BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: plnelson
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

It would be far more constructive, coherent and considerate of others, lass, to say what it is you think was nonsense

But Amos, that's all they've got!

The anti-gay-marriage argument comes down to two things:

1. Religious objections.   
-- Fine; they are welcome to believe whatever they want - we have freedom of religion in this country - but that doesn't give them the right to impose their religious views on others. I have no problem with gay-marriage legislation that includes an "out" for clergy who don't want to preside over a gay marriage due to religious objections (e.g. the recent NH bill), although I don't see why it's necessary because why would a gay or lesbian couple want to married by someone who objects to their marriage?

2. Dark but vague references to some threat represented by gay marriages to straight marriage.
-- I've long since stopped wasting my time demanding examples or clarification because they haven't GOT any. My wife and I have been married for 24 years. She's a musician; I'm an artist and poet. We often hang out or vacation in artsy places (e.g. Provincetown, MA), where, true to the stereotype, there are large gay populations. So we have lots of gay or lesbian friends and acquaintances. So I think we would have noticed any problems by now. But I asked the right wingers: What are the clues? What are the warning signs? Does it have something to do with interior decorating?   But answer came there none.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM

Just did a little checking.

I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, Ake. But I just read through the "Gay Parents" thread—which I note, you started. Did you really think that you weren't going to get a lot of strenuous opposition?

And I'm sorry! I can't find anything that John Peekstok said on that thread that exceeded your own modes of expression. He expressed his viewpoint with as much vigor as you did, so, as the saying goes—

If you can't stand the heat, don't sit on the barbeque.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:53 PM

Ake, my apologies for that remark. I'm quite sure that this not the case, because I don't believe you are really that kind of person.

However—believe it or not, I have met people who think exactly that! So sometimes, when the discussion gets heated, it's a little hard to tell.

Beside Interstate highway 5, a main north-south highway in southwestern Washington State not too far from the Oregon border, some person who lives in that area owns a large signboard. The messages he characteristically puts on that signboard are arch-conservative to say the very least, and blatantly bigoted as a general rule. Lately, he's been conducting and anti-gay campaign with his sign. A recent message read:

AIDS, The Miracle Disease
It turns a fruit into a vegetable.

Now, a few people found that very amusing. But others considered it to be an obscenity of the lowest order. In fact, that was too much for the local townspeople, and they got together and demanded that he change the sign. He tried to claim his right to free speech, but the local townspeople and those in the surrounding area agreed that this level of hate speech goes beyond the intentions of the First Amendment.

And I have heard a few rabid homophobes, even unreligious ones, say, with a satisfied smile, such things as "AIDS is God's punishment," and "I hope that disease wipes those filthy perverts off the face of the earth!"

When I hear people expressing that level of hatred, frankly, I consider them to be dangerous.

So, again, my apologies. You're right, we should try to keep this discussion civil. But I think you can understand my reaction.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:52 AM

Well, as we are now deaing in hypotheticals,(KB in Iowa's oft answered question), has it occurred to any of you, that if the current AIDS figures were available in 1967, homosexuality would still be illegal and we would not even be discussing "gay marriage" in these pages.

Oh yes Don Firth!.....I almost forgot that you had taken me to task on name calling.....now let me see, you state in your post...10June 8:32 that you fee I am the sort of person who would take pleasre in the deaths of people affected by AIDS.............I respond that you have fallen to a new low in the dicussion, almost (but not quite) reaching the level of Mr Peekstock, who is a proven "bottom feeder"

Weeeell, on reviewing these remarks, I think you are probably right and my remark to you is much more of an insult than yours to me, so I apologise unreservedly.

I first encountered Mr Peekstock on the Gay Parents thread, when he entered a post full of insults, shouting and bluster, he is simply a bully and tried unsuccessfully to intimidate myself and others who disagreed with Male Homosexual fostering.

Since then Mr Peekstock has altered his tactics slightly, but in my experience a bully is always a bully and will always attempt to intimidate until confronted by people of courage.

Don....I know you from many years of posting here, you are not such a person and I regret the language we have used towards one another on this thread and I would never accuse you of taking pleasure in the deaths of anyone.....even bigots.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

It would be far more constructive, coherent and considerate of others, lass, to say what it is you think was nonsense, and give a good reason why. Otherwise, the charge just blows back on you, and since you are busy arm waving, finds you defenseless.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:10 PM

I'm sure you're right, jade. I don't know why I have wasted so much time trying to argue with a pair of solid concrete heads. Shame on me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM

don, as the most easily confusable person on here, even i knew what you meant, but i think others would have jumped on that as they have no legitamae arguements and just enjoy the arguement for it's own sake. right now i don't think that GfS or AKE, are ever likey to come to the cunclution that they agree to dissagee or stop posting complete twaddle just to get reactions from you and amos.

i have said what i think and since no one has tried to argue witth me on this, i assume they just like tormenting you.
these people are not worth my time if all they do is go over the same ground, without listening to reason or providing decent answers and finding a solution.

take care don, amos and others too far up the page who want a decent conversation

jade x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:07 PM

Typo in above post: omitted word.

". . . and because denying a minority group their equal rights and equal protection under the law is NOT the right thing for a civilized country to do."

Lest I confuse the too easily confusable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

GfS, you are downright pathetic. You can shout "nonsense" until your throat gets parched and dry, and your teeth drop out, but that does not make it so. And as far as our not correctly reflecting what you are saying, we call you on something you've written and you whine that we're misrepresenting what you said, then you say something else along the same line. Then, when someone quotes it back to you, once again you complain that that isn't what you are saying. Make up your flippin' mind!

Reading your convoluted and constantly shifting posts is a bit like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

By trying to claim that same-sex marriage laws are only some "liberal agenda," and that we advocate it only because we are "idiotic liberals" doesn't wash. I—and I'm sure others here—advocate the idea because it is a civil rights issue, not unlike desegregation of schools back in the 1960s and passing laws against job discrimination and other matters of balancing the books more fairly; and because denying a minority group their equal rights and equal protection under the law is the right thing for a civilized country to do. If it is a "liberal issue," that is because most liberals tend to see the rightness of the cause, not just because of some Word from Liberal Headquarters. To claim that is to confuse cause and effect.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue—equal protection under the law, the idea that this country is based on.

You are archaic, GfS. One by one, the states are passing laws permitting same-sex marriage or removing the laws that prevent same-sex marriage, and thereby the world is lumbering slowly toward civilization. You and those who think as you do are being left further behind.

Go ahead an call it "nonsense," GfS, if it makes you feel more secure. But that doesn't make it so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:24 PM

Amos, and Don, you posted nonsense! You are arguing STILL, about your preconceived positions you (almost) THINK, I'm saying, therefore misleading the thread! Typical, for your political wing to do that!!

To quote Neil Young.."Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself?..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:41 AM

"WHEN I ran in the Democratic primary for governor against Eliot Spitzer in 2006, I vocally supported civil unions for same-sex couples but did not endorse equal marriage. I understood the need to provide equal rights for gays and lesbians, but as a practicing Catholic, I also felt that the state should not infringe on religious institutions' right to view marriage in accordance with their own traditions. I thought civil unions for same-sex couples would address my concerns regarding both equality and religious liberty.

I was wrong.

I have listened to many well-reasoned and well-intentioned arguments both for and against same-sex marriage. And as I talked to gays and lesbians and heard their stories of pain, discrimination and love, my platitudes about civil unions began to ring hollow. I have struggled to find the solution that best serves the common good.

I now support same-sex marriage. This is a subject of great debate before the New York State Legislature (although the legislators there are a little distracted right now), and I hope that same-sex civil marriage will be approved within the month.

Under current New York State law, same-sex couples are deprived of access to the employment benefits, life and health insurance and inheritance laws that heterosexual couples have. If the state were to institute civil unions for same-sex couples, that discrimination would end, but we'd still be creating a separate and unequal system.

Civil unions for both heterosexual and same-sex couples would be an equal system, but this compromise appears unlikely at the current time. Few heterosexual couples would give up their current civil marriage for a civil union. While some states would recognize civil unions for all, others would not, causing legal problems for New York couples. Advocates of same-sex marriage don't seem in favor of such a compromise either.

According to the last census, there are an estimated 50,000 households headed by same-sex couples in New York, many who were married in other states. Those marriages are recognized by New York courts as valid. As a result, we have same-sex marriage for some in New York (albeit performed out of state) and no marriage at all for other same-sex couples.

Any change in the New York law can, and must, balance equality while making sure that religious institutions remain free to choose whether to marry same-sex couples. By following the example of Connecticut and Vermont, which included protections for religious institutions when they recently legalized same-sex marriage, we can ensure that churches are not forced to consecrate marriages they do not endorse. This will require a strong liberty clause allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriage, which also applies to the provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions.

Many civil marriages are not considered "holy matrimony" by religious institutions because they do not conform to the rules of the religious institution. Those marriages have not challenged religious liberty. We must see that civil marriage, which has always been separate from religious marriage, will remain so.

But most important, gays and lesbians have suffered too long from legal discrimination, social marginalization and even violence. They are entitled to clear recognition of their equal status as citizens of a country that is founded on the principle that we are all inherently worthy. By delivering a clear message that same-sex couples can no longer be treated as separate and unequal in New York, we will also reduce discrimination in everyday life. We will all be better for that.

Equal civil marriage should, and likely will, pass because of the public's growing unwillingness to sustain inequality. Society will also be strengthened as more people take responsibility for one another in marriage. I now encourage others who oppose gay marriage to re-examine the reasons they do so, and to consider changing their minds too."

Tom Suozzi is the Nassau County executive.

This piece of his is taken from the New York Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

i am alomost sorry for asking now, as i don't want that part of the debate so far to go around again, but while we are,why are most marriages and funerals for that matter seen as something religious?

surely we can agree on a compromise? gay couples should have the same right as straight people whether in marriage, work, housing and children.

adopting a child is a wonderful thing to do and as long as the child is loved well cared for and provided for then whats the problem?

there are plenty of straight couples who die young or premeturely, does anyone have the right to say they can't have and shouldn't have the right to keep their child after one of the parents dies?

it seems to me that the gay community are only asking to be equal to the straight population,if you beleive in human right why is this so hard to understand and agree with.

jade
x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:07 PM

No, Don T., GfS said that he/she/it had "referenced" the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, Johh Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.

He/she/it didn't say that he/she/it had actually read them.

GfS, upthread, you accused me of being bitter about religion (along with giving me lots of advice that I neither asked for nor needed), apparently assuming that was the case because of my stance favoring same-sex marriage. There are a few people here who view religion unfavorably (the usual suspects), but certainly not everyone on this thread. And nor are all Christian churches anti-gay-marriage, which you would know if you actually read what I posted about the number of main-line Christian churches that have adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome" statement. I belong to one of those churches myself. But let's not get into a dragged out discussion of my religious beliefs. Other than your prediliction for spurious assumptions, I have no idea what grab-bag you got the idea that I was "bitter about religion" out of.

And what does religion have to do with a civil rights issue, anyway? Passing or rescinding laws on the basis of religious belief is a violation of the First Amendment.

"Pseudo-liberal?" When you hear the civil rights of a minority ground defended, those who want to abridge those civil rights always resort to such epithets as accusing the proponents of being "pseudo-liberal." Here's a bulletin, GfS—and Ake. There's nothing "pseudo" about it. Attacking people who are pro-civil rights with that sort of thing is one of the marks of an obvious bi—

Oh! That's right. There are people here who object to applying the correct labels to other peoples' behavior.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:55 PM

""I pointed out that I have also referenced the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, John Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.""


YOU READ A BOOK?..........WHOOPEE!

Pity you didn't learn anything from it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:27 PM

I don't recall having been confused anywhere in this thread, oh large-mouthed lass. I have been consistent and explicit and quite clear on what I have had to say. I think you might be projecting your internal state onto your impression of me, woefully sketchy though it may be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:09 PM

So the oft confused Amos, has found a new rap here, and just had to try it out....however non-applicable it is!
Jeddy, scroll back a few pages, and you will see very much an anti-Christian bias, very similar to the projected 'bias' that those who support homosexual 'marriage', accuse others of.
I, myself have been 'chastised' for correcting a misquote of scripture, in which some self thought of intellectual posted wrongly. Then was hassled for possibly coming from a 'religious' point of view, because I referenced the correct words of Jesus. I pointed out that I have also referenced the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, John Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.
Anyway, have a great day!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 12:53 PM

has anyone been christain bashing here? if they have i have missed it. i accept any religon on a personal basis, just not the whole organisation, that seeks to control people using fear.i personally have not been bigoted to anyone here, if i have made a mistake i have happily admitted it.if you really have no problem with gay marrage GFS then why are you atill here,as far as i am aware there has been no "club" mentality here so why are you getting so worked up? might i suggest a hot bath and some candles and relaxing music before you self destruct.

take care of yourself, because by the sounds of it you are single and have no one to look after you,

jade   x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM

I recognize that weapon!! It's an Aldebarian Froth Gun, isn't it? Takes a cubic millimeter of content and expands it into six cubic meters of gummy, obscure froth designed to immobilize all rational life-based activity in contact with it. Glad I thought to don my SIlurian high-frequency Oscil-Field power-vest before opening this thread--it repels froth and admits substance. A perfect defense. BTW, did you read the owner's manual on that gun, where they list the safety hazards? Excessive exposure to the weapon or its ammo induces uncontrollable arm-waving and imitative labial froth emissions. Your mileage may vary.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 11:20 AM

Little Hawk: "If a great many people here who imagine themselves to be good "liberals" (and they're not such good liberals as they think they are) were not showing that just sort of bigotry toward people with any different opinion than their own and thereby attempting to gang up on and SILENCE those people, I would not be posting here at all.

The gay marriage issue is not one that I have much personal interest in...nor do I object to such marriages. I object to gangs of people (whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives") bullying, insulting, and demonizing someone else who's not in their "club"."

No truer words have been posted, as to the mentality, (or lack of it) on this thread! This 'pseudo liberal' issue, is being used to give the most mentally impaired, a shot at being a voice against common sense!!!..and do so, while congratulating themselves that they actually have something to say...even if it is completely inane! I don't think that the mob of raging parrots have really given much 'gray cell' exercise to what they are affirming..nor are they even championing, anything they actually believe in...that is unless you actually ARE a homosexual.....then they turn around, and slam Christians, or even suspected Christians, with unbelievable nasty vitriolic, rhetoric...and think that they themselves are NOT being the bigots that they accuse anyone opposing their worthless point of view.
The shallowness of their rap is beyond their own comprehension.. and repeatedly, they misquote, and pre-suppose what I, Little Hawk, Akenaton, Paco have been saying, and post a rebuttal TO THEIR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS!!....Try thinking about it....maybe that's asking too much, ..working without tools!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:35 AM

i hope it's nothing too serious, take care x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:03 AM

Sorry about that .....No time to respond ....big emergency!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:08 PM

hello, i thought i'd pop over to see if you had gotten any further but it seems not, so i shall put my two penneth in.

AKE, why are you banging on about HIV/AIDS when hepA/B? is much more of a worry?
why not concentrate on other stds? if that is your' only arguement then you have nothing. both me and my other half live in a quite area, we are not banging on about it, and apart from on here it generally doen't come up in conversation. so why should not have the right to get married? over here in the U.K it is called a civil partnership, why i haven't got a clue, except like someone else said to not offend the church. the same church that is constanly exposed to be hiding preists that like to fiddle with children.

if you feel that strongly maybe you should consider joining that group in the states that harass gay soldiers funerals shouting god hates fags.   

okay maybe over the top but you see the amount of shit WE are facing anyway without your' help, please listen to reason and base you opinions, not on general but a case by case basis.


phew it's a long way up there on my soapbox,i have come down now.

it may be apperent that i haven't read he entire thread but i have read the beging the bit in the middle and the last 19ish posts, i hope i am not repeating anone else if so, i'm sorry.

take care
jade

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

The rumor of Little Hawk's life are greatly exaggerated.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM

In short, Little Hawk, you are just not concerned about the civil rights of certain minority groups. But you will defend those who are practicing bigotry against they're being identified as bigots?

Ake, you claim that I have posted nothing of value. I have posted, clearly and precisely what my viewpoint is and why it is what it is, and I have also posted a considerable amount of scientific information with links to back it up. If anyone doubts this, I invite people merely to read my posts. They can read, or re-read them and judge for themselves whether or not what you have just said is true.

And you still have not answered the question I have repeatedly posted. Simple. You don't have an answer.

When it comes to abuse and name-calling, you, sir, are the champ. I also recommend that those who question this read a few of your posts.

Idiot. Numb-skull. Blind. Stupid. Bottom-feeder. One-celled organism. And those cute little bons mots are just a few of those you use chronically. You pepper many of your threads with that kind of verbiage, directing it at people who disagree with what you say, particularly at those people who are most adept at showing the flaws in your arguments.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM

There is nothing the least bit benign about having utterly no tolerance for views that differ from one's own, Ebbie. Such intolerance leads to such evils as (and I quote directly from your list)...

intolerance (obviously)
bias
discrimination
fanaticism
injustice
partiality
racism
sexism
unfairness
cruelty
abuse
jingoism
hostility
violence
hatred
exaggerated self-righteousness
witchhunts
kangaroo courts
hazings and harassment
insults
bullying
mob rule
lynchings
and authoritarian oppression by those in positions of power

It also leads directly to the suppression of lawful free speech in a society.

If a great many people here who imagine themselves to be good "liberals" (and they're not such good liberals as they think they are) were not showing that just sort of bigotry toward people with any different opinion than their own and thereby attempting to gang up on and SILENCE those people, I would not be posting here at all.

The gay marriage issue is not one that I have much personal interest in...nor do I object to such marriages. I object to gangs of people (whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives") bullying, insulting, and demonizing someone else who's not in their "club".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:24 PM

You have a life, Little Hawk? Do you give lessons? ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:09 PM

I haven't read ALL the past posts in this interminable thread, John P. I do have a life, you know! ;-)

At least, I'm trying to...

And I don't really give a damn who among you imagines that he's "won" something here. It's about as silly as Don Quixote's adventures with the windmills. I don't object to anyone's opinion here, I just object to people launching mean personal attacks on other people here and characterizing them as racists and "bigots" (your meaning of the term, not mine) instead of calmly addressing the issues and leaving the personal attacks out of it.

But I'll stop in again in a bit and see if you guys have made it to the next century. If so, I stand to win a week's free movies from Blockbuster. Don't fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

Synonyms of bigotry

intolerance
bias
discrimination
fanaticism
injustice
partiality
racism
sexism
unfairness

Not quite as benign a mindset as the one definition given above.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:18 PM

Reproving intolerance is not intolerance; it just has to be done with a modicum of civility and clarity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM

Serious question: How does one forcefully oppose intolerance without being open to the accusation of intolerance? (Intolerance of the intolerant persons intolerance that is...)

That is, if someone is a bigot, and you call them a bigot, does that automatically make you a bigot?

Not sarcastic. I have faced this before, and don't have a good answer. Maybe this warrants a separate thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM

Akenaton, the reason your opinion is germane to this debate is because all the "logical" points you've made don't add up, as you have been told many times. You haven't offered any defense of these points, or any reasons for saying things that don't make any sense, despite repeated requests for you to do so. We are left to assume that you are casting about for some reason that gay marriage shouldn't exist that isn't just your opinion. Your dislike of something is not a good basis for the making of laws. Another point you've made is that gay marriage is offensive to religious folks, which is also a terrible reason -- and in the U.S. at least, an unconstitutional one -- for the making of laws.

When it comes right down to it, the only reason gay marriage is still mostly illegal is because of the opinions of a whole bunch of folks. You're just the one espousing that opinion who happens to be in front of us right now.

Little Hawk, on the definition of bigot: Ho hum, been there, done that. If you wanted to make that point again, you should have done so as a rebuttal to the rebuttals that were made after the first time you defined it, up-thread a ways. Do you have anything new or real to offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

what the fuck diffence does it make to the debate.

I will explain again (more fully) why I asked. You have made concerns about HIV/AIDS central to your argument against same-sex marriage (in fact you did it again in your post of 2:00 PM). You have made this connection so strong as to make it seem as though it is the reason you are opposed. You had LH convinced of this some time back as he defended your stance as being based on concerns about HIV/AIDS. I believe you would be opposed to same-sex marriage even if HIV/AIDS had never existed. I am not questioning your concern about HIV/AIDS and the devastating impact it has had (and continues to have) in the world. I am questioning your use of this issue front and center when making your case against same-sex marriage since I do not think your opposition would disappear if HIV/AIDS were to disappear. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

I am sure I am missing something. In what way is HIV/AIDS actually a homosexual diusease, given that it infects heteros as easily as homos under the same transmissive condiitons--as far as I know the difference is just that same-sex couplings create such conditions more frequently.

Second, I hear you offer a conclusive statement that same-sex marriage would change the pressure of medical investigation to resolve the AIDS virus. Why on earth would this be a logical consequence of same-sex marriage? I don't see the chain of effects at all, and it bewilders me that you assert it as though it is entirely too obvious!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:00 PM

Amos.. I am against homosexual "marriage" on health grounds, I think bringing homosexuality into mainstream society stupid, dangerous and not in the interests of homosexuals, as exceptance of the lifestyle would mean that proper medical inquiry into the link with aids would be almost impossible to set up. That is why the Los Angeles homosexuals want aids redesignated as a "homosexual disease".....to facilitate such an inquiry.

As you know, I am an atheist, but that does not prevent me from understanding the concerns of ordinary Christian people, who see homosexual "marriage" as a redefinition of something very important to them. I understand the feelings of these people although I am not one of them, they must feel that the "liberal"/homosexual agenda is bulldozing thousands of years of tradition and Christian belief, leaving them no voice to stop it.    If they do object, they are jumped on and abused as can be seen in this thread,by people who as Little Hawk says are the most illiberal on earth.

I of course dont include you in that description Amos, as even when the debate was at it's height, you remained civil and attempted to address the points raised.

In conclusion the answer to the hypothetical question is not yes/yes, but yes/maybe...and what the fuck diffence does it make to the debate.
I could be a homosexual and hold the stance which I do now.....that would be quite vadid taking into account the reasons I have given...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:40 PM

Good stuff, Akenaton! You are quite right that a lot of people wouldn't bother to post here, because it's simply not worth putting up with all the shit that would get thrown at them by people intent on labelling someone else as a "bigot", but apparently oblivious to other legitimate areas of concern which do not in any way connected with bigotry.

Bigotry, by the way, is defined in the dictionary as "utter intolerance for views which differ from one's own".

It is not defined as having hatred for Blacks, Jews, gays, Asians, women, Native Americans, red-headed barbers or mime artists.

Nope. Just utter intolerance for views which differ from one's own.

Thus, bigotry is very, very common these days and it is often found being shown blatantly in the ranks of those who congratulate themselves daily on their courageous support of Blacks, Jews, gays, Asians, women, Native Americans, red-headed barbers AND mime artists. ;-)

As for me, I am happy to support most of the above groups of oppressed people and see that they too secure their place in the sun...but I must admit to being only lukewarm when it comes to the mime artists.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:55 AM

Well said, Ake. But I don 't think anyone is calling you names just now--more like waiting for an answer to that last question. Because it appears that you've mis-analyzed on the causal links in AIDS cases, it keeps coming back up: ""If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?""

So far it appears that your view is that you would still be so opposed on general moral grounds. In short, "Yes". Yes?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

Seems to me its the same few people who have continued to argue the point over the months this thread has been running. The vast majority of the Mudcat membership have not posted at all!

I certainly dont feel intimidated by being called names and I see you have stopped shouting "bigot", contenting yourselves with snide comments.....that must take a lot of the satisfaction away...eh?

Actually I have had several PM's from members who agree with my stance, but just don't want to face the shit which is throw at anyone who wishes to hold an objective discussion on this issue.

I have also had PMs from friends and members who disagree with my views but are happy to conduct discussion in a friendly fashion in private.

Now I'm not going to waste my time reponding to name calling(that is what the last few threads have been basically),I will be happy to discuss any posts which relate to the issue, but it's a while since you came up with anything new or relevant.
Certainly not since the Cuban figures were posted.

I would remind Don Firth, that he has also been involved in this debate from the start, posting very little of value, just the usual "we all think you're wrong...so you are wrong."

I suppose basically where we differ is that you think everyone should have the same "rights", regardless of how they behave or the effect of their behaviour on society, and use "the law" to back up that belief.
Unfortunately "the law", which is formulated by politicians not the people, has never been a great aid to universal equality!

As I have said a dozen times, everyone does not have the same "rights", their "rights" depend on how vociferous they are or the political strength of their particular pressure group.

Just look at this thread as a window of oppertunity to look into another world where people begin to think about these matters for themselves and do not dumbly follow a path set down for them by self serving political correctness.

I have admitted to my friend Amos that I have learned a lot in these discussions..and have changed my stance a fair bit due to my participation here. I hope every one has found something to cause them to re-examine this very important issue....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:49 PM

"I'll do anything to aid comprehension for those with learning difficulties."

I appreciate your indulgence. I really am having difficulties. I am afraid that I cannot comprehend anything other than a simple YES or NO.

Can you tell me which it is?

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 08:53 PM

John raises a good point.

Yes, Ake, we know you're ". . . against homosexual 'marriage' on several different issues, none of which you evidently understand, the health issue is the most glaringly obvious to all but a few numbskulls."

We understand all too well what those different issues, which you don't want to specify, happen to be.

And calling people who don't buy the goods you're selling "numbskulls" merely shows that you know perfectly well that you would thoroughly indict yourself it you did spell those reasons out.

You've been squawking about this issue since as far back as 2004. Can you say "obsession?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:58 PM

Akenaton, given that a whole thread full of intelligent people think that your statements and reasons don't add up, and we all have the same reasons for thinking so, you may want to ask yourself if the problem of rational comprehension is with everyone else or with yourself. I'm a big believer in self-confidence, but if enough people all tell me I'm wrong, I start to wonder about it. I wish you could say the same. Ever wonder about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

Are you blind? I thought I had just answered the question???

Will I explain my answer?.....Block capitals?....Underline words?

Perhaps I have to answer the question three times?(that happened with another question upthread)

I'll do anything to aid comprehension for those with learning difficulties.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM

Pleading the Fifth Amendment there, Ake?

"I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."

I understand. We all do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM

In fact KB, I believe you have gotten precisely your answer.
I think there is a gigantic red herring in the room.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM

"Look.... you've wakened me up now with your bloody stupid questions.

It was just one question, ake.

I will telll you why I asked. You have made HIV/AIDS central to your argument calling it "the elephant in the room" and I wondered if this issue were to be resolved would it change your opinion. I expect I have gotten the closest I will get to a direct answer so I will stop asking now.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM

Man, it's rolling! We've already made it one quarter of the way to 1600. I'm impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

Look.... you've wakened me up now with your bloody stupid questions.
I am against homosexual "marriage" on several different issues, none of which you evidently understand, the health issue is the most glaringly obvious to all but a few numbskulls.
Anyway what does my opinion have to do with the points in debate?

Now be good children and go play in the traffic for a while!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM

Are you going to answer the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:08 PM

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:01 PM

Hmmmm. To repeat: If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?