 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 21 May 09 - 03:55 AM Barry, Sex between women appears to produce few negative health issues, which is the main thrust of my argument. However there are other issues concerning same sex "marriage" which many other folks see as a barrier and although I may not share their religious conviction, I do see that they have a valid point of view. As Little Hawk has so eloquently pointed out some here care more for their ego than for the welfare of those they pretend to champion. I am being generous in that assessment, inreality most of them are more interested in scoring worthless political points than in improving the diabolical homosexual health statistics.......which is simply criminal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 May 09 - 03:17 AM I never thought homosexual marriage only meant men... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 21 May 09 - 03:08 AM So my take on the logic of some on this thread is that Lesbian Marriage is OK? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 May 09 - 02:38 AM Stumbling out of the back of the ambulance, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 21 May 09 - 02:03 AM Just dropped in to make sure everyone's gettin' along . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 May 09 - 01:58 AM Little Hawk: "You're behaving like silly, spiteful, vengeful people engaging in petty mutual character assassination to no useful end and wasting a lot of bandwidth here in the process." Guest from Sanity: "..the tip off is 'emotional immaturity'...." Said, how long ago?? Your pedantic, emotionally charged, witless, rhetoric..once again proves my words 'correcto mundo',....again....along with.. Pelosi being a piece of crap.(About ready to face resignation over lying). Corruption being the biggest cause of pseudo representative government. Left wing and right wing are on the same 'bird'. Parrots, squawking about WHAT to think instead of HOW to think. Californians swinging away from their absolutely crappy, left wing state 'representatives'..with their vote yesterday! You will see a further swing away from the left wing(except for the party leaders..President included) 'taken for granted' support for homosexual marriage. Homosexuality not being genetic. Homosexuality is a PSEUDO CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE...you may see mainstream America move away from it. (Tired of having it rammed into their faces). Shit, you might as well engage me in an intelligent dialogue, instead of ..umm...whatever you call your neo-left, radical rants, along with twisted knickers lodged near your brains. Hop aboard the 'clue train', sonny ..SNAP NOW AND AVOID THE RUSH! OH! And Sanity has very little to do with today's politicians or politics! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 10:29 PM Tell you what, amigo. Tell me what your fees are, and when I need down-the-nose, pedantic and arbitrary moral instruction, I'll be sure and give you a call. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 10:14 PM You worry me not one whit, old pard. I have no difficulty engaging in self-criticism, as it is an essential part of the spiritual path. ;-) I am recommending that you here who are busy personally attacking each other do what Barack Obama suggests in his recent superb address at Notre Dame: Stop demonizing the people on the other side of a debate. Stop turning them into caricatures. Stop insulting them and degrading their worth. Realize that they, just like you, are motivated by some genuinely legitimate concerns and ideals, and that they, just like you, wish the world to be a better place and all people to be happy and free. Watch the Barack Obama address again. If you don't get it, watch it again. Then watch it again. Maybe you will someday realize the point he is so eloquently making. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 10:06 PM Little Hawk: You are behaving like a supercilious, patronizing, disengaged pseudo-intellectual with a superiority complex. Not that you ARE one, of course, and I wouldn't even dream of suggesting you couldn't change such behavior with the snap of your fingers. Anytime you decided to, you could, I am confident. But, that's how you are behaving. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 08:29 PM Wait. Let me rephrase that to be more fair about it. You're behaving like silly, spiteful, vengeful people engaging in petty mutual character assassination to no useful end and wasting a lot of bandwidth here in the process. I wouldn't want to suggest that you are incapable of change or improvement in that respect...anyone can change their behaviour as soon as they decide to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 08:25 PM You all "leap with glee" on ANY scrap of info or wretched bit of sarcastic innuendo which you imagine might damage or embarass your various opponents in this discussion. You're silly, spiteful, vengeful people engaging in petty mutual character assassination to no useful end and wasting a lot of bandwidth here in the process. ;-) But at least it's giving me some daily amusement, so it's not all bad, eh? We are rapidly approaching my predicted goal of 1300 posts. Go, team, go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 07:58 PM I am not sure that Ake grasps the concept of statistics. He leapt on that 47% on the CDC pie-chart with inordinate glee. But does he fully understand that it is not saying that 47% of homosexual men are infected with HIV, it is saying that of all people infected with HIV, 47% of them are homosexual men. To say the former is like saying the 100% of men have prostate cancer, when in actuality such a statistic is saying that, of those humans who have prostate cancer, 100% of them are men. I leave it to Ake to work out why that is the case. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 07:21 PM Oh, my gosh!! Don, I have seen the light here--we must get to work and ban marriage on BOTH sides. THAT will put an end to STDs once and for all!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 07:00 PM Just curious, Ake. Is there also a "massive link" between syphilis, gonorrhea, and genital herpes—and for that matter, AIDS—and promiscuous, unprotected heterosexual sex? There isn't? My, my! I'm sure that will be a great revelation to the public health service, because they tend to think otherwise. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 05:34 PM You're not paying attention. Your assertion that the link is between the disease and homosexuality per se is off the mark, and cannot be justified. There is nothing inherent in the biology of gender that could possibly account for it. There is however a clear ans understandable vector in the nature of anal sex. The term "massive link" is semantically null. I doubt you will find any high-incidence link between same sex couples absent the anal vector, compared to comparable hetero conections. I'd be very surprised. And no, the burden on proof of this case is on your assertion that homosexuality is the causative factor. We should probably outlaw skydiving and gambling, while we are at it -- they are both dangerous practices, n'est-ce pas? I would suggest that if your concern is public health, as you assert it is, that you put your energy into promoting condoms instead of trying to marginalize your fellow humans. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 May 09 - 05:23 PM There is a massive link between aids and the practice of homosexuality....Even large numbers of homosexuals are now saying this. I dont have to prove anything, but you have to prove that the link with homosexuality is no greater than any link with practicing heterosexuals. If you fail to prove your point, this would suggest that homosexuality is a dangerous and unhealthy practice,and "marriage" between homosexuals should not be legalised in the same manner as incestuous "marriage" is not legalised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 20 May 09 - 04:57 PM 'In 1883, Irish-born Oscar Wilde returned to London bursting with exuberance from a year long lecture tour of the United States and Canada. Full of talent, passion and, most of all, full of himself, he courted and married the beautiful Constance Lloyd.' The couple had two sons, Cyril (1885) and Vyvyan (1886). 'Cyril was killed in France in World War I. Vyvyan also served in the war and later became an author and translator. In 1954, he published his memoirs, entitled Son of Oscar Wilde, which relate the difficulties he and his family faced in the wake of his father's imprisonment.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 04:38 PM Excellent. Good quote from Oscar Wilde. We would all do well to meditate upon it frequently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 04:31 PM But, sadly, unmarried. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 03:56 PM Oscar Wilde. Who was gay. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 03:34 PM LOL!!! That has to be one of the classic quotes of all time, GfS. Who is the author? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 09 - 02:45 PM "We can forgive those that bore us...we can never forgive those who We bore" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 May 09 - 02:26 PM ""Shoulod we have special rights for sado masochists, or infantilism? Swingers? Pedophiles?"" NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS, YOU PRAT. EQUAL RIGHTS! And your ploy of lumping homosexuals in with groups of lawbreakers (Paedophiles) is in keeping with your presentation of spurious crank scientific "evidence" as FACT, and EQUALLY POINTLESS. Many S & M practitioners already have an equal right to marry, and I believe you might find it's the norm for swingers. And YOU say I'M full of it. Go look in the mirror, and you'll see what an enemy of democracy looks like. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 02:23 PM No reason to sulk, Ake. I'm in fine fettle. You seem to be the one who is all flustered. Interesting observations, Smedley. "(c) The Bible (that great & influential work of fiction) prohibits and condemns all kinds of behaviour & activities, yet same-sex love is the one which seems to trigger the most virulent response from conservatives/fundamentalist quarters in the USA. As a Brit, this intrigues me & I wonder why it is so." This is because there are people in the conservative/fundamentalist quarters in the USA (but not confined to the USA, it's just that there seems to be a lot of them here, probably due, historically, to the immigration of Puritans a few centuries back) who compulsively fasten less on the positive aspects of religious, but on the many prohibitions the can dredge up out of "cherry-picking" Biblical verses out of context. What it boils down to is that there are people in this world who stay up nights, pacing back and forth, repeatedly pounding one fist into the other palm and agonizing over the possibility that somebody, somewhere in the world, might be having fun! Sex, being a most enjoyable activity, tends to be the focus of these sad folks. And unless sexual activity directly addresses the matter of procreation (after all, God commanded, "Go forth and multiply," so they can't forbid sex altogether), they feel they have a religious duty to attempt to prevent anything resembling "recreational" sex (sex for the fun of it). Even in your country, this attitude at least used to exist. Sex was to be for procreation, and enjoying it was to be avoided, discouraged. Remember the admonition to brides on their wedding night to "Grip the headboard firmly and think of England!" Since same-sex activity, by its very nature, cannot produce offspring, it becomes a major target for these folks. I believe I noted somewhere above that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sinful ways. Those of a fundamentalist bent immediately leaped to the conclusion that, in Sodom at least, the Sodomites practiced homosexuality, even going so far as to call anal intercourse "Sodomy." Yet, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about this! (Does that mean that "Gomorrahmy" is Lesbian sex?) Evil to him who evil thinks!! There are some interesting aspects in the Bible in this context. For example, Paul never explains the "thorn in his flesh" that gives him so much spiritual distress. An Episcopal bishop (retired) wrote a most interesting book on saving the Bible from fundamentalists in order to better emphasize the more spiritual and humane teaching of religious principles, such as caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, comforting the suffering, etc. The bishop notes that Paul was the major voice in the Bible to speak against homosexuality. Could it be, asks the bishop, if the thorn in Paul's flesh is that he knows himself to be homosexual, but is doing his utmost to repress it? The bishop has some fairly compelling arguments to support his thesis. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 02:14 PM Ake: Come off it. I did not deny anything of the sort. I denied this thread was about health issues. I denied that AIDS is "a homosexual disease" in the sense that homosexuality causes it in some mysterious way. That ain't so. It is probablky true that the practice of anal penetration is a significant vector in transmitting AIDS. But aside from that I expect it transfers as readily to an opposite-sex partner as to a same-sex partner. You seem uncomfortable though. Did my question about discrimination strike a bit close? Sorry. I really do think it deserves careful thought. Do you believe that if two sexual partners are the same gender, that fact alone can bring about AIDS if neither of them is previously infected? Or, that that fact alone can increase the probability of transmission, without the added complication of anal sex (not to put too fine a point on it). When anal sex IS added in, do you think same-sex transmission of AIDS is more probable than opposite-sex transmission of AIDS if one is already a carrier? ANd what do you think the effect of marital status being allowed to same-sex couples would do to the rate of promiscuity (multiple short-term partnering) in the same-sex community? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 May 09 - 01:37 PM I think Amos, that you and those who think like you, are the ones who are suppressing the lives and well being of homosexuals. You appear to be content to let homosexuals live with a disease which has decimated their community and will continue to kill hundreds of thousands, through the denial of "liberals" everywhere that AIDS is strongly linked to homosexual practice. You deny not only the truth, but the chance of a proper medical study which may determine the link and save millions of lives! Now GO! and lecture me no further. If Mr Firth is still off on his daily sulk, I would address the same to him, only in much stronger terms!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 01:00 PM Leave STDs out of it--they are a direct function of promiscuity, and marriage is a palliative to promiscuity, not an aggravator of it. Aside from that, then, the issue becomes a desire to pass judgement on others' private affairs. Its not the marriage itself you protest, but the sexual congress that accompanies it. If you were to see those as independent factors--in the realization that gays, like heterosexuals, have sex whether they are married or not--wouldn't it seem that you were promoting an injustice against hum,an beings you have never met and about whose strengths and weaknesses you know absolutely nothing? Ake: Have you considered the possibility I mention, that you are actually promoting an injustice against people you have never met and which is actually suppressing their lives and well-being? If so, what do you think about it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 12:58 PM GfS, you are a real piece of work! I am the one who included the sentence "This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it" in an above post, and I did so in the interests of scientific objectivity. It is you who is claiming to have the only true and final word on the matter. I am calling for "benefit of the doubt." You are being a complete absolutist. You, sir or madam as the case may be, are the one who is wasting everybody's time! But this still does not address the civil rights issue. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 12:52 PM Why do people keep hitting the ping pong ball every time it comes at them across the net? Same reason, TIA. They get caught up in the game, and they want to win. To "lose" would diminish their sense of self. This is just as true of you or me as it is of GfS or Don Firth or anyone else who keeps coming back here....but we all have our own characteristic style of play, of course. ;-) And a year from now? It won't matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 May 09 - 09:42 AM Like I said, I only appear when my name is invoked in your immature snipes. So, why do you keep summoning me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 08:48 AM Ake: It is not for me to go to bat every time some dingbat group comes up with yet another air-brained concept. I really don't care if some gang of homosexual supporters want to name AIDs as a homosexual disease anymore than I would if a whacky gang of women decided to claim headaches as a female disorder. It doesn't change the vectors or the realities involved. The thing is, though, the health vector would actually be reduced by less promiscuity, an effect that marriages would tend to bring about, generally. As you seem comfortable generating moral codes for other people, you might do more good in the world if you confronted the tough items like moral codes for politicians and business executives, a bit trickier than "thou shalt not fuck" postures. The bottom line, though, is that you wish to reserve a civil, legal status for a perceived "us" and deny it to a perceived "them". The usual word for this very human impulse is discrimination. And as the people of Mississippi learned, every individual has to face that dark stain of the soul on their own and decide for themselves whether to be for it or agin it. Me, I'm agin it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 09 - 06:15 AM Smedley, You posted opinions, which is ok, but can you support them. They are pretty polarized emphatic statements. Don, "The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it." Note the question at the end of that paragraph you posted"The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it." So it appears you were able to answer that question all by your lonesone...and it was only a question that was raised...proving absolutely nothing! Don, you are wasting our time! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Smedley Date: 20 May 09 - 04:01 AM Three brief observations: (a) It is naive to place medicine/science and political views as some sort of polar opposites. Medical & scientific discourses have always existed in social, cultural and political contexts and been influenced by them (b) Heterosexuality isn't normal, just common. (c) The Bible (that great & influential work of fiction) prohibits and condemns all kinds of behaviour & activities, yet same-sex love is the one which seems to trigger the most virulent response from conservatives/fundamentalist quarters in the USA. As a Brit, this intrigues me & I wonder why it is so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 09 - 03:28 AM Don First, Because I answered honestly, ONCE AGAIN you take the opportunity to attack me! ..as with the poodle yapper. Not very many people, in the medical fields have had to deal with the question 'frogger' asked. If I wanted to find a link, I would have done that. I didn't even try...Why?..because most everything I've answered you and your homosexual com padres, has been off the top of my head....I did my homework! So do go try to put me on the defensive for nothing more, than someone pulling the thumbs out of your mouth. That includes the non reader, TIA. You want an intelligent discussion, keep it mature. Once again you resort to your little games of trying to kick the grownups in the shins. Once again, grow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 May 09 - 02:25 AM Amos...that answer is a complete cop out. As you well know incestuous relationships can involve much closer members than cousins. As ever, your core argument comes back to the point that other peoples behaviour is none of our business, I strongly disagree with that contention on several grounds public health being one. Homosexual behaviour and incestuous behaviour were viewed in much the same way by the public in general, before the large number of homosexuals inthe entertainment industry and in the media began to push back the boundaries against a voiceless majority. I notice that you refused to answer my point about the homosexual group who believe that Aids is a "homosexual disease"(their words not mine")and who believe the disease can only be irradicated when evertone accepts that contention and medical research is concentrated on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 20 May 09 - 12:40 AM You are a counselor, and I am the King of France. Having a little trouble finding the links, aren't we Cecil? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 10:41 PM "Far too lacking" in what, GfS? Scientific facts that you approve of? That appears to be the way of it. You've rejected as "politically biased" or "gay lobby propaganda" well documented and peer reviewed studies that contradict your thesis that gender orientation is a matter of choice. I do have my theories as to why, but I'll let that lay. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 09:58 PM Frogger, you ask a good hypothetical question...and I think I would answer it this way, but leaving some room for more consultation. I'm sure that tests would be run, to determine one over the other gender, BEFORE the operation was performed. With consideration of the parents, their clergy, (if one was requested), and the family. I'm sure that if that operation was performed, there would be counseling that could be referred to, by the physician, or facility responsible for the operation. I've never been in that situation, and could counsel possibly, but, again, I'd rather defer to those more suited and qualified. That being said, I feel strongly, that I could counsel the parents, as to other related issues. I'll tell you, if, that ever arises, which I'm pretty sure it won't, I'll think of you, and your question. I, mostly, have taken on any more counseling, for marriage and family, and presently work pro bono...though I assure you my results have been astonishing, as to percentage of recovery. Good question, though. My answer is certainly not 'etched in stone' infallible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 09:02 PM ...after removing the "be" from that last sentence... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 09:01 PM Yes, that would be a "freak of nature", rare but by no means unknown. None of us here have the individual right or ability to set the policies; I just wondered how you would feel about it. What you do have, from what you've said, is the ability and credentials to do counselling. So let me turn the thought this way. The individual was born intersexual, and surgically assigned (so far as that is possible) to one gender. That person later identifies him-or-herself psychologically as the other gender, with desires for the "opposite" sex. How would you be counsel that person to resolve the personal delimna? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 19 May 09 - 08:48 PM "Civil War" I don't get it . . . . Kinda like Jumbo Shrimp, Vegetarian Meatballs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 08:40 PM I don't set the policies...but, wouldn't you consider that a bit of a 'freak of nature'? At that point, I would defer to someone, who deals with that issue MEDICALLY, not politically. Wouldn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 08:09 PM Gfs, This came to mind, and I asked it, yesterday. I was particularly interested in your answer, but you didn't get back for awhile, so you may have missed it: What of a person born physically intersexual, who has been surgically conformed to one sex so far as outward appearance and function? Assuming, for the discussion, that the individual is infertile. Should that individual be allowed legal marriage? And if so, to whom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 08:04 PM ..and others report way better therapy results. Also your mention of..here, I'll copy it..... "Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether." Talking someone into a religious belief, is a FAR cry, from those having a very real spiritual experience. Ever tried 'talking' someone OUT of their favorite sexual fantasy?? It too, would only last a short while. Your post, is better than your childish rants, but still far too lacking. Perhaps it is only enough to keep you going, in your mind, but it still is not enough to raise the bar, as far as a legal or valid civil rights issue! I suppose that Obama won't sign on to it, but rather appoint a judge who may, washing his hands of this hot topic issue. So take heart, you won't have to hide, any more! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 06:44 PM "I am rejecting any and all POLITICALLY BASED propaganda, not based on actual FACT." Then why do you keep spouting it? I posted this before, GfS, but either you didn't read it, or chose to ignore it. I'm guessing the latter, because it contains facts that blow your contention out of the water. Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether.The above material is derived from well researched and peer-reviewed studies and is NOT "politically biased." Unless, of course, anything that disagrees with what you WANT to be the case is, ipso facto, "politically biased." Which, it is becoming clearer all the time, seems to be the case. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 19 May 09 - 06:10 PM The incest laws, which are NOT the subject of this thread, are a different issue. The only reason for prohibiting incest as a form of sexual congress is that it produces offspring who are a burden on the public, at least probably. So it became, over the centuries, a moral code to prohibit it. Aside from that risk, there is no reason to mess with cousins or siblings who want to screw each other. I certainly don't want to screw my own siblings, but that may just be canalized cultural bias, but more importantly it is none of my business. Gay couples not only never have offspring, they often take on excess offspring produced by others who are emotionally ill equipped and raise them well. As far as I can see the only core reason for your energetic rejection of the idea of civil rights in marriage for gays people is that you despise the thought of their carnal activities. Have I missed some other factor? Leave STDs out of it--they are a direct function of promiscuity, and marriage is a palliative to promiscuity, not an aggravator of it. Aside from that, then, the issue becomes a desire to pass judgement on others' private affairs. Its not the marriage itself you protest, but the sexual congress that accompanies it. If you were to see those as independent factors--in the realization that gays, like heterosexuals, have sex whether they are married or not--wouldn't it seem that you were promoting an injustice against hum,an beings you have never met and about whose strengths and weaknesses you know absolutely nothing? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 09 - 05:52 PM Dang! That should throw some gasoline on the fire...as if this thread hadn't got combative enough already. Look, if you do decide to have a civil war, try and keep it south of the US-Canada border, okay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,gunshowsigns Date: 19 May 09 - 05:48 PM Gay judges should resign or be recalled. I hope they throw out 8 so we can recall them then go after civil unions. This will force the northeast to withdraw from the Union and SF gays out of CA. Gays said it Civil Rights or Civil War. I prefer Civil War in the literal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 05:00 PM " "You are denying substantial recent scientific findings. From your locked-in position, you have a vested interest in ignoring those findings." I am rejecting any and all POLITICALLY BASED propaganda, not based on actual FACT. 'Truth is what works'..and homosexuals who have gone through therapy, OR, decided to come out of it ON THEIR OWN, are testimony that what I've posted is accurate. Sorry to disappoint you..if it was any other way, and I knew about it, I'd post it in a heartbeat....but your views are that of ardent, radical homosexuals....and for that, there is no 'equality' issue. Grow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 May 09 - 04:20 PM Sorry about the rabid weasel thing Amos, my mind was on someone else when I wrote that. |
