner in the San Francisco Bay Times quotes the Associated Press - "His (Obama's) critics - and there were many - saw Wednesday's incremental move to expand gay rights as little more than pandering to a reliably Democratic voting bloc." and Gay writer Dan Savage: "If this shit is 'fierce advocacy,' Mr. President, we'll take benign neglect." or that a blogger in the Daily Kos comments that many gay democrats who contributed to the election fund now feel duped and betrayed on this issue "what do those few rights do for all of us (in majority) that don't work for the Federal Government? .... ...how can this Memo be seen as anything but a roadblock to equality when it fails to protect Military personnel, the majority employee group of the Federal government!? " Thu Jun 18, 2009 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 01 Jul 09 - 05:48 AM Emma... as I'm sure you know, my remarks regarding "winning" a discussion such as this were tongue in cheek. Personally, I am more interested in encouraging debate and objective thought than any meaningless victory. Many here are content with comfortable knee jerk responses to complex issues, this is most unhealthy and a sure sign that "liberalism"(the cult) is flourishing. Frogprince...Although we rarely agree, I've always had you figured as an intelligent and genuinely liberal person(something in the mould of Emma) and your question deserves an answer. I am more in the business of posing questions than providing answers, but I'll try to get back to you. Due to work commitments, I have very little time to write on this forum...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:13 PM Sorry I failed to note the origins. I believe it came from Slate. It was a description of a White house event, and i see no reason to think the reported statements are not accurate. Obama has made it clear that even MORE than not believing in gay marriage, he believes in equality under the law. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 30 Jun 09 - 10:23 PM akenaton - there's not a 'our side' / 'your side' It seems to me that it appears to be necessary to be either 'with us' or 'agin us' on threads these days with little opportunity for pointing out and discussing the often 'grey' areas. Ebbie, I don't claim to have any 'insight' into the American president I merely quote what I perceived as an unequivocal statement of belief; if you can discern a different meaning I would be grateful as a mere English woman (not a Scot, Scott is a surname btw) if you would enlighten me. The irony is that, for a country which has disestablished church and state, 'christian' dogma seems to influence thinking/legislation far more in the US than it does in this country which still has bishops in Parliament but a far greater degree of equality between the rights of heterosexual married couples and those in a committed civil partnership In addition, in 2008 army chief, Gen Sir Richard said that respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers was now a command responsibility and was vital for operational effectiveness as people of any sexual orientation could make a valuable contribution. It's not too surprising then, I think, for Brits to consider 'liberalism' in America as something not quite in synch with Don Firth's excellent definitions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM Ake, You surely don't realize how totally irrational you've sounded with that last couple of posts. Ebbie may have touched on the problem; perhaps you're reacting to what is being marketed as political liberalism in the UK and/or Europe. It may help us get a handle on what you mean to say if you can answer this: What political or philosophical tradition do you think we should look to, to avoid the dangers you see in liberalism? Conservatism? Radicalism? Anarchy? or? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:59 PM Ake, in your unwillingness to be informed you are tiresome to an extreme. As a Scott, would you agree that you know diddlysquat about it means to be a liberal in America? And Emma, as good as she is and as fair as she tries to be, does not have any particular insight into America's president. If you keep it up, ake, I'm going to think it's just the nature of the Scottish beast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 PM "Look once, pass on, and think no more about him." Thats a joke worthy of the two Ronnies coming from someone who is totally obsessed by the need to "win" this debate. How many months have you been here Don?....Its certainly taken you quite a while to pass on! So, after all the bullshit by the gang of four....and thanks to Emma, we finally have an unequivocal statement from the President "that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."(would you care to underline THAT Don?) I suppose that means he's on our side, and I have a mind to do a Mr Peekstock and declare victory, for even Don x 2, Amos, or Tia would surely hesitate to bullshit the great Obama.......but no, I shall continue, for I believe this thread may broaden into an examination of "Liberalism" as currently practiced. Not far from where I live, as the crow flies,is the island of Jura and the small farmhouse of Barnhill, where George Orwell wrote his masterpiece "Nineteen eighty-four", I would recommend that the "liberals" here read or re-read Orwells great work, for although his vision of a Communist or Fascist totalitarian regime dominating the world is no longer feasible, all the stereotypes are alive and well in the creed of "liberalism". They practice "doublethink", they manufacture labels which mean exactly the opposite from what is written on them, their ideas and beliefs are protected by the "thought police", they are adept in the use of "soft power", not so brutal as Orwell's "jackboot to the face forever" but just as insideous and soul destroying. The creed of "liberalism" is danger to freedom and human happiness and will inevitably create a society very like the one described here by George Orwell. "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM bruce you are being very rude and i am shocked!!!! i thought you were a nice guy too LOL jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:37 PM "Clinton blew it." I though it was the other way 'round . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM Clinton blew it. When he went into the meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the idea of integrating the Armed Forces on the "gays in the military" issue, he started out by asking "How hard are you going to fight me on this?" Pretty damned hard, it turned out. After a long, dragged-out battle, the best he was able to get was "don't ask, don't tell." When Harry Truman met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the idea of racially integrating the armed forces, the J. C. of S. had their heels solidly dug in and didn't plan to back down an inch. But Give 'Em Hell Harry, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, simply walked into the meeting, issued an Executive Order, and walked out again. It took about thirty seconds and left the J. C. of S. with their mouths hanging open and mad enough to spit nails, but with a clear picture of what their orders were. I've always kinda liked Harry Truman. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM Amos your copy of a report on 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM doesn't say what event it's describing or atribute the source. A recent BBC report on the progress for anti discrimination laws against homosexuals in America seems to portray a somewhat less 'spun' situation "US President Barack Obama has signed a measure extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal government workers. The move comes amid anger from Mr Obama's gay supporters that he has not done enough to protect the rights of gay Americans..... ...what is being seen as an incremental step forward was not well-received by critics. "When a president tells you he's going to be different, you believe him," John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist was quoted by AP as saying. "It's not that he didn't follow through on his promises, he stabbed us in the back." Mr Obama has indicated his opposition to the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, under which gay servicemen and women are allowed to serve, but only if they do not publicly disclose their sexuality or engage in homosexual acts. But since entering the White House, Mr Obama has done nothing to overturn the policy, and has declined to intervene in the cases of gay soldiers who have been thrown out of the military for being gay. Mr Obama's failure to repeal the military ban is not the only issue that has frustrated gay rights campaigners. Last week, the Department of Justice (DoJ) issued a legal opinion in response to a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Defence of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. A justice department spokesperson insisted that the president is opposed to the Defence of Marriage Act, but that until the act is repealed in Congress, the DoJ has a duty to defend the law as it stands. But the controversial opinion prompted at least three prominent gay donors to the Democratic Party to withdraw from a party fundraiser, which is due to take place on 25 June." from BBC News / America 17 June 2009 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM Ake's idea of what liberalism is all about more than amply demonstrates that he is either totally clueless in the area of political science or is deliberately and intentionally trying to muddy the waters with irrelevancies. Maybe a liberal (if I may be forgiven for the use of the word) mixture of both. I harken back to the Black Knight scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." His argument is armless, legless, and totally without merit. Yet, he keeps blithering on. Naught to do but, as Schiller said to Dante, "Look once, pass on, and think no more about him." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 30 Jun 09 - 01:02 PM Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." I believe that is also the stance of the number of black and white (many of them firm Obama supporters) Christians who voted to once again ban gay marriage in California. Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation in 2008, with more than $74 million spent by both sides. While opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law, people such as Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign said "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage....." As a heterosexual who is not a Christian, I was married in a civil ceremony and personally agree wholeheartedly with the civil unions that give committed same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples including the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM ABBA's "Dancing Queen" filled the East Room, as more than 200 prominent gays and lesbians gathered for the first ever celebration of Pride month at the White House. The President and First Lady entered to thunderous applause. President Obama told the group he is committed to equality for their community. "This struggle continues today, for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and will not put aside issues of basic equality," he said, "We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love." Many gay and lesbians believe the President has been slow to act on major issues like the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and the Defense of Marriage Act. The President asked the group to focus on what has been accomplished so far. "I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said, "But I say this: We have made progress. And we will make more." The President spoke about his recently signed memorandum, guaranteeing benefits to same sex partners of federal workers. While those include benefits like relocation and emergency evacuation - health care, retirement and survivor benefits are left out. "There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop," Mr. Obama said. Among those, the President said, the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Obama also said he has called on Congress to a domestic partners law, which would guarantee a range of benefits, most notably healthcare, to same sex couples. The President also vowed to pass a hate crimes bill that would include protections for gays and lesbians, and said the bill will be named for Matthew Shepard. The gay University of Wyoming student, whose parents were in the audience today, was tortured and killed near Laramie in 1998. His attackers were not charged with a hate crime. The President also said he is committed to ending the ban on entry to the U.S. based on HIV status. As to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the President said he believes the policy works against America's national security. "My administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress," he said. "I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal." Still, the President said government can only do so much. "Even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change, but, as I said before, on the hearts we open," he said. He ended his speech with a promise to champion their cause in the days to come. "I want you to know that, in this task, I will not only be your friend; I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you," he said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM Ake: With all due respect, that is pure horseshit. I wrote the title of this thread. I wrote the first post, saying "IF there is any chance yoou will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed rightwing Ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls. This could have a serious, even life-changing impact on someone you love. Or someone you could learn to." There was nothing opportunistic about it; it was a protest against what was in fact a heavy right-wing campaign. Furthermore your natter about liberalism fails to impress because you do not know the definition of the word and apparently are wholly out of touch with the intellectual traditons that inform it. As for the belief that labeling something makies it so, you seemto have convinced yourself in that very manner about what anyone to whom you apply that label must think, and what character flaws they must have. It is disingenuous projection on your part. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:26 AM Now now girls, don't be getting all catty with one another....remember unity is strength, and we're just coming to the interesting bit! Remember how this thread was started?....as an opportunist attempt to drum up support for the Democratic presidential candidate, and how those "nasty right wingers" were going to be horrid to the "gays" A vote for the Dems is a vote against homophobia! Give me a fuckin' break.... I suppose there are as many right wing homosexuals as there are left wing. And even God doesn't agree with homosexual marriage!...(that's President Obama, not Little Hawk).....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM No point. Someone please have the last word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:16 AM "By the way Tia, go back and read your post, you were the one who said you were here to "stand up to oppression" " Yes. I know. I am. And your point is.......? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:23 AM ""Well if you stopped biting every time he went fishing, this preposterously protracted thread could die a long overdue death."" Well, your enlghtening contribution just made it one post longer. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:10 AM i think i am no good at this manipulation thing. i hadn't noticed!!! come on i think it time to go down the pub again even though it is early. AKE, the whole point of being liberal is not to judge and pigion(?) hole someone, but take as you find them. it is fine to disagree, but not to try and force your' ideas and thoughts on someone. the labeling we do is often self inflicted. i have given you ample time to try and see the other side of this, as have several others, i have run out of ways of asking you, if you were gay how would you feel about being told you were abnormal and your lifestyle was undesirable? i don't expect an answer because i don't think you can give one.i will only say this once more i am not picking on you, i respect you PMing me and i am grateful. i still don't understand why civil rights don't apply to all? they are not then civil rights, they are more priviliges for the chosen ones. criminals forgo alot of their civil rights but as someone said already, even they are allowed to marry in prison. why would anyone want to stop people saying to the world, we are together, we are stable and we are happy? why would anyone want to stop a couple being finacially secure after the tragady of death? the one that is left behind is already in emtoinal termoil why would anyone wish to make that worse by making it more difficult? now i have morbided myself i shall leave you to ponder. take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Smedley Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:49 AM Well if you stopped biting every time he went fishing, this preposterously protracted thread could die a long overdue death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM COME ON GUYS! Can't you see what he's doing. Once again he's dragged that bloody great red herring across your paths, and you're off in the direction he wants you to take. Ake DOESN'T have an argument that stands up under the most cursory application of logical analysis, so he obfuscates. He ducks and dives and spins to divert the topic from the basic civil rights issue. He indulges in invective and vituperation, then complains when his attitudes and opinions lead to comments about bigotry and homophobia. If we were Morons (which we patently are not), it would be an accident of nature. His bigotted attitudes are a personal choice. In classic passive/aggressive style he turns the whole thread into a discussion of HIS victim status, standing up to a gang of bullies. And AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE LET HIM DO IT!. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:03 AM The key to your confusion is that the political creed that you follow ("Liberalism") bears no relation to true freedom or liberty. You still live in a world where the label is king.....call it something and it will be so.....hense the labels used to define those who disagree with you. Try opening your minds and examining the effects of your brand of "liberal" politics, it should soon become apparent that freedom can never live as an "ism". As I said earlier organised "liberalism" is the antithesis of liberty. Coming to terms with this unfortunate fact requires a certain amount of mental effort, or do you prefer to be spoonfed your sanitised and pre packaged beliefs by the masters of manipulation? By the way Tia, go back and read your post, you were the one who said you were here to "stand up to oppression" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA...confused Date: 29 Jun 09 - 08:39 PM Me above, devoid of biscuit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST Date: 29 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM Amos: "The oppression I am objecting to is legally denying certain aspects of citizenhood to a subset of adult citizen because of their sexual orientation." Exactly. Me too. My last posts were: 1) at 11:06 AM, a swipe at our resident gloaty goat who seems to think we are opposing such oppression only from an egotistical need to win or have the last word, and 2) at 5:31 PM a response to Akenaton who seemed to claim that simply questioning his (IMHO) dubious opinions is a form of oppression. That is, we are intolerant because we stand up to his intolerance. Which of these two put shite in your oatmeal my friend? Or was it an earlier one? I am certainly oft confused, but I think you may have outdid me in confuzzlement on this one. TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM No matter where ya go, there ya are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM TIA: The oppression I am objecting to is legally denying certain aspects of citizenhood to a subset of adult citizen because of their sexual orientation. That is, pure and simply, a bias against a minority that those motivated by hatred wish to codify into law, much like those who espoused eugenics in the late 19th century. It is not disagreeing with me that is oppression. Get your facts straight before you claw for the high ground, buddy. Your points of view have been confused summat. Denying equal civil rights is a choice to oppress. While you may not feel this as a member of th emajority, you surely would if you were one of those whose ox was being gored. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM For the benefit of those who seem to be badly bewildered: lib•er•alYour welcome. Glad to oblige. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM if i have read this right, how can you say that being liberal, means you don't let everyone hold their own point of view? i thought that was the whole point, everyone is entitled to sayhow they think and feel how they wish, as long as it hurts no one else or affects anyone elses life. i would say i try to be very liberal, not always successfully, that is why i have been trying to get you to open up and explain how you came to think how you do AKE, i am not giving up!! i know there is a decent bloke in there and i am determined to get you to admit it!!!!!! LOL i think a straight pride would be great, as long as there was no trouble why not? the whole purpose of such marches is to feel included, why not have a combined one, we could even have a proud to be british,or proud to be ginger. it is all about saying i am here and i feel confortable within myself. GO FOR IT!!! whoever you are you have something to be proud of within you so why not shout it from the rooftops? take care all jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:35 PM "Liberalism" is the antithesis of freedom. . . ." Sweet mother of Zeus!!!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM I think I fell through the looking glass. Questioning someone's opinion is oppression now? Some are very easily "oppressed" I would say, and wanting very much to be the victim it would seem. Like I said a few months ago - It is impossible to oppose intolerance without opening oneself to accusations of being intolerant. The intolerant will accuse you of not tolerating their intolerance. Here we are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM The only answer to such propaganda Amos, is that if the vast majority held such demonstrations demonstrating their pride in being heterosexual they would immediately be smeared as bigots, homophobes, lynch mob......all the stuff we've been hearing on this thread. The "liberal" agenda is eveywhere,in race, sexuality, even how we bring up our families, smothering discussion, free speech, democracy, its tentacles are choking the life out of society. Look at this thread on what shoud be an open free forum, do you think the views expressed on this thread represent the views of society at large,or even the views of the membership? "Liberalism" is the antithesis of freedom. "Liberalism" intimidates, it makes voices silent.....it is social death....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:14 PM "I think what he's objecting to is your personal attacks on specific individuals who don't agree with you on some issue, Don, not your general political stance or your opinions on social issues. But, hell, I've been telling you that for years...and what good did it do? ;-) None. You figure you have 100% righteous license to behave that way to people, since you are defending "the oppressed". As soon as you have identified "the witch" in our midst, you feel it is okay to subject them to that form of treatment. "Anyone who breaks rank here on this forum on certain key trigger issues...anyone perceived as "outside" the ruling political orthodoxy that's in sway here....will be treated in that particularly abusive fashion by a little self-righteous gang of passive-aggressive individuals here who delight in attacking people personally. I've never liked that sort of bullying gang mentality. I saw plenty of it when I was in school, and I remember." Little Hawk Ye gods, Little Hawk. If you really believe what you say there you are letting your own biases color all over it. All you need do - if you have the time to do it - is to go through all these posts from ake and GfS on one side and the Dons on the other and post them onto a Word document and you would very quickly and definitively see who has been abusive. And it most definitely has not been the two Dons. For that matter, Little Hawk, no matter the dispassionate manner in which you give your opinions, what you actually say is insulting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM Ake, GfS, here is a slide show for your amusement. Please view it thoughtfully. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM My "personal attacks on specific individuals who don't agree with [me] on some issue. . . ." That's a crock, Little Hawk! You're going to have to substantiate that. The most you can say is that I've given as good as I've got, and I am not the one who initiates the slagging matches. I have not repeatedly called Ake or GfS "liberal morons," "half-witted," or of "spewing bullshit," nor have I, as GfS does, persist in misspelling the names of people who disagree with me. They have indulged in such personal insults and put-downs all through this thread. Yes, I have alluded to their being homophobes and bigots. And by any definition, they are exhibiting all the characteristics of people whom these terms describe. And I am not the only one who has made that identification. Little Hawk, why are you singling me out? What's your problem? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:04 PM so now we are on an even keel AKE, please tell me whether finding out someone was gay would change your' mind on their character, and would you continue to be their friend? i still can't see what all the fuss is about????????? married or not should not make any difference to anyone, i don't know who among you are married and it really doesn't matter to me, what does matter is whether you are happy, this i think is alot more important. your relationships have no effect on what we can talk about nor does it influence my personal feelings on what you post. i go by what i read and the feeling i get when i read it, yes alot of the time i feel very confused!! after a few reads i nearly understand some of them too LOL anyway take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM Thats right Hawk....I dont want to oppress anyone, blacks, homosexuals, even Canadians (against my better judgement),all I want to do is discuss the issue objectively....let the views for and against be aired. I dont object to Don, Don T, or Tia giving their opinions, I try to put up a counter argument, open a few minds, but when I give my opinion it is deemed "oppression". Who amongst us is the liberal and who the bigot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:24 PM I think what he's objecting to is your personal attacks on specific individuals who don't agree with you on some issue, Don, not your general political stance or your opinions on social issues. But, hell, I've been telling you that for years...and what good did it do? ;-) None. You figure you have 100% righteous license to behave that way to people, since you are defending "the oppressed". As soon as you have identified "the witch" in our midst, you feel it is okay to subject them to that form of treatment. Anyone who breaks rank here on this forum on certain key trigger issues...anyone perceived as "outside" the ruling political orthodoxy that's in sway here....will be treated in that particularly abusive fashion by a little self-righteous gang of passive-aggressive individuals here who delight in attacking people personally. I've never liked that sort of bullying gang mentality. I saw plenty of it when I was in school, and I remember. Just discuss the issue itself, I say. Quit looking around with your lean and hungry eye for another "racist", "sexist", "bigot", "anti-semite" or other such convenient witch to burn. Those who do so are usually far worse than the supposed "witches" they catch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:08 PM Following that line of reasoning, Ake, I suppose Abolitionists prior to the American Civil War were oppressing the slave owners by advocating freeing the slaves, which would deny the slave owners the "right" to sit on the porch of the plantation house and sip their mint juleps while the slaves labored in the cotton fields. Or civil rights workers working for school integration were oppressing the parents of white children who didn't want their children to have to go to school with Blacks. If Don T. and I are "The Two Ronnies," I'd say that makes you "Mr. Bean." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:05 PM "Research has actually shown that those who are androgynous tend to be the most contented." Interesting point, Dorothy! I think that would be so, because they wouldn't be afraid of showing either side of themselves, so to speak...the "masculine" aspects and the "feminine" aspects. I've always felt a bit androgenous...that is, I have no trouble recognizing both the masculine and the feminine qualities existing in myself side by side (despite the fact that I am male and heterosexual)...and I feel fine about both archetypes. Seems to me that a truly balanced human being would show both masculine and feminine nature to some extent, and would harmonize the two. This doesn't have to translate into being bisexual or homosexual...it doesn't have to affect sexual choices at all...instead I'm talking about all the various subtle and obvious aspects of a person, not just their sexual preferences. Some people (a very few) even choose to be celibate, don't forget. I don't see why people should be defined so much in the public mind by their sexual choices! Is it really that important? I have no desire to have sex with men cos they don't physically attract me...so I'm happily heterosexual...but I do see in myself and I value some of the feminine psychological aspects. I consider that an asset, not a liability. It allows me to enjoy life more than I would if I were afraid to show any of that side...and many men are deeply afraid to, so much so that they turn themselves into very defensive, uncommunicative, and emotionally rigid people. They also often tend to be very authoritative people, and you find that in these extreme religious groups. You even find women in that mode! (and to me those women are expressing a lot of their masculine side) I detest authoritarian thinking and rule making, whether it's done by men or by women, and I avoid groups of that sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:01 PM The case for denying the right to formalize a loving bond and commitment between two adults--with the legal cognizance and rights it entails -- is a case for oppression. The case for defining a second-tier class of citizenship with special-case constraints not imposed on the majority, is a case for oppression. THere are no two ways about this aspect of it, regardless of anyone's obsession or lack thereof on the subject of sexuality. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM Oppressing whom, Ake? We're advocating civil rights, not trying to deny them. You've got things bass-ackwards again. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jun 09 - 12:38 PM As far as I can see, the only people doing any "oppressing" are the two Ronnies....sorry Dons and yourself Tia, Mr Peekstock having fled the field long since. I thought we were supposed to be holding a discussion, is that "oppression"? You make the case for homosexual "marriage", we make the case against, we are not in a position to oppress anyone, so your delusions of saving the world for "liberalism" are a bit premature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 29 Jun 09 - 11:06 AM And, still bugged by sarcasm and superiority... Am I to understand that: Ghandi opposed the British occupation because of his need to prove the British wrong and get in the last word. MLK did not quit the civil rights movement because he had a deep need to prove the segregationists wrong. Simon Weisenthal's ego drove him to prove that HE was right. The Abolitionists simply wanted the last word. . . . . . and so forth? I am not saying I am in the same class as any of those. But belittling efforts to stand-up to oppression as simply ego-driven seems pretty snarky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 29 Jun 09 - 09:57 AM Still waiting for the bottom feeding link.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Jun 09 - 09:43 AM ""I don't think you guys realise how lucky you are to to have a genuine philosopher all to yourselves. Personally , I think he's wasting his time.....as my wise old uncle used to say, "ye cannae educate pork"."" No invective there then! Yeah, right. Don T. |
