 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 May 09 - 02:18 PM The fuzziness of your syntax comes from the fuzziness of your logic. When editing a piece of writing, I would often find something that didn't make much sense. I would ask the writer, "Is this what you really meant to say?" If they said, "No," I would suggest that they rephrase it. If they said "Yes," then I knew that there was a flaw in their reasoning, and we'd have to get that straightened out. Simple as that, Ake. The problem with trying to understand much of what GfS writes is that he/she often doesn't write in complete sentences (complete thoughts), nor does he/she separate paragraphs. In the Mudcat forum format, a blank line between paragraphs, rather than just running everything all together, helps with clarity. And on top of that, he/she apparently writes a piece, then loads a shotgun full of commas, and lets blast! There are so many commas splattered everywhere that you can't tell which clause belongs to what. And I'm pretty good at that sort of thing. As I said, I used to have to translate government documents into plain, understandable English. I find this kind of thing is pretty common in political writing. And, for that matter, in advertising copy. It allows one to write a lot of sheer blather while hiding the lack of logic behind it. I recommend a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style to both of you. That would tend to help you clarify what that you are really trying to say. But, of course, it would have the disadvantage of making faulty reasoning obvious as well. (Thank you, Mrs. Beasley.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 May 09 - 01:02 PM Ake, what is unclear to me—and to any thinking person—is how encouraging stable, monogamous relationships is going to increase the spread of what you erroneously seem to believe is only a venereal disease. And I am neither stupid nor am I pretending to be. The cause-and-effect relationship you postulate is totally bass-ackwards. What boggles my mind is why you—a presumable reasonably intelligent individual—can't seem to see the obvious. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 29 May 09 - 11:28 AM Ake: While you continue to promote these broad-brush "scary pigeonholes" in which you stack on all kinds of supplementary attributes to people the minute they self-identify and favoring the same sex, you seem to ignore my earnest request up-thread that you pause and consider the possibility that you are promoting a line of reasoning which will actually harm others whom you do not know, have not met, and cannot truly judge the merit or value of. Why you would choose to pursue a course of harm to others escapes me, but I urge you to reflect on the issue. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 29 May 09 - 11:01 AM Ake, when things are marginilized they tend to not get the attention they may deserve. When issues are brought into the mainstream is when there is normally some action. I would still like an answer to the question I asked you on 28 May 09 - 09:42 AM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 May 09 - 10:53 AM KB....Why do you think the San Fransisco homosexuals want to "own" Aids.....When you have worked that out the answer to your question will be obvious. If you are going to participate in these sort of discussions, you must be prepared to use your brain box....and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. Don Firth has continually asked me to clarify my meaning throughout this thread, and I don't think for a minute he is as stupid as he pretends to be......Its what's called a debating tactic......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 29 May 09 - 10:37 AM To continue with actual research rather than one discredited personal account ...... Smith et al revealed some of the personal views and experiences of medical and psychology professionals in the United Kingdom who tried to make homosexual men and women heterosexual in the 20th century. - from Treatmentsm of Homosexuality ...the experience of professionals Most of the professionals provided behavioural treatments, which included aversion therapy and covert sensitisation. Aversion therapy with electric shock was the most common treatment: 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." "We had to become electrifying geniuses! The situation was you had the screen, the person sat at the table with the things [equipment] on and with a lever that they had to pull to avoid the shocks. The pictures started off with pretty men, working their way through ugly men into ugly women and into pretty women. That was the whole process literally." Talking to patients was believed to compromise the effectiveness of aversion therapy Most doubted the treatment's efficacy, however, and came to question whether they were acting in patients' best interests. They began to think that treatment was underpinning questionable social values and that patients might say anything to convince them that it had worked to avoid yet more treatment or further legal repercussions: "People were referred from the courts as voluntary patients as an alternative to prison, which isn't terribly voluntary. People were motivated to say things that weren't actually true." Several peofessionals also spoke of their guilt about their use of these treatments, which they now regarded as a form of punishment, and their unease in talking about their involvement with family, friends, and colleagues: "I feel a lot of shame. I don't think I've ever spoken about it since then apart from now. I'm sure I've talked about a lot of the other clinical experiences." Fortunatly, modern medical practice requires an adequate evidence base for treatments and requires that clinicians and members of government consider the adequacy and appropriateness of disease entities that originate from the interplay of scientific and social perspectives |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 29 May 09 - 09:25 AM Ake, how does normalising homosexuality and bringing it into mainstream society delay an inevitable inquiry and contribute to the horrific Aids/ homosexual health statistics? That makes no sense to me whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 29 May 09 - 04:06 AM From faulty premises anything is possible. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 May 09 - 03:11 AM That last post must have been the most sensible message you have managed to compose Don. Not bad at all for a "major in English". Well I'm a builder, but I'll put your mind at rest. The vultures are those, primarily "liberals", but some conservatives working from the opposite direction, who use the homosexual condition as a political weapon to gain worthless political advantage. Even more disgusting are the "activists", who are also politically motivated and see "human rights" and a perceived "victory" in gaining those "rights" as being worth depriving homosexuals of a proper medical inquiry into Aids and homosexual practice By "normalising " homosexuality and bringing it into mainstream society, they delay an inevitable inquiry and contribute to the horrific Aids/ homosexual health statistics. Does life have any value to these vultures?....I think not!! Fin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 09 - 10:47 PM Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 09 - 10:29 PM "Doctor" Richard Cohen has long since been exposed as a self-promoting charlatan Cohen has been a bombastic embarrassment to sex therapists over the years, appearing about anywhere that would have him. His demonstration of "bioenergetics" on CNN has him beating a pillow with a tennis racket while yelling at the top of his lungs. The same appearance includes a session of "holding" or "touch" therapy where Cohen cradles his client in his arms while on a sofa. He has repeated this and other stunts in multiple venues.Excerpt from one of those pesky scientific papers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 28 May 09 - 10:03 PM I think i tis silly to take a statistical study, find one outlier from the trend, and dream that that somehow invalidates the whole study. That's not the way scientific rationale works, if that is what you are pretending to. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 May 09 - 09:25 PM ...and in the post, i gave, i8f you remember, when Dr. Cohen's son, told his class, in his graduation speech, that his own father, USED TO BE a homosexual, their jaws dropped open. So, who is in error?? Dr. King's summation of his studies, or Cohen, whose personal story pisses in the milk, of an obviously flawed 'study'?..Nice to know who funded the study, and for what reason, as I have mentioned before! Sorry, it doesn't fly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 09 - 07:31 PM ". . . the vultures who prey on these unfortunate folks face up to what they are actually doing. . . ." Umm . . . I'm assuming that by "unfortunate folks" Ake is referring to homosexuals, and I'm just wondering who "the vultures" are who "prey on" them, why they are preying on them, how they are preying on them, and what they get out of it. Considering the vagueness of some of the verbiage used by Ake, especially GfS, and also Little Hawk, it's sometimes not real easy to follow what the hell they are trying to say, if anything. Perhaps that's the point. And before someone attempts to cast aspersions on my ability to comprehend, let me remind them that I majored in English as well as Music and I have worked ("day jobs") as a technical writer (often trying to translate "governmentese" into plain English) and as a radio station news director. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 May 09 - 04:38 PM ""PIshtush. Don--that particular insult is at least fifty years old!!"" Iknow that, Amos, and you know that. Nonetheless our clever (NOT) friend GodforSaken borrowed it from further up the thread, where I had applied it to him/her/it. The least that is necessary is to be able to debate using ones own language capabilities. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 28 May 09 - 04:30 PM Ake, was that a response to me, a response to John P, or just a general comment? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 28 May 09 - 04:25 PM All I can say, is that I am happy with what I have written. I believe bringing out these issues is good for society and for homosexuals and I wish the brave people of San Fransisco success with their campaign. It would be sweet to go on making the vultures who prey on these unfortunate folks face up to what they are actually doing, but that is for a later day, when truth is valued above politics and human life is valued at all......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 28 May 09 - 03:18 PM LOS ANGELES â€" An openly gay teen was voted prom queen at Los Angeles' Fairfax High School in a campaign that began as a stunt but ended up spurring discussion on the campus about gender roles and teen popularity. Sergio Garcia, 18, was crowned queen Saturday night at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. "I feel invincible," Garcia said in his tiara and charcoal-gray tuxedo. A few days earlier, he gave a speech that won over some cynics and led to an ovation and his unlikely victory. "At one time, prom may have been a big popularity contest where the best-looking guy or girl were crowned king and queen. Things have changed and it's no longer just about who has the most friends or who wears the coolest clothes," Garcia told a gymnasium full of seniors. "I'm not your typical prom queen candidate. There's more to me than meets the eye." Garcia assured the crowd he wouldn't wear a dress on prom night. "I will be wearing a suit," he said. "But don't be fooled, deep down I am a queen." The school, which sits at the end of the rows of chic shops on Melrose Avenue and was once attended by members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, has long been a haven for students who would be considered outcasts at many schools. Garcia said he saw fliers advertising the prom and the election, and they didn't specify that the queen must be a girl. He thought the role would suit him better than prom king. "I don't wish to be a girl," he told the Los Angeles Times. said. "I just wish to be myself." Senior class president Vanessa Lo said she and many other students were initially against the idea but were won over by Garcia's speech and became convinced he wasn't just an attention-seeking clown. "It just goes to show how open-minded our class is," Lo said. Seventeen-year-old Unique Payne called the speech "great" and said she voted for Garcia "because I support the gay community." ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 28 May 09 - 01:05 PM PIshtush. Don--that particular insult is at least fifty years old!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 28 May 09 - 11:04 AM Little Hawk: It applies well as a warning against any and all repressive regimes or societies or groups or social movements that are setting out on a witchhunt against someone...anyone...whomever they have decided to target for the time being. Such people are often, in fact almost always, found on both sides of a highly divisive issue. They are the zealots and the haters. They accuse, they condemn, they attack, they hate, they do not forgive, they do not seek any accomodation, they do not look for common ground, they do not admit to their own faults and errors, they are proud, they seek total 100% victory over all those whom they hate and despise and feel morally superior to. Th difference, of course, is that some groups want to force others to live a particular way, while other groups simply want everyone to mind their own business. In the current discussion, I see no reason to try to make accommodation with people who are denying civil rights to a large part of our citizenry. The two sides of this debate are clear, and there isn't much ethical gray area here. So I object your using words like "witch hunt","zealot", "hater", and applying them to both sides in this context. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if there weren't a lot of people who simply won't leave us alone. I have no desire to be in a debate, or to have any negative interactions at all. But I also refuse to have my civil rights trampled. Someone who isn't willing to defend freedom will soon not have it. Little Hawk, your accommodation just makes you sound like you think they have something serious, thoughtful, or good to say. Should we debate with the folks who want to have Intelligent Design taught as science, or should we just say, "There is no debate. The whole idea is nonsense."? Oh, and going back to a previous platitude of yours, I understand that they think they are being good and defending something they believe in. That doesn't matter -- it doesn't change the fact that what they think is good is a gross injustice and a horrendous invasion of privacy, and what they are defending is rights they claim for themselves but deny to others. And they should know better. There is enough information available to kill all the science arguments, and anyone with any moral sense knows you don't try to tell other people what to do in bed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 28 May 09 - 10:40 AM How do the Republicans square the two desires they seem to have? Government should be smaller, and stay out of peoples' lives. Government should legislate what people do in bed. Or Akenaton: Let's do everything we can to help our poor dying brothers. AIDS is a gay disease that means gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 28 May 09 - 09:42 AM Ake, I have a question for you. 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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 28 May 09 - 09:27 AM 1400 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 May 09 - 06:43 AM ""(besides, I think it unfair if I get into a battle of wits, with unarmed folks)."" Are you going to pay me royalties for pinching MY comment, which I, earlier in this thread, applied to YOU? Very poor form. Work out your own jibes if you wish to be thought witty and erudite. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 28 May 09 - 06:00 AM A recent (26 March 2009) report: 'The response of mental health professionals to clients seeking help to change or redirect same-sex sexual orientation' from UCL and St George's, University of London indicates that a significant minority of psychiatrists and therapists still attempt to help lesbian, gay and bisexual clients become heterosexual, despite a lack of evidence that such treatment is effective or even safe. However, it was found that the reasons given by these psychiatrists and therapists for offering this kind of assistance ranged from the counsellor's own moral and religious views on homosexuality to a desire to help patients who were suffering stress as a result of discrimination. Professor Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at UCL Mental Health Sciences said "There is very little evidence to show that attempting to treat a person's homosexual feelings is effective, and in fact it can actually be harmful, so it is surprising that a significant minority of practitioners still offer this help to their clients." In fact the research found there was a degree of ignorance among the practitioners about the lack of evidence surrounding the efficacy of such therapies – in particular, that no randomised control trials showing that therapy is effective have ever been conducted. Professor King believes that it is important to raise awareness among both therapists and the wider public about homosexuality and its so-called treatments: "The best approach is to help people adjust to their situation, to value them as people and show them that there is nothing whatsoever pathological about their sexual orientation.' He concludes 'Both mental health practitioners and society at large must help them to confront prejudice in themselves and in others.' Wellcome Trust Audio: Interview with Professor Michael King. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Smedley Date: 28 May 09 - 05:28 AM Are you people still having these circular & insoluble arguments????? To those on the (excuse the simplification) pro-gay side, when will you realise that your opponents on this thread are never going to be swayed by what you say. They are people who sincerely seem to believe that there is such a thing as an 'ex-homosexual', or that being gay is an illness of some kind. They are unable to distinguish between particular sexual acts and lifelong cultural identities. They are going to listen to you just after hell freezes over. Give up !! They are beyond help !!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 28 May 09 - 02:57 AM Ah, yes, Don F., I am quite familiar with Martin Niemöller's poem. I have read it many times in the past, many times on this forum over the last 10 years or so, and it's a good one. It makes a fine point. I just had forgotten his name for the moment, that's all. It applies well as a warning against any and all repressive regimes or societies or groups or social movements that are setting out on a witchhunt against someone...anyone...whomever they have decided to target for the time being. Such people are often, in fact almost always, found on both sides of a highly divisive issue. They are the zealots and the haters. They accuse, they condemn, they attack, they hate, they do not forgive, they do not seek any accomodation, they do not look for common ground, they do not admit to their own faults and errors, they are proud, they seek total 100% victory over all those whom they hate and despise and feel morally superior to. But the targets keep changing, that's all. Here's another great quote I've seen many times on this forum: "even the devil can quote scripture" Anyone can quote scripture. But do they live up to it? Do they do unto and for others as they would wish others would do unto and for them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 May 09 - 01:42 AM Well, I was hoping to draw some scenarios, to show 'cause and effect'. I chose one for each person, with NO value judgments, to establish a common ground, that should be easy to follow, and easy for any, and everyone to relate to. I figured there might be a little nit picking, but I thought it would be self evident, that doing that would be ridiculous. So, to address the nit pickers, and address the valid questions, here we go.. Jeri: "Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods." With a post like that, you probably can be expecting another period,..within 72 hours! Don: "Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general." Yes, or possibly immolate him, depending on what he has created about him, in his mind. He will, however, have questions as to his own worth, if he feels his love for his father, is unrequited. That could turn to bitterness toward his father, if left unresolved. I could expound, but let's go on. If you want more on that, I'll be happy to do so. Guest: "143 commas 105 periods 855 words " How many grooves were on The Beatles 'Abbey Road' LP? when you get done counting them, you might enjoy listening to it, too! Never mind, I'll save you the trouble, there is one. John P: "GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California." John, Oh dear John, I'm going to cut and paste something for you, to make your life easier.."Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban". That is the topic of this thread. Perhaps you meant to be in the "Pros and cons of conflict resolution thread" Pay attention. Amos, Your post was a BIG BINGO! The case is NOT being argued, on the merits of race, creed or color...Because if they argued it on the 'genetics' issue, it would fail immediately!! (Did somebody say that in here, before?) It is, as you stated, going to be under the 'protection' clause...Which can be argued, by those determinations of CHOICE! (Shit, didn't that get mentioned in here too?...somewhere in the previous posts). So, Amos, in your penchant for 'cut and paste', ..'you done good'! Now there was a part of a post, before I was going to address..hold on, I'll get it....(tippy toe..tippy toe)...ok, back.. John P:"As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better." Okay, let's rephrase that question, to read the other way around, and you will see the crux of the merits of the case... "As soon as someone says that STRAIGHT folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose MARRIED lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better." That IS the controversy..both sides....CAUSE AND EFFECT. So, in keeping of NOT telling you WHAT to THINK, but HOW to think, think about this openly and freely in your minds, because one side feels 'oppressed' and the other feels 'threatened'...and vice versa. If you promote EITHER side, with false data reports, to back your argument, you will lose!..unless there is a bias, in the court...in that case, who knows? Note: The one vote that did uphold the ban, came from a Democrat! (scratches head) So, in closing, the civil rights, will be determined by equality, due to citizenship, NOT by any other factor, so get over it! Use the last analogy, posted by JohnP, and my re-write together,..and think about it. See ya'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 27 May 09 - 11:47 PM Excerpt from the FOurteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified 1868: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That "equal protection" clause is a far-reaching postulate indeed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 27 May 09 - 10:38 PM GfS, can't you see that the situation you describe, particularly when you get to your scenario about the homosexual walking away, is no different from what can happen when a heterosexual couple with children break up? That has no bearing on anything specifically having to do with same-sex relationships. Whether a man leaves his wife for another woman--or for another man--the situation is the same as far as the children are concerned. Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general. Wouldn't you say, counselor, that that's a distinct possibility? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 27 May 09 - 10:10 PM GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Jeri Date: 27 May 09 - 09:23 PM Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 May 09 - 09:03 PM My, my my..things heated up...but the discussion is getting better! Look, let me say this, without the encumbrance of some people's misguided, interpretations...ok? People can, and will do, anything they want, with whomever they want(or at least to whom they get to agree), and there should be no legislation one way or another about it, as long as it does not infringe on the personal freedom of another, property of another, or well being of another..etc etc., okay?? However, that being said, there are personal consequences for the actions we wish to do, whether it be sexual in nature, or otherwise. Rights, as guaranteed by our form of government(or supposed form of government), are there for all citizens(unless convicted of a felony), to enjoy, and do what they want, freely. Now, if a person wants to have sex, with as many people as he, or she can, for fun, or working out fantasies, or just to prove to themselves that they can, ..they will and can do that, under our form of government, and do..all the time....BUT, because he or she can, and do, they should know, (and mostly don't care), that there are consequences, as to cause and effect, that they will set in motion. This is true, in any case, hetero, or homosexual. Here's a couple of examples, that most all are aware of, by now. Musician plays a gig, some girl digs his act, he's horny, see an opportunity to get laid, he has or knows a place, takes the girl there, gets laid, maybe or not pretty good sex, has a smoke, and goes off to the next place to play, not a thought given one way or another, except he had a good night, or not as good as others,..ok? After a series of those, he gets bored with it, either concentrates more on his music, or not..not the point. He gets desensitized to a certain type of woman, who is the type who is the kind he finds arousing, but who wants to settle down. Because of that, his choice as to the type of woman that is 'good' for him, in the long term is effected...Just cause and effect. The girl, perhaps had hopes, and is blown off, after all, she was only a lay, and she availed herself, for either fun, or reassurance, or whatever, could be to hook someone she feels will lift her reputation, doesn't matter..she was willing, or not to pay an emotional price, for availing herself, to someone who really, only wanted to get laid. After a series of those, he self esteem lowers, she makes excuses to herself,..good guy comes along, not interested, because he sees her as 'loose'..bad investment, only will bring heartache,..blows her off, She is left with even lower self esteem, perhaps depressed, and needy, as time goes on...Cause and effect. Perhaps she gets pregnant. Has baby, or gets it aborted. She has baby, needs support, turns to the guy, who doesn't want to support it, sees her as a 'dumb bitch who was stupid enough to get knocked up', and blows her off, AND his child..to pursue his 'career' as a musician, till he's either 'not into' playing gigs anymore, and takes a day job, and tries to settle down, and pay bills...maybe enough time to jam with the guys when they come over. If the baby is aborted, the woman WILL and DOES pay an emotional cost, to that too!!...Meanwhile, the guy is relieved, that she didn't have it. Down the road, in life, they're 'still' looking for love. Okay, not too much controversial argument about that?..(Well, except for folk singers)..but , you know what I mean. Homosexuality, also has its 'cause and effect' consequences, as well. One of them, is walking away, from having ones own blood offspring, with the child's own 'Mommy AND Daddy'...and for the homosexual, to have his/her own natural child, in lieu of having, and keeping their relationship, with a same gendered partner....EVEN THOUGH, ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS MIGHT HAVE MADE AN EXCELLENT PARENT!!! That need, may not be as easily disposable, as assuming the role of the opposite sex, and or, being so much in 'love' with your partner, who they cannot conceive natural children with, (each other, that is), that they are willing to sacrifice being in that role, to their natural born children, in pursuit to living a life, that 'imitates a family'. Eventually, they will want to legitimize their decision, at least part way, by wanting to be socially acceptable, as married. ..Cause and effect. Can we all agree on that? Not saying good or bad..no value judgment..just cause and effect....and there doesn't have to be any bickering, name calling, reading into, presupposing where its going..just cause and effect. Now in saying that, there are other examples, but a couple listed here should do for now, ok. Let's go there, if you will...and leave out the nasty comments... Anyway, there it is....let's discuss THAT...and the latest in California, in relation to THAT. (besides, I think it unfair if I get into a battle of wits, with unarmed folks). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 27 May 09 - 08:24 PM I was just about to post the Pastor Martin Niemöller quote, but John beat me to it. The Gandhi quote that John posted is the positive side. But Pastor Niemöller graphically illustrates what happens when you remain passive and apathetic in the face of those who feel it's perfectly all right to try to deny the civil rights of others. I posted a link to information about Aung San Suu Kyi above, but here is some more: CLICKY. She had the bad judgment to speak out against the forces of repression. And she has been back in the news during the past week or two. Wouldn't life have been easier for her if she had not written what she wrote and just generally kept her mouth shut? Or said, "I don't want to get involved?" Speaking of quotes, here's a good comment by the great newsman Edward R. Murrow: If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants. And from Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.: For most Americans, the Constitution has become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions, but forgotten in the daily transactions of life. Think about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 27 May 09 - 08:10 PM The famous Martin Neimöller poem: When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 27 May 09 - 08:02 PM Little Hawk says: So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place. One of the points here is that it is not a complex subject. I disagree that my questions doesn't address it in a relevant manner. It's really simple to understand: They shouldn't be involving themselves in what other consenting adults do in bed. I'm not crafting a question to presuppose anything -- I really do think these people are kind of sick, and if you take all references to homosexuality out of the discussion, most other people would think so, too. I suppose maybe one intention behind the question is to try to bring the anti-gay folks some of the public disapprobation that they have spent so many years bringing to others. OK, you're right, maybe that's a desire to punish them. But I see myself more as an agent of the Golden Rule. As I said before, the main cause of my strident tone is that I'm really sick of putting up with people who want to impose their beliefs on others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 27 May 09 - 07:50 PM Don F, you said: "I asked you once before about what you would say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, or if you were familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller and never got an answer. If you don't know who these people are, then I suggest you look them up." I know only a little about Aung San Suu Kyi at thie time, but enough to think she is a very brave person living under a very bad government. I have to do more reading about her before I can say more than that. And Pastor Martin? I know nothing much about him at this point, and will again have to do some reading before I can offer any useful comments about him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 27 May 09 - 07:43 PM A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry bigot - one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigot The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different. www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm bigot - A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion ... www.iyfradio.com/reference.htm The intolerance of people who are homosexual expressed in this thread has been pr"etty rigid, with respect to the civil right to marry. MArriage: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage Oddly enough none of these definitions include the sexual criterion as a critical standard in the definition. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 27 May 09 - 07:41 PM Well, John, I applaud your efforts to follow Gandhi's path and to struggle peacefully for freedom, truth, fairness and equal rights. I also think that Obama is the best president in a long time...and I do disagree with him on some things, same as you. I would be astounded if I agreed with him on everything. ;-) Politics is the art of the possible. Accordingly, Obama must deal with the hand he's been dealt and the conditions around him in the USA and in its government, and he'll have to compromise between this and that extreme to do so. He has to walk the tightrope and watch out not to fall. It's inevitable that we will all disagree with him on some of his policies and decisions. **** One thing you must keep in mind, John, when assuming someone on the other side of a debate is "evil"...is this: They may, unbeknownst to you, be motivated mostly by a desire to defend something that they love rather than by some form of hatred toward someone else. They're focusing from a different angle than you, that's all. An example: Take a German soldier who fights for Germany in WWII. Is he necessarily an evil person? No. He is most likely fighting for something he loves...the country he was born in, his town, his family, his culture, the men in his unit beside him, his ideas of tradition and service and duty, everything he has known and been familiar with from the day he was born. That's not evil. He fights on account of love, not hatred. Is he fighting for an evil political cause? YES! But he probably is quite unaware of that, or he may become partly aware of it at some point...but still he is caught up in what's happening right in front of him day by day on the ground, he's doing the best he can in a terrible situation, and he's doing the very same thing all the other soldiers out there are doing....fighting for his country and trying to survive. Now take a Russian soldier in WWII. He too is fighting mainly for the things he loves....the country he was born in, his town, his family, his culture, the men in his unit beside him, everything he has known and been familiar with from the day he was born. That's not evil. He fights on account of love, not hatred. Is the Stalinist regime he fights for evil? YES! But the Russian soldier is not primarily fighting for that regime, he's primarily fighting for the things I mentioned in the above paragraph. Furthermore, even though the regime is undoubtedbly evil, it's legitimately defending itself against an outside invasion by Germany, and that's a good thing for a Russian to do. So...do not be hasty in assuming that a person who is on the other side of the debate is evil just because you think they are supporting a cause that you may consider evil. They are probably in their own minds defending something they legitimately love, and not trying to do anything evil whatsoever. They probably have high ideals, just as you or I do, but their attention is fixed on another angle of the situation. We're all standing around the elephant. Some of us see its trunk. Some of us see its tail. Some of us see its back. Some of us see its ear. Who can see the whole elephant? Whoever can, he's the one best qualified to fully understand the situation. I think Gandhi saw the whole elephant, and that's why he espoused non-violence. If all Germans and Russians had fully understood the situation, they would never have ended up being ruled by vicious dictators like Stalin and Hitler, would they? Most people are basically good people at heart, but their awareness is limited to whatever they are most familiar with, and they can and do make mistakes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 27 May 09 - 07:36 PM Sorry, my last post was being written when Little Hawk posted. Little Hawk: You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them. Yes, I have already decided that it is bad to deny civil rights to a group of people, and to pass laws about what they do in the bedroom. By every ethical and moral precept I can think of, these people are greatly overstepping the bounds of decent behavior. I don't have any interest in whitewashing that fact. I have no concern with catching them or punishing them. They have already, by their words and actions, condemned themselves. They will eventually silence themselves, in the same way that the anti-black and anti-women folks have mostly learned to keep their strange ideas to themselves. As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 27 May 09 - 07:21 PM My impression of you has always been as a thoughtful independently minded woman, with good powers of reason and the sparkling sense of humour of a young girl. I would be very disappointed to think you had much in common with Mr Peekstock |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 27 May 09 - 07:09 PM Little Hawk, the anti-gay people around here might be perfectly nice folks in most ways, but when they are denying a class of people basic rights based on who sleeps with who, they are, on this topic, agents of evil. I'm not really so much an attack dog as I am completely FED UP with people poking their noses and their laws into places they don't belong. I've been putting up with it in various ways all my life, and now I'm angry. While I think Obama is the best president we've had in a long time, I also strongly disagree with him on several topics, with gay marriage being close to the top of the list. At some point, someone has to just say "Enough is enough" and take a strong stand. When we finally win, and all the gay bashers are relegated to the dustbin of history, who will we demonize next? My problem is not only with the details of the fight for gay rights, but with the concept that it is in any way appropriate to treat any group of people like second class citizens. I was raised to think that the United States is greater than that. Freedom, Truth, Fairness, that sort of thing. What I see from the anti-gay crowd are a lot of lies that curtail freedom, as long as it's others who are having their freedom curtailed. I keep reminding myself of Gandhi's statement: First they ignore us. Then they laugh at us. Then they fight us. Then we win |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 27 May 09 - 07:06 PM Okay, John... "What is your definition of bigot?" It's the dictionary definition. Here it is it its entirety, straight from dictionary.com: bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, isn't that interesting? ;-) By golly, I think we have a whole collection of suspected at least part-time bigots on this thread, because most of you here ARE utterly intolerant of those whose opinion differs from your own! My, my. However, I am certainly not going to call you "bigots", because I hardly see how it would help encourage you to be more tolerant of one another. It would just get your backs up. In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted? I don't think bigoted is the right word for that at all, going by the dictionary definition of the word "bigot". I would say that denying basic rights to anyone...gays or otherwise...is unjust, and in the case of the USA, it is also unconstitutional. This did not, sadly, keep Americans from denying certain basic rights to Blacks, women, Indians, Orientals, Hispanics, poor people, and gays for a very lengthy historical period. Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed? Why would I wish to refute it? It's a conversation about other people's sexual preferences and habits, obviously. Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick? It depends on how the interest expresses itself and toward whom and under what specific conditions. Buggery was an illegal act for a long time, probably due to religious beliefs, possibly also due to health concerns. Now it is not illegal in most places, in fact it seems to be enjoying much popularity among porn merchants. All society is deeply concerned about the sexual abuse of children...and there is good reason for such concern. All society is concerned about rape and other forms of sexual violence, and there is good reason for such concern. On the other hand, I think people have no business peering into other people's bedrooms, as it were, and bothering them about their private sexual lives...whether or not they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place. Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women? Yes. I would be objecting to the blind personal prejudice being demonstrated by various people IN the discussion toward various other people IN the discussion...but not necessarily toward blacks or women. I would be objecting to character assassination, insults, sneering, contempt, name-calling, and personal invective directed toward the people IN the discussion. Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else? Yes, I do. ***** You are behaving like someone in the Spanish Inquisition, John. You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them. That is what poisons the discussion. The anger it causes in those you target results in some of your opponents attacking you back in a similar manner. That further poisons the discussion. You are like two sets of people at a party pissing in the same punch bowl, then complaining bitterly that the punch is no good, and that it's all the other guys' fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 27 May 09 - 07:05 PM Ebbie we don't seem to be disagreeing about anything in your last post.I can see very well why those courageous people would want to "own" the disease.....to save the lives of many of their number! If we agree on that, why do you agree with Peekstock that I am evil/bad/bigotted? The homosexual "activists" and "liberal" political aparatchiks, with their policy of denial, are the ones who deprive homosexuals of a proper medical investigation of the current situation in developed countries in regard to AIDS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 27 May 09 - 06:46 PM Bloody hell, Little Hawk, aren't you reading what some of these folks are writing!?? ". . . because all that most of you are busy doing here is suspecting the very worst. . . ." "Suspecting" hell! No suspicions about it. They're saying it flat out! What Mr. Obama was not saying in his speech was that you have to shut up when people promote the suppresion of other people's civil rights. To do so is to abdicate any kind of moral responsibility. And when you do that, you're resigning from the human race! I asked you once before about what you would say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, or if you were familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller and never got an answer. If you don't know who these people are, then I suggest you look them up. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 27 May 09 - 06:26 PM I object to almost everybody's tone on this thread, John P, not just yours, because all that most of you are busy doing here is suspecting the very worst of anyone who has a divergent opinion of any kind and seeing only evil and nastiness in everything they say. You are seeing them as the cardboard stereotypes of something bad you imagine in your mind. You're so busy looking for evil that I doubt you would ever find time to concentrate on anything good in the other person. If you want to improve society and find freedom and equal rights for everyone, gays included, you must get off this attack-dog mode of continual demonization of others in a debate and start finding something in common with them instead. That was what Mr Obama was talking about in his speech. Most of you here are continuing to project your own fantasies of evilness on the various people you are arguing with here. They are then (presumably?) obliged to waste their own time in trying to prove to YOU that they're not evil...a thankless task! And a task that can never be met, by the way, because you'll never believe them. So it isn't even worth trying to meet it. The degree of blind prejudice that people are displaying here toward each other on a personal basis....not toward gays, necessarily...is blatant. It's a sad joke. It prevents you from having a useful discussion. You're all just out to hurt someone as far as I can see (and I don't mean hurt gays). That's what has caused me to come back again and again to this thread. I hope to divert your frenetic little attack-dog energies toward something more productive than mutual character assassination. Your questions? (sigh) Oh, I'll get to those presently, John, I suppose. Yes, I will. But they are not my real concern here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM Only by coming out and saying openly that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the disease can they hope for a nationwide medical investigation concentrating on why so many homosexuals become affected by AIDS. Ake, there, in your own words, is your answer as to why some homosexuals are trying to "own" AIDS. If you don't see that, your eyes are shut. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM gay(an emotional illness) OK, GfS, I'm adding "willfully ignorant" to "bigot" and "pervert". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 May 09 - 05:23 PM Don writes:"How is what other people do in the privacy of their own homes affect you in any way, Gfs? Oh, I see! So you really are that interested in other people's sex lives! Yes, that IS sick!!" GfS: You're losing it Don, get some rest, ok? John P writes:...AND I AGREE!!..."Why do you keep talking about AIDS? Do you really think it has anything to do with civil rights? Maybe we should stop letting cancer(a physical illness) victims vote? Maybe people with diabetes(a physical illness) should be segregated in their own communities? Who cares if a group of gay(an emotional illness) folks in SF is making stupid statements?".....You mean stupid statements like, "Because I can't 'get it on' with the opposite sex, and rather choose to have my daily rump rogering, let's call it marriage?' (Ohh boy, that's going to draw ire!)..but so what? If you REALLY want to know, if I'm being 'crass'...talk to an ex-homosexual. He, or she, will be far more direct..and crude!!...and they will go on to explain about the degrees of denial he, or she used to expound on, about how they rationalized their former BEHAVIOR...but as of right now, we've only heard from the currently practicing homosexuals. ASK a former one!!! As so far as AIDS being a homosexual illness, (which it is not altogether, but they ARE the largest group of people here in America of spreaders),All you have to do, is go into ANY clinic, that caters to the homosexual community, and plastered all over the walls are warnings about AIDS. In 1985, L.A. passed an ordinance, where 'bath houses' had to display warning signs, in regards to homosexual sex, and the dangers of AIDS. If you minimalize this FACT, you are in FACT endangering those to whom you wish to..ummm....not offend(?)....jeez! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: M.Ted Date: 27 May 09 - 04:57 PM I wonder what Akenaton has done to prevent "the premature deaths of our brothers"--besides ranting in internet forums, that is-- |
