 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 08 Jun 09 - 12:24 PM Here's what I've learned recently: Sick people should be denied basic rights until we know everything there is to know about the disease (what about all those cancer victims? Smokers engage in risky behavior but still get to get married). Men are promiscuous (duh!!). We should continue to make homosexuality illegal because we (here in the land of the free) might offend religious folks in other countries. Health care and civil rights are both political issues (duh!). People who want homosexuals to have the same rights as the rest of us also want them to die (huh?). The incidence of AIDS has more to do with sexual orientation than it does with membership in an affected community (who needs science?). If any homosexuals believe one thing, they all believe it (who needs common sense?). If I met either GfS or Akenaton in real life, I would get away from them as soon as possible after they opened their mouths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 08 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM Homosexuality entails health issues, and is probably higher-risk than heterosexuality. In both hetero and homo, the increase of promiscuity is (I am fairly sure) proportional to the increase in risk. Authorizing monogamous relationships and granting them certain protections is a wise idea, and the tradition of hetero marriage has enjoyed this benefit for centuries. No reason it should not be extended to lesbians and gays, though. It REDUCES the health risk to do so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:04 AM UK stats. http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:01 AM gay females are one of the lowest of risk groups for HIV. Gay men are the highest risk group in Western countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 08 Jun 09 - 04:08 AM Being gay is not a behavior any more than being female or Black but I guess that will never come through to you. You will continue to wear blinders so you may see the world as you choose not as it is, that's an unhealthy behavior you should see to fixing. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:53 AM "HAH!! Missed again, GfS!!" Don Firth Now there's a post with lot's of....umm...blank spaces between the ears(?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:25 AM Amos...you are of course exempt from any ill considered remarks on my part...:0). But homosexual practice is a health issue, whether any of you like to admit it or not. The figures show a massive link in real percentage terms.....please stop denying this as it damages the credibility of your argument. Other types of behaviour also have health issues....such as incest..drug abuse...smoking etc and the "rights" of the people who practice them have been curtailed accordingly. Before you start on about legality, remember laws are made and ammended on the whims of politicians, they are never finite, nor are our much lauded "rights" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:57 AM HAH!! Missed again, GfS!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:29 AM "........when it has nothing to do with politics & everything to do as a human/civil rights issue just as equality for Woman & Blacks" WRONG!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 07 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM "severe promiscuity appears to go hand in hand with homosexual practice.....in general terms of course." Where in the world do you come up with claptrap ideas like this? "When are you all going to get it through your thick skulls, that this is not a "rights" issue, but a political issue dressed up as rights." You seem to have made this into a health issue when it has nothing to do with politics & everything to do as a human/civil rights issue just as equality for Woman & Blacks Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 07 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM Ake, don't be resorting to slanging your correspondents, or you'll never drive this thread to the size of MOAB. A "political issue"? In what way? Civil rights IS a political issue, to be sure. But clearly you are making a distinction, but you have not taken the pains to draw it. What is it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jun 09 - 01:34 PM When are you going to get it through your thick skull that it IS a civil rights issue? When you have nothing else, you resort to insults and abuse. And, of course, to your so-called mind, the ultimate insult is to call someone a "Liberal." Grow up! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Jun 09 - 07:11 AM "The injection of false data--such as Ake's idea that monogamous relations between same-sex couples is an increased danger to public-health, which is unreasonable on the face of it--does not make the issue any clearer, to the contrary. But it does not change what the issue is: civil protections under the law" Come on Amos, surely we're all adults here, why stoop to tactics like that! A couple of others have tried to misrepresent what I have written on that issue, but I didn't expect it from you. Monogamy in all sexual behaviour is good.....no argument. One of my issues is with the health figures, and there is no guarantee that homosexuals en-masse will wish to adopt either homosexual marriage or monogamy....severe promiscuity appears to go hand in hand with homosexual practice.....in general terms of course. I am sure you will all trot out once again, the couple of exceptions that you know.......I prefer to stick with the CDC statistics. When are you all going to get it through your thick skulls, that this is not a "rights" issue, but a political issue dressed up as rights. If you are really interested in "homosexual rights", try giving them the right to life.....support the San Fransiscan group who are demanding a proper medical inquiry into the homosexuality/AIDS link. Or would that spoil your cosy little "Liberal crusade"? Fucking hypocrites! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 06 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM The distinction between Civil Union and Marriage is mute in Michigan, anyhow. The amendment here clearly prohibits any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship, under either or any name. The moral luminaries who pushed it made a point of saying that it wouldn't take rights or benefits from anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM ""As Mr Mcgrath says all legal rights could be assured by civil union, but that does not satisfy our "homosexual activists" who require that the whole world accept homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" regardless of health statistics or the religious beliefs of others worldwide."" As usual Ake, you have the wrong end of the stick. What has been said is that the terms "Civil union" and "Marriage" should apply across the board, and not be based on sexual orientation. If a marriage with no religious input is called a civil union, it should be so for all who have that ceremony performed. If a religious order is prepared to recognise gay marriage, that should be OK. If not, then that too is OK. The couple can go to a church with a less discriminatory policy. The point is, that they should be recognised as married in law. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jun 09 - 07:19 PM If you can keep your head while others around you are losing theirs, then you don't understand what's going on. —paraphrase of Rudyard Kipling Having fun, Little Hawk? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM WAUGHHH!!!!!!!! Still rollin' along, folks? Good, because I have got another wager going. I bet someone that this thread will reach 1500...count 'em...1500 posts! Oh yeah. Don't disappoint me. I promise not to post further here between now and then, so as not to have a conflict of interest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 06 Jun 09 - 05:05 PM Well, no-one in this thread is talking about--or should be, anyway--the role of religion in marriage. The entire and sole issue here is the civil protection under the law. The injection of false data--such as Ake's idea that monogamous relations between same-sex couples is an increased danger to public-health, which is unreasonable on the face of it--does not make the issue any clearer, to the contrary. But it does not change what the issue is: civil protections under the law. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 06 Jun 09 - 04:54 PM "The last few posts, with the exception of Mr McGrath's are excellent examples of what the pro homosexual marriage issue is really all about......"normalisation" of an extremely dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle." ake The solution, ake, is simple: Don't sit next to one. That way, you won't catch it. :~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jun 09 - 04:05 PM Akenaton is, as usual, laboring under a number of misapprehensions. He has it stuck in his craw that homosexual activity causes the AIDS virus, and not all the scientific evidence in the world is going to disabuse him of the idea. He wants it to be true because— Well, you figure it out. And, of course, he simply ignores the question I've been asking him repeatedly: In what manner does encouraging stable, monogamous homosexual relationships (such as domestic partnerships, or for that matter, marriage) increase the spread of HIV? And he completely ignores the fact that it's a matter of civil rights and equal protection under the law. Civil rights are the basic values of any free country, and they are not subject to legal prohibition, referendum, or popular vote. They are inalienable rights, and any government, Federal, State, or local that condones the withholding of them is engaging in an exercise in tyranny. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 06 Jun 09 - 04:12 AM "Fuck the Churches"! They don't like it let them call it "Co-joined" or otherwise and the state can continue to legally call it "Marriage", now we change words, laws & rights for the sake of religion? Since when did they determin the use of language? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Paco Rabanne Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:35 AM The term 'Gay Marriage' is an insult to those of us who married women and produced children. How on earth can any Church reconcile homosexuality with the term 'marriage' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:34 AM The last few posts, with the exception of Mr McGrath's are excellent examples of what the pro homosexual marriage issue is really all about......"normalisation" of an extremely dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle. As Mr Mcgrath says all legal rights could be assured by civil union, but that does not satisfy our "homosexual activists" who require that the whole world accept homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" regardless of health statistics or the religious beliefs of others worldwide. As I have said many times, I have no religion, but a huge majority worldwide have deep belief in the teaching of their prophets....much deeper than the conservative christians in a big part of America. But I suppose as they disagree with homosexual marriage, they don't deserve the right to believe what they wish. Personally, the more I have looked at this issue during discussions on this forum, I have formed the opinion that even "civil unions" are wrong until a proper medical study of homosexuality and AIDS has been set in motion and some conclusions reached. To attempt to normalise this preactice while so many homosexuals are still suffering from the disease, seems stupid, arrogant and cruel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:14 AM Please note that if you wish to participate in discussion threads, you have to use a consistent name. Posts with the "from" box empty and likely to be deleted. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM My impression, from having ridden herd on a couple of dozen marriages over the last thirty years, is that the State (here, anyway) does not mind who the officiator is--J of P, minister, priest, witch doctor, rabbi, or atheist guru poet. And that is quite as it should be. The officiator signs the form which was issued with the license, dates it; the witnesses sign it. Thus the legal transaction called marriage is completed, and the form gets mailed in to the county office and in due course a marriage certificate is returned to the couple. Note that the State, in this transaction, is completely neutral about the formal role or lack thereof of the person who guides the couples through the vows; but the presence of witnesses is required to be affirmed. In some States, I believe, the least religious person who may preside over a wedding is a magistrate or justice of the peace. I am not sure about that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 05 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM ". . . another approach would be to have all State approvals be civil partnership, and leave the term Marriage to the churches." This is, in fact, the only solution that makes any sense. Since so many folks seem to think that marriage is a religious thing, it has no place in our government. We either need to redefine marriage as non-religious, or get rid of it except as a religious practice for those who want it. The legal joining and the religious joining really don't have anything to do with each other, and shouldn't. Whatever we call the legal joining of two people, it needs to be the same for everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jun 09 - 01:48 PM ". . . another approach would be to have all State approvals be civil partnership, and leave the term Marriage to the churches." This, I believe, is an excellent solution and the one I favor. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:17 AM I think such an arrangement would work, Kevin, if it were quietly implemented; in fact another approach would be to have all State approvals be civil partnership, and leave the term Marriage to the churches. At present, of course, the storm has been built already on the semantic underpinnings of "marriage", so it might not be acceptable in the face of all the Sturm und Drang PR afoot. In this country, also, there is a strong negative connotation to policies of "separate but equal", which for many years was used to justify extreme segregationist discrimination in the South in particular. So even though the policy might make sense, it could easily get swamped by PR backlash. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jun 09 - 08:24 PM Officially recognised "Civil Partnership", with full legal equivalence to "Marriage", seems to work well enough in the UK, among other places. What's wrong with that as a way of avoiding hassles about what is really a matter of dictionary definitions? And of course, since people use language how they wish, people getting hitched in this way often do refer to this as "getting married" and send out "wedding invitations" etc. So in time, regardless of what the law says, maybe the dictionary definitions will change - and there's nothing any court of law can do about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM Yes, indeed, curmudgeon. And they're so elegantly dressed. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 04 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM You may be right, Joe; but it appears so far that the "No on 8" contingent is taking there chance for next year, assuming they were just underorganized in their persuasions of the voters. May be so, too; I don't really know. Despite all the braggery upthread about the majority's decision, the fact remains there was a LOT of out of state money mobilized to pass Prop 8. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM I wonder how long it will be until there's another attempt to legalize gay marriage in California. I hope it doesn't happen too soon, because a premature attempt is very likely to lose. Every state that approves gay marriage makes it more likely that it will gain approval in California, but I think California proponents of gay marriage need to wait a good five years before trying again. Heck, even Barack Obama said in a debate that he is not in favor of gay marriage. Before it's time to make another attempt, California promoters of gay marriage need to spend a good amount of time and effort, changing the mind of the electorate. It won't work to just keep browbeating and shaming the electorate and calling them bigoted - it will take positive efforts and hard work to turn this around. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: curmudgeon Date: 04 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM As Amos pointed out earlier in this thread, it's not just people who are "gay." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Jun 09 - 12:08 PM GfS: That number, despite its pure kitsch garnish and effusive sentimentality, was very touching. Thanks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Jun 09 - 10:29 AM Congratulations to New Hampshire. But Barry, it did happen once before that NH was more progressive than California. SOmewhere around 1776.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 03 Jun 09 - 09:08 PM I never in my life thought I'd see a time when my state of New Hampshire could be consider more progressive & liberal than California. Will wonders never cease? Hoo-ray for NH Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 03 Jun 09 - 08:58 PM Did you ever notice that "conservative" moralists don't usually object that much to skinnydipping unless it's a heterosexual experience? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM AMOS,...The link in the first post, might not get it...TRY THIS ONE, instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXeNNXhHotc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 09 - 01:41 AM AMOS,...something we can agree on...enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXeNNXhHotc&feature=related |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 May 09 - 07:22 PM ""Wolfgang is a real statistician, perhaps you could PM him and get him to explain what "in percentage terms" means."" It's really astonishingly SIMPLE Ake. OF all the people in the world WHO HAVE AIDS, LESS THAN HALF ARE HOMOSEXUAL. AIDS is NOT a PREDOMINANTLY HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. To put it another way DON F. IS RIGHT!!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 09 - 01:23 AM Barry: "The point is that it's society & people like you want them changed & they by their narrow minded beliefs put the pressure, expections & values on them in order to have them "ajust" to YOU!.." You missed the point completely..and are interjecting your perceived thoughts of what I said, altogether. What I said was, IF THEY WANTED HELP"....that there are issues rooted in homosexuality, that if people deny that, or that they even exists, they will be denied help. What is so hard to comprehend that??? Do you think that the issues in regards to interactive relations are the same as hetero?..either gender?? They do in fact have different priorities, in relation to where they are. Some similarities, in certain places, and a whole different ball game in others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 May 09 - 06:53 PM Ake, I do understand the figures. It's your erroneous interpretation of them and the fact that you are trying to make something more out of them that they indicate that I am calling you on. Perhaps you need to take a good course in statistics. Not to mention trying to get a grasp of the concept of "cause and effect." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 May 09 - 04:26 PM Don...You claim not to be stupid and I have no real reason to doubt your claim......so why do you continue to post rubbish like the above. How many times have I explained how these figures in real percentage terms, state uncatagorically that Aids in America and all over the developed world is primarily a disease related to homosexual practice.The TRANSMISSION of the disease in Africa is different mainly because of the polygamous nature of male heterosexuals I can't believe that you are unable to understand the figures, so must conclude that you are simply being obstructive. BTW...I am quite satisfied with how I construct my posts and need no advice from someone who seems unable to comprehend independent statistics, or the rudiments of the issue we are discussing....Even if he is a "major in English" Wolfgang is a real statistician, perhaps you could PM him and get him to explain what "in percentage terms" means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 May 09 - 02:17 PM "If they want to 'change, and or heal', allow them! All this other stuff does, is deny them, because it says that it doesn't exist, and there is nothing that can't be done, once they're in the box, that denies there is anything TO deal with!!!!!!" No, GfS, it does not. Undoubtedly the argument will go on. And while you favor laws banning same sex marriage, no one is advocating passing a law to prevent a homosexual person who would like to try to change his or her sexual orientation from going to some kind of therapist who claims they can help them do it. And as to the CDC's statistics, the pie chart shows that 47% of those who have AIDS are homosexual men. You and Ake are conveniently ignoring the fact that that leaves 53% of those with AIDS who are not homosexual men. Male homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS, as you and Ake keep trying to imply. It is one of several different ways that HIV can be transmitted—including heterosexual intercourse. By the way, in your last few posts you are seperating you paragraphs with a blank line, making them much more readable. Thank you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 30 May 09 - 01:49 PM GfS, you don't get that "YOU" are a pain to society & it's you & others that reinforce the bigtory that so many suffer so harshly. If only we could do away with the rights of those that would deny others! But they'll only ever see it 'one way'. their way without any concern for those with differences. If you think being anything but hetrasexual you live in a very small & dim world Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 30 May 09 - 01:43 PM The point is that it's society & people like you want them changed & they by their narrow minded beliefs put the pressure, expections & values on them in order to have them "ajust" to YOU! No way you'd allow them to just be what they are. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 May 09 - 04:28 AM Barry: "I'm not quite sure about this society that feels they need to treat those not in the mainstream as flawed cause they're different & put expections & values on them that would have them feeling that they needed to be treated in the first place. Fuck all those studies & experiments & theropies..... Why would anyone feel it necessary to be treated because they're homosexuals. If that's the way they are society should take that as who they are & leave them ....." EXACTLY!!!!! If they want to 'change, and or heal', allow them! All this other stuff does, is deny them, because it says that it doesn't exist, and there is nothing that can't be done, once they're in the box, that denies there is anything TO deal with!!!!!! They know their issues, I know their issues, and those of them that know that I know their issues, are ok with talking to me about them, and the political wing nuts think that their only issue, is wanting a granted 'status' of being 'married'..and to give them that, they virtually give up all acknowledgment, of any other emotional, mental, or even spiritual issues, that might have its roots, in why they are homosexual, in the first place!!! That is STUPID!!! Let's see how long it takes for name callers to finally 'Get It'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 30 May 09 - 03:36 AM I'm not quite sure about this society that feels they need to treat those not in the mainstream as flawed cause they're different & put expections & values on them that would have them feeling that they needed to be treated in the first place. Fuck all those studies & experiments & theropies. There were those that at one time only wanted to let blue eyed blondes be masters of the races. I could've been a CEO or Furrier :) except for the tainted Jewish blood in me. Why would anyone feel it necessary to be treated because they're homosexuals. If that's the way they are society should take that as who they are & leave them be. Them being what they are is not normal or abnormal, it just is. (Boy are we knee deep in our own shit) The same as I'm White & someone else is Black. It is what & who we are & nothing more or less & until our society can swallow that pill there will always be a "different" or "Not Normal" crowd or minoritey to ostracize or deny human rights to, we will always find a scapegoat for our problems. Today it is them, tomorrow it may be you, yesterday, but for the grace of God, it could've been me. I won't stand for it, not for myself, my friends my kids or for the society I choose to live in. When you see a kid hit puberty & they're scared shit & want to exit life because of the taboos & expections that society has placed on their backs that society sucks when they make a life to unbarable to face. They are handing that kid a razor blade rather than a soft shoulder. What, only the strong are allowed to survive, if they're different? So any of you who would put that on a kid consider how you react if the kid took their own life & that kid was yours. "Walk a mile in their shoes" Well, there are just not enough shoes going round for people to stand in that'll cover all the differences that make up our human race, so when you're next faced with that dreadful choice of trampling on someone's human or civil rights. Look out side yourself, look outside of the box, go with the truth that we are all flawed & that we all have differences & we all have to live with each oth, like it or not. Cause if we don't the only option is someone's gonna suffer drasticly & it may be one of your own. Live & let live is more than a two street, it's a byway for the world we live in. An' don't give me the shit that the way they live affects any of you that's in the least way that's detrimental to your selfish lifestyles, you're lying to me & to yourself! Stop being selfish, stop thinking only about yourself, stop aiding in the suffering of others & start to help with easing the misery your tunnel vision views are putting upon others. No matter how you explain it, it's bigotry. You can be forgiven for your ignorance but not for the pain. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 May 09 - 01:30 AM Emma:"..From a Clinical Psychologist - "Here were people coming along who seemed to be asking for help, it was against the law, they wanted to change their behaviour, that's how it was presented to us. You never thought about the morality of what you were doing. You were effectively a technician." Gosh, do you think with this going on, that it might have just a 'little 'teeny weenie' to do with why the results of the study, were as silly as the are???..I'm mean, ..umm..just a little??? The other problem, from where I see it, is I have met, and talked to people who were former homosexuals. So, to me, when I see a study that says, "It can't happen"...I'm sorry, I just have to simply disagree. Hey, What can I say??..Not only that, most of them WERE NOT people who came out of therapy, but on their own, by one of several means, and realizations. They were not stupid people. I'd Love one to talk to you! And another, 'by the way', those people are so against same sex marriage, they make either myself, Ake, or anyone else on this thread, who has posted against same gendered marriage, look like 'softies' Next, Ake posts figures from the CDC (Center for Disease Control), and some nitwit writes, (and I don't recall who), writes, "Impressive", and goes on with some guttural, babbling noises, sorta like puking word like syllables, trying to discredit the figures, and the post. HUH???!!!??? Hey, the figures, from the CDC, whose very purpose is to track this kind of stuff, show very clearly that AIDS's largest transmission is in the homosexual communities. The homosexual communities freely admit that, and ask for help, even if it means, through desperation and frustration, it has to ASK that it should be listed as a homosexual disease, (which we all know, it is larger than that), and now we're reading posts, put up by different people with one thumb in their butt, and the sucking the other one, while picking their noses, saying "No ithh's' thnot". Come on, now!! Do you want to be taken as complete mental mutant gnomes from the rainbow, Kool-Aid' land of 'Odds". Do you ever want to taken seriously?..or are you just arguing, because you have terminal brain lock, and itchy fingers?? Now let's get back to the issue, and the legal points for the argument, on both sides...or something beyond trying to test the endurance of reading inane posts, and if it can keep up with the endurance of pubescent listening to 'Rap' 24/7 ??....then trying to communicate as adults. I posted, a rather impartial post on the legal merits, both sides, of the challenge...nobody can pick up the issues???...or are they not as relevant, as some rather 'talking point' erroneous, misinformed, political wing nut's opinion? Come on, its getting a lot better than the present national debate! Let's not be small.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 May 09 - 02:27 PM In my last paragraph, delete "that" from the second sentence, i.e.; "That would tend to help you clarify what Proof reading, especially after revising a sentence, is important, too. Don Firth |
