BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:38 AM

The most interesting phrase in that long tirade is "virtually all homosexuals". How do you know ? Have you asked "virtually all homosexuals" ? You haven't asked me, my partner, my two gay work colleagues, their partners, my ex and my previous ex, or my nephew. And, for that matter, I suspect you might not be in regular correspondence with Ian McKellen, Elton John, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady, Ben Bradshaw MP, Rupert Everett (I'm English so excuse the list of British names).....you get the point.

I would never presume to know about "virtually all heterosexuals". It is a nonsensical term, as it would include John Wayne, Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Tony Blair, Fred Astaire and Fred Flintstone. Not people who have a lot in common, really, except for their choice of gendered sexual object.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM

Thank you both for clarifying, "political rhetoric", because that's exactly what I meant, when I wrote it.
Just open your minds, just for a moment. I am not writing this in any contentious manner, but rather trying to give you something very salient, to consider. (A wise man hears all the matter, before he speaks)
As I've said MANY MANY times, especially during the primaries(you can go back and check), is that the right wing, and left wing are on the same bird! (I used an analogy of a boxer, in the ring, beating his opponent, with a right, another right, then a left, a left hook, then another right.)..What he is beating up, is US!!! Both the wings, and political parties these days are nutzo, do not represent the people, have everybody bickering over shit, that they TOLD you is important, while keeping us distracted from the major shit going down!
When I first started posting on this particular thread, I already knew what was going on with the homosexual agenda, verses the actual hurt, pain and resentments that not only bring on homosexuality, but how they, through this issue, are only evading confronting any honest help, or solution, to a situation that they have found themselves in, because they FEEL helpless to do anything about it!!
Now its become a political issue, which is comfortable, and far enough away from their inner needs, and their sense of being helped out of it, to have a normal life, being able to survive and reproduce,(as ALL living organisms on this ball spinning in space), and have to confidence to raise their own natural children, with the woman that bore them with him. Why??? Because their sensitivities,(needed ones, and gifted ones), were neglected, or perceived of being neglected, when they were young?..For the male homosexual, a needed, and not fulfilled place in his heart, from his father...so he resents his masculinity. Why??..Because a child, even you, either created or expected certain attentions, and love, security, and bonding as a given, to and from your parents. It is one's reality he lives in. When he is denied those things, or perceives he is being denied these things, he FEELS two things as a result. One, the realization that he is resented by his father, which leads him to feelings of worthlessness, to be loved by him, and hopelessness, that it will ever come from him. Two, resentment of his own masculinity, because he is like his dad, in that way, can't get the love and attention, gravitates, to the mother, resents the dad, and takes on unforgiveness to him, and learns more feminine traits to communicate closer to the mother..to be of interest to her!
In other words, the love inside them, towards their dad, he sees as ineffective!!
Listen to me,..open up...these two things are prominent, in virtually all homosexuals. The reverse for lesbians, except in cases of sexual abuse, and or, being with a man, who usually they feel ineffective with.
You have heard homosexuals say, "I FEEL like a woman trapped in a mans body(and vice versa)"...Ok?....Who gets trapped??!!?? VICTIMS!!!! Yes, VICTIMS..and who is victimizing them?........a combination, of neglect, and their sensitivities. That's how powerful it was! Ever notice some of the most brilliant artists, are homosexual??...Why? Sensitivities, and learning to speak to the other side of themselves, giving them sometimes a wider perspective!
I had originally thought of sharing a story with you, about a friend of mine, I mentioned in another post, I guy I knew, who was the most brilliant, composer, sound engineer, laser engineer, it think I had ever met, up to that point..and still heads and shoulders above many since. He taught me volumes about sound, and composing, that still is ahead of the pack. He finally opened up to me, when he finally felt no threat from me, or condemnation, but rather objective, caring, interest in him,, and his true inner needs. He and his father were distant, due to a long history of mutual bitterness, and disapproval. This guy was in the USMC Marine Band, had scholarships for music, and could play a variety of instruments..and WELL!
When we talked about sensitivities, I pointed out to him, that being sensitive was a huge quality, and being as he knew that, and we both acknowledged it, and he was gifted with it, I asked him, if instead of either resenting it, or hiding it, why not nurture it, in a child of his own, being as he knew so very well, how valuable, and powerful it was. Just hearing that, tears welled up in his eyes, and he admitted that he always wanted to do that, but didn't think he could because he had been Homosexual so long, that he lost touch with that ability, of what he really always wanted to do.
Not long after, he found his partner, Mark had come down with something he just could shake...and not too long after, Mark died of AIDS. Mark had the same issues with his dad, and in that, they found 'common ground'.
Deeply saddened, bordering on mourning, we talked more, and he opened up more. I asked him if his father had ever heard his incredible recordings. He was resolved to the thought, that his dad wouldn't like them, be interested in them, or him, and so his father never heard it.
Making a long post shorter, I'll skip the details of our conversations,(unless anyone is curious), and he took his recordings, and masters, up, and was going to get 're-acquainted with his dad, in Sacramento...possibly with the hopes of reconciling with him. Turns out, he stayed up there with him for better part of a year....and then died from AIDS, with his father, taking care of him, to the end.
So Dale, (the guy), you told me, that you wish you could have known before, and sooner...so where ever you are out there,..I'm honoring your wish..to all the other 'Dales' out there. I told you I would have, if I would have know sooner too!
Now, dying of AIDS was not the issue, I was trying to underscore. He could have died, for any reason....The thing is, my children's generation, is also denied of that genius and that gene pool is forever lost...NEEDLESSLY!!!!!! THOUGHTLESSLY!!!
What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals,..well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate...OR..you really can, consider another side.
Thank you.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:26 AM

Legal equality is an issue about which we should be open-minded...how? I have asked for reasonss that would justify legal exclusionism and haven't been answered with any actual ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:36 AM

Exatly so LH.....many so called liberal positions are simply political issues dressed in such a manner that any questioning of that position can be battered into submission by foul language and innuendo.....this thread is a typical example.

"Bigot", "homophobe" etc has been used in many of the posts here in place of reasoned discussion and to try to stifle debate....these people are "liberal" in name only, in reality they are fascists.

Closed ears...closed eyes....closed minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:10 AM

No, Don, I am not waffling. I am dealing with EACH thing that comes up with on its own merits, regardless. Only people who think they must always represent one and only one partisan viewpoint in a generalized political discussion will insist on backing every single assertion that is made ON one and only one side of that discussion...and rejecting all those made on the other side as a matter of course.

I am not a "liberal", and am not obliged to parrot all liberal positions, though there are many liberal positions I agree with.

I am not a "conservative" and am not obliged to parrot all conservative positions, though there are a fair number of conservative positions I may agree with.

I am a free being and a free thinker deals with each matter strictly on its own merits.

Both you AND GfS have said many things in this discussion that I find myself in agreement with, and some that I don't agree with. I am under no obligation to exclusively back either one of you at the expense of the other. I do not take sides in that fashion.

I deal with each single statement that comes up on its own merits.

I find it fascinating how both "liberals" and "conservatives" are so often guilty of the same kind of bloody-minded unfairness and prejudice towards one another...yet they cannot see it in themselves.

That's because they have fallen into a partisan ("we're always right and they're always wrong") mindset. It's something to remain alert against, and it's a good reason to avoid being partisan altogether if one possibly can.

And I'm not just talking about political parties when I say: partisan. I'm talking about attitudes shared commonly by various groups of people who have strong opinions of any kind. They form a sort of "club" of people who think alike. Everyone in the club parrots the favored line.

I don't wish to belong to any of those clubs...

This does not mean I'm a moral relativist, as you put it. It means I think independently for myself, regardless of the prevailing styles and preferences of my peer group.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:29 AM

Waffles are good with butter and maple syrup.

Re LH's dogs: remember the dog's philosophy of life: if you can't eat it and you can't piss on it, fuck it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:19 AM

And by the way, Little Hawk, you're waffling again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:17 AM

"By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??"

Not closed-minded at all, GfS. I've considered your viewpoint and rejected it, in the same way I reject stock arguments put forth by the Flat Earth Society.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:02 PM

Many (if not most) people are extremely liberal about some things, moderate about other things, and very conservative about still others. ;-) That's what makes the labels "liberal" and "conservative" so misleading.

For instance, here's an interesting conundrum. One of the definitions of "liberal" in the online dictionary I consulted is: "4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

Okay. Now, that would seem to go hand in hand with a cause that is normally espoused by people who call themselves "conservatives" in the USA, namely the cause that says citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Well, if to be liberal is to be in favor of "maximum individual freedom possible", then it should be an extremely liberal position on guns to assert that everyone should be free to buy and own firearms of every kind if they wish to....and it should be a conservative on guns who is in favor of restricting gun ownership and stringently regulating it!

Restrictions and regulations on gun ownerwhip ARE conservative measures on gun ownership, going by the dictionary definition of what "liberal" is supposed to be. ;-D

I find this very ironical.

The truth is that every liberal is quite conservative about stuff he's against, but quite liberal about stuff he is for! The same is true of conservatives...they are quite conservative about stuff they are against and quite liberal about stuff they are for. Whoever you look at, "liberals" or "conservatives", they would clearly both like to shut down and shut up "the other side" of the debate if they could. In that respect, they are both acting in anything but a classically "liberal" fashion, because they are both demonstrating intolerance, prejudice, and a desire to control and restrict the actions of the people they don't agree with.

The conclusion I draw from that is simple: both the "conservative" and "liberal" movements in America today are absolutely riddled with self-serving hypocrisy, prejudice, and delusions of moral superiority. They recognize it as such, though, only when the other side does it...not when they do it themselves.

The pot is calling the kettle black, and the kettle is responding in kind. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest From Sanity
Date: 11 May 09 - 10:14 PM

Good Lord!..Don't go into a tizzy!. I was merely being facetious!.Referring to present day political rhetoric, ONLY!
By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??(I mean the real one, not the political nonsense????)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:59 PM

I think he's a closet Stalinist or something. I keep hoping he won't "come out", for the sake of domestic tranquility around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:56 PM

Your dog is a secret commie homo, Little Hawk. Face it.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:49 PM

It is my dog who favors living off the work of other people, and he's NOT liberal! As a matter of fact, he's deeply conservative about everything. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:58 PM

For sure, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:00 PM

Thanks for posting that, Little Hawk.

The primary thing I was stomping on in GfS's post is the idea that liberals favor living off the work of other people. That is not, in any way, part of the definition of "liberal," nor is it what liberals want. The whole thrust of liberalism is freedom from the kind of restrictions and interference that tyrants, bullies, and the kind of people who think they have the right to tell other people how to live. This is what liberalism opposes.

Of course, it is those tyrants, bullies, and interfering snoop-nuisances who, for that very reason, hate liberals the most. When the world needs changing, it's the liberals and progressives who see the necessity, initiate the action, and take all the crap from those who have a vested interest in trying to maintain the status quo.

I tend to agree with Benjamin Disraeli, who once said, "I regard myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal."

If you think about it, you can readily see that the two are not mutually exclusive, as some would have you believe.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:21 PM

Of course it escaped her attention, Amos. ;-D She thought she was saving America!

Don't forget, Hitler also thought he was saving Germany. The Messianic complex can justify anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:16 PM

One of the standard techiniques of "black PR" skills is the insidious redefinition of terms in order to create a distortion of the things or people who use the label.

Throughout the Bush years, foaming right wing mouths like Ann Coulter and Rush LImbaugh took up the cry to redefine the word "Liberal" from its core meanings, given above by Little Hawk, to some ridiculous epithet laden with the meanings of "Commie", "mooch", "tree hugger", "socialist pinko", "pushover" and "stupid bleeding-heart slob".

The word means none of these things, but Ann didn't mind; she needed a hate-label and she drummed up a huge mess of pottage and slapped it into her vitriolic books in order to make some dough by slandering people of different political philosophy.

That this was an un-American, anti-social, counter-productive course of action seems to have escaped her attention.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:50 PM

And.... "liberate" means: to make free

Whereas... "conserve" means: to maintain and not waste

Either proposition is a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:45 PM

Here's the entire dictionary answer on what the world "liberal" means:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1325–75; ME < L lîberâlis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to lîber free + -âlis -al 1

Related forms:

lib⋅er⋅al⋅ly, adverb
lib⋅er⋅al⋅ness, noun


Synonyms:
1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.


Antonyms:
1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.


*****

It is quite clear that the word "liberal" has been misused a great deal lately in certain American political rhetoric. I know of no other country besides the USA where "liberal" has become a common insult word, but I gather from my history readings that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all hated the liberals of their time with a vengeance...as did the Spanish Inquisition. Authoritarian movements can't stand liberals.

We may have to find some brand new words to express what we're talking about, because the old ones simply aren't serving their proper function anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:26 PM

"Liberalization" means many things, it seems, to different people. ;-) To me it means easing up on old rigid rules and providing greater freedom and greater latitude for free thinking.

The Catholic Church, for instance, has been greatly liberalized over the past many centuries, as have most of the other Christian churches. As a result, they are now more tolerant in a number of areas and women have a far greater voice in the community than used to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:13 PM

"'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work..."

Really, GfS?? Now we have a whole mew point of major disagreement.

For Crissake buy yourself a dictionary!! And a good book on political science!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 12:19 AM

I knew we could make it! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:55 PM

1000?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:54 PM

Murdering Hitler, for example, could have been quite a public service to Germany (and the world) anywhere from the 1920's on...although it would still have been, technically speaking, a crime according to German civil law.

Stealing food to save the life of a starving person could also be justifiable.

There are any number of examples one could come up with, but it doesn't change the fact that we all think that murder and stealing are (normally speaking) morally quite wrong.

****

Now, stealing horses was considered a glorious and commendable act among the Indians of the western plains...an act to be proud of...provided you didn't steal the horses from a fellow member of your own tribe!

Tricky business, isn't it? ;-) Those Indians were not moral relativists, they just had a different set of customs, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:46 PM

That's true, Amos! There are almost always, it seems, a few odd exceptions and variations to any moral rule we think we can come up with. ;-) I could have gone into that at length in my last post, but hell....I figured I'd already done enough damn typing already! (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:39 PM

Unfortunately, morality IS relative, and the reason you meet fewer moral relativists than you might expect is because many people live in fairly static conditions. Any act can be a harmful one in the wrong context. And even murder may be the greatest good in the wrong context. We should not confuse the probability of a contextual weighting with the inherent "absolute" goodness of an act.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:47 PM

Don F. - Definitely there are moral imperatives. Absolutely. Unquestionably! We are mostly fairly clear on what they are too.

We all know that it's wrong to steal, wrong to commit unprovoked violence on someone, wrong to lie with the intention of deceiving innocent people for one's own personal gain, wrong to rape people, wrong to cheat people, wrong to murder people, wrong to wantonly break the civil laws just because you feel like it, wrong to slander people, wrong to blackmail people, wrong to commit fraud, etc.

We know these things. I know these things. I am not a moral relativist.

We all know NOW that slavery is wrong. That has become obvious to virtually everyone in North America, for example, since roughly about 1865, but it took a long time for it to become obvious. It took thousands of years before the great mass of humanity reached an awareness level where virtually everyone (if not everyone) could plainly see and AGREE that slavery is wrong. That was the point I was making about the Romans, the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, and other ancient peoples. They did not yet know that slavery was wrong. They thought it was totally normal, fully justifiable, and most of us would have thought so too if we'd been born back then into those societies...specially if we'd been born among the slave-owners rather than the slaves.

I was alluding to that not because I am a moral relativist, but to demonstrate how people in one society can take fully for granted a practice that is later seen as VERY wrong in other societies.

Very few people are moral relativists. I don't think I've ever met one in my life, and I am not one. Most people have very definite ideas about what is right and wrong, and I know you and I certainly do...and we probably agree on almost all points.

Nevertheless, I think it brings a discussion to a standstill when someone starts telling someone else he's a bigot or that his opinion is "bigotry". It just derails the entire discussion from that point forward.   People get lost in defending themselves or in attacking the other person, and that gets no one anywhere.

What you need for a productive discussion is to discuss the issue itself and all its various social ramifications, not to set about proving who in the discussion is or who is not a "bigot".

Everyone here has some useful ideas to offer about gay relationships, the institution of marriage itself, and other stuff like that. Let's talk about those ideas instead of fighting about whether someone else on the forum is a "bigot" or some other negative character assessment like that.

Everyone feels at heart that he or she is a good person. You do. I do. Akenaton does. GfS does. Don T does. Everyone here does. We all feel at heart that we are good people, and I think we probably all are good people. It does no good for one of us to say (in so many words) to another, "You're a bad person." It causes an angry defensive response, a counterattack, and things just get uglier from there. I see no point in it.

Instead, let's discuss the actual issues (of same sex marriage and gay relationships and etc). Present your ideas about those issues. See how they fly. Listen to other people's ideas. See if you can relate to what they mean.

There are some useful possibilities there.

There are no useful possiblities in any one of us trying to prove that someone else here is "bad"...a "bigot"...a "racist"...or some other condemnatory definition along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:38 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:36 PM

Look in the back of the ambulance, in the triage stuff....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM

Soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM

I need drugs . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:21 PM

Now I'm confused.......Is there some other meaning of "taken in" that DOESN'T translate as DELUDED?
Well, not exactly. 'Taken in' is more like being a true believer to a deception.
'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work...so, I guess you can be tolerant of other points of view. Make's one empowered to feel 'wide open' to other opinions, as long as they're willing to pay your way.
Well?? You asked!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 07:43 PM

""Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation",""


""Don..I don't think you are deluded, stupid, or brainwashed,""
...Akenaton.


'SCUSE ME?

Now I'm confused.......Is there some other meaning of "taken in" that DOESN'T translate as DELUDED?

Or do you mayhap think that "liberalisation" is affording me living accommodation?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:16 PM

Why, yes, Ake, I enjoyed it IMMENSELY!! Tropical paradise, perfect diving, good rum, fine new friends, even p[layed a one-night gig at a very posh restaurant. Fun and games and not a care in the world-0-who could ask for more?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:08 PM

Thank you Amos.....hope you enjoyed your holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:43 PM

GfS and Ake,

You both assert you are not bigoted, and yet you persist in your diatribes, insisting they are reasoned and based on facts; yet I see no facts presented, and I hear a lot of impassioned rhetoric full of grand conclusions without any analytical basis.

It would be one thing if your rhetoric was in favor of your favorite kind of sherbet or the preferred interpretation of Tolkein's runes. But when you bring the same infatuated gusto and unreason to bear on an issue like whether or not a civil status should be exclusive, you are standing up for an intensely misguided and harmful view which supports close-minded bigotry. Even though, with your layers of rationalization, you see clearly you are not bigoted, it is clear to me that you both esouse an unreasoning dislike for, and a willingness to mistreat, a group of citizens of this country on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Why you think sexuality should be such a compelling and important issue is not clear to me, but there is no question in my mind that prejudice and factless emotional bias based on prejudgement is what you are both dipping in to when you make your enthusiastically antipathetic posts.

I have nothing to add, here, except that you have won no ground, shown no factual case, and said nothing to persuade me you are trying to reason or find truth or even common ground.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:30 PM

Petty petty petty. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:22 PM

More disinformation:
"P. S. I may look in from time to time to see if this thread is still going. As I said before, it's well past its "sell-by" date."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 02:58 PM

No, Ake, I have not run out of "credible responses." They're all right out in the open here for all to read. It's just that you and GfS don't like them, so you cavalierly blow them off. Which doesn't mean they are not credible or true, it just means that, as I say, you and GfS don't like them.

And by the way, thank you for the compliment:   The idea that I'm such a brilliant and versatile writer that I must be more than one person warmed my heart.

####

And Little Hawk, according to quite a number of philosophers, and some religious figures, there are such things as moral imperatives, derived, not from society or custom or the times in which one lives, but by the necessities of and for human life at all times, among other things, the matter of simple equitable justice. These are things that the human race has been gradually stumbling toward throughout history. The Magna Carta and many of the things the founding fathers endeavored to incorporate in the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights are examples of growing recognition of these moral imperatives.

I have frequently quoted here on Mudcat a statement that I believe describes our condition in a nutshell:

"Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized man. It is us."

There are things that are just plain wrong, regardless of the customs of a particular society or the historical period in which that society exists. And there are actions that people are called to perform, indicated by these same moral imperatives, such as responding to examples of inequities and injustices when one encounters them.

Moral imperatives are not merely matters of opinion.

Don Firth

P. S. I've had my conversation with my state legislator friend. Much good information. And the folks in our monthly writers' group are due to arrive soon, so I'll be busy for the rest of the day.

P. P. S. A little food for thought:—

Moral absolutism:
There are moral judgments (claims of good and evil and right and wrong) that are absolutely true, regardless of the moral framework (society, culture, value system) in which they are uttered.

Moral relativism:
There are no moral judgments that are absolutely true. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the moral framework in which they are uttered. The same judgment may be true in one, and false in another, and there is no exterior standard by which to compare them. It does not make sense to try to judge the truth of moral claims without a frame of reference.

[e.g: The public beheading of a woman accused of adultery. Is this right merely because it's the custom of that society?]

Nihilism:
Begins by accepting moral relativism as true. Then claims that, because moral judgements are relative to their frame of reference, and there is no standard by which to determine the true frame of reference, all moral conversation is meaningless. Morality is entirely abandoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 02:45 PM

Don..I don't think you are deluded, stupid, or brainwashed, I do think you are deeply committed to your point of view....just as I am.
From other threads, I know you to be a fairminded and sincere man, just the sort of person I enjoy debating with and I hope when this thread is over we can get back to discussing current events more amicably....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:19 PM

""The whole same sex marriage push, is not about being sympathetic towards homosexuals, and their synthetic, over dramatized plight! It has far more to do with non-thinking 'sympathizers' trying too hard to be 'tragically hip', and using the issue, for self aggrandizement, by 'jumping on the bandwagon', to weaken, a society based on the(at least at one time) Constitution, by parsing it, in an attempt to show it being less relevant. While attempting to mock the Constitution, religions, Civil Rights, traditions which our society was based on, they only mock themselves. When it is pointed out to them, that the basis on which the foundation of their cause is based on, is clearly flawed, and erroneous, then come the charges of 'hatred', and the misuse of the term 'bigots', come spewing forth...and that is far more from frustration. Instead of being reasoned with, accurately, they fear facing certain embarrassment, which is, of course, the direct opposite, of their desired goal of being lauded, and noted for being on the 'right side' of being 'hip'.""


That's the way GfS. You are digging a very large hole in trying the old, largely ineffective, technique of hiding the fact that you DON'T have a logical answer by accusing the other side of doing what , in fact, you are yourself doing.

Do feel free to dive into said hole and pull it in after you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:12 PM

""Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation",""


That is the classic comment arising out of an utterly bigotted mindset.

Translated it reads as follows:-

""I BELIEVE THAT SUCH AND SUCH IS TRUE, AND ANYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH MY VIEWPOINT IS A) DELUDED OR B) STUPID, OR C) BRAINWASHED.

THIS MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE ANY INTELLIGENT, SANE PERSON WOULD KNOW THAT I AM RIGHT!!""

It is arrogant, insulting, and ultimately bigotted, and only two people on this thread have used thi argument.

I rest my case, folks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:01 PM

""but I know hundreds of ordinary couples who believe that traditional marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, blessed by god, to spend their lives together and bring up their children as good citizens.
They feel they are being used as pawns in a cynical political charade.""

So, Ake, it's not just Homosexuals you want to disenfranchise, but Mormons, Hindus, and Muslims as well.

The Hindus and Muslims both have a TRADITION of polygamy, whereby marriage is a contact between a man and several women. This tradition goes back, in the case of Muslims, nearly as far as yours, and in the case of Hindus, even possibly further.

The ancient Egyptians had a tradition of rule by a brother/sister pair united in marriage.

There have been multiple cultures practising polyandry, whih predate, in many cases, the Christians.

The Christian tradition of one man/one woman marriage is a man made convention, and as such has seen many changes over the centuries, according to the moral codes of various ethnic cultures.

In view of the above, you will I'm sure, excuse me if I say that your argument on the basis of keeping traditional values is weak, maybe even specious.

As to your oft repeated claims that Homosexuals are responsible for the existence of aids, and form the majotrity of carriers I can only say:-

ASOLUTE BLOODY NONSENSE.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:28 AM

Don F., you asked:

"If someone lives in a society that condones slavery and he comes out strongly against a movement toward emancipation, is he merely a "traditionalist?" And should he be excused on that account?"

Good question! Okay, let's take a look at that. In ancient Rome, for instance, slavery was a normal practice, and it was a huge and absolutely necessary part of their economy as they did things at the time. So everyone simply took it for granted...well, everyone except a few radicals like Spartacus who led a gladiator and slave revolt against the power of Rome...and almost won it!

All Roman citizens at the time regarded Spartacus as a dangerous criminal. Many slaves, however, regarded him as a freedom fighter. Who was right?

Looking from our present day perspective, we would say that Spartacus was right. If we were Roman citizens back then, though, I bet that virtually all of us would have said that Spartacus was a dangerous criminal and a threat to society...a terrorist, in fact.

People's views are shaped by what they have grown up with and what is in their own interests of survival. This was certainly true of Southerners who fought for the Confederacy.

I would not characterize the entire population of Roman citizens in 100 B.C. or the entire population of the Confederacy as bigots because they thought it was okay to keep slaves. I would characterize them as conventional people, maintaining the social customs of their own time, and looking toward defending their own survival as a culture.

But ideas change as time goes by...

There comes a time in human affairs where some great philosophical minds may publicly question a former assumption, such as that slavery is a legitimate practice.

When they question it, most people are initially shocked! That stimulates a lot of vigorous debate...accusation...counter-accusation, and so it goes.

Anyway, the crucial matter in the debate, the matter to focus on, is NOT whether so-and-so is a bigot. The crucial matter is the subject of discussion itself (slavery, women's suffrage, same-sex relationships, etc).

What we should be focusing ON here is NOT whether so-and-so is a bigot, but we should be discussing the subject OF gay relationships, gay lifestyle, same-sex marriage, medical considerations, and so on....without sinking to the level of personally attacking other people as "bigots" and trying to prove that they are "bad people" for having the opinion they have about something. Look at the bandwidth that has been consumed here by all these attempts to prove that another poster is a "bad person" (a bigot). And to what useful effect?

Discuss the subject. Drop the personal attacks. That's my suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:01 AM

Oh, and by the way..Happy Mother's Day!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 09:58 AM

Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation", which is of course the very antithesis of what a real liberal stands for...Ake

So very well said!!!

The whole same sex marriage push, is not about being sympathetic towards homosexuals, and their synthetic, over dramatized plight! It has far more to do with non-thinking 'sympathizers' trying too hard to be 'tragically hip', and using the issue, for self aggrandizement, by 'jumping on the bandwagon', to weaken, a society based on the(at least at one time) Constitution, by parsing it, in an attempt to show it being less relevant. While attempting to mock the Constitution, religions, Civil Rights, traditions which our society was based on, they only mock themselves. When it is pointed out to them, that the basis on which the foundation of their cause is based on, is clearly flawed, and erroneous, then come the charges of 'hatred', and the misuse of the term 'bigots', come spewing forth...and that is far more from frustration. Instead of being reasoned with, accurately, they fear facing certain embarrassment, which is, of course, the direct opposite, of their desired goal of being lauded, and noted for being on the 'right side' of being 'hip'. Others, who have posted on here, might have personal reasons, because homosexuality has personally touched them, either directly, or through a family member, and in accepting it, they have had to try to legitimize that jump.
Whether or not, one actually has empathy towards homosexuality or not, some just like the trend of shaking the pillars of our present society, completely oblivious that when the pillars finally go, the temple will fall with crushing force on them, and everyone else. This practice is being carried out quite well, in our nation's capitals (U.S. and U.K.), and is merely the latest trend d'jour...and possibly a fatal one at that.
Now, if what I just posted, was only an opinion(to some), then they are not thinking this, along with other trends, through very deeply...and hence their protestations are equally as shallow.
Usually, the deeper the game, the shallower the motive!
Folks, this nation and founding principles are under a severe attack, by many issues, using whatever cause and arguments to support that attack. The family is under attack. The fabric of our culture, structure, politics and governmental system is under attack. This issue of homosexual marriage, is only one front. As states approve same sex marriage, is only the indicator of how popular the trend, and notion are being received.
Virtually anyone can live with anyone else, doing anything they want, under the present system. This is only being used as a political ploy, and promoted by politicians who don't give a rat's ass, about the quality, nor integrity of the system which they were elected to represent....and that, my friends, is the plain, honest, and simple truth.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:30 AM

Don Firth obviously has a "ghost writer" among his weasel minions, his letter of "congratulations" to GfS and myself, although admitting that he has run out of credible responses, is padded out with lies and crass bad tempered insults, which appear a little beyond Don's satirical abilities.

Firstly ....for the umpteenth time,I do not hate homosexuals. Is there no one on the pro homosexual "marriage" side who can carry on an objective discussion? Why does "hate" have to brought into the discussion other than to smear ones opponent?

In answer to Don T's point, I believe homosexuality is a combination of learned behaviour and psychiatric imbalance. It also has been shown to be an extremely dangerous lifestyle....the aids figures clearly show that, but are routinely denied by the pro homosexual "marriage" lobby
This denial has ensured that no proper independent medical study of homosexuality and AIDS has yet been carried out and this state of affairs is neither in the interests of homosexuals nor society at large. The agenda is "normalisation" of homosexual practice....the "rights" to foster children or have their union blessed by the church are huge milestones on the road to normalisation and very soon those "rights" will be used to block any move towards a much needed medical study.
Basically that is why I think the "Homosexual rights" issue affects everyone not just those in a traditional marriage.

I do agree with Little Hawk when he decribes how I feel about traditional marriage....Personally I dont care too much about any sort of marriage other than from the legal perspective, but I know hundreds of ordinary couples who believe that traditional marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, blessed by god, to spend their lives together and bring up their children as good citizens.
They feel they are being used as pawns in a cynical political charade.

Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", buthave just been taken in by modern "liberalisation", which is of course the very antithesis of what a real liberal stands for...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 12:26 AM

Just a thought before I turn off my computer and retire, Little Hawk:

If someone lives in a society that condones slavery and he comes out strongly against a movement toward emancipation, is he merely a "traditionalist?" And should he be excused on that account?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 11:54 PM

You make an interesting point there, Don T. Indeed, I don't see "how allowing "gay marriage", as opposed to "civil partnership", is going to increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS."

There would, in any case, be just as many gay relationships still happening whether or not they were placed under the definition of "legal marriage". After all, if people want to have a gay relationship they will, right? ;-)

I think that Akenaton is opposed to the idea of legalizing gay marriage because he's a traditionalist. He likes the established tradition, established for thousands of years now...and that tradition is that a marriage consists of an adult man and an adult woman who are married to one another.

Akenaton likes that tradition. He is opposed to changing it. That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot or a homophobe, (although you may think it does...and that's your opinion). It makes him a traditionalist.

Now, in my case I am not so attached to the marriage tradition. I'm not worried about it much at all. Accordingly it doesn't worry me if it gets changed to include same sex couples. It seems like an insignificant matter to me...like I've said before: "It's a tempest in a teapot".

So I'm not nearly as attached to the tradition as Akenaton is, that's all.

****

He may find sex between males disgusting. Fine. I find it kind of distasteful, myself...it certainly doesn't turn me on, I can't empathize with it, and I don't get a good feeling from observing it (in a movie, for example), but I am not the least bothered by two men showing genuine affection or love for one another...I just don't much like seeing them have sex with each other, that's all. I don't in the least mind seeing a scene where two women are having sex or a man and a woman are having sex. That's just my own personal taste, period. It's not some kind of moral position, just a matter of taste.

Now, if Akenaton finds sex between males disgusting, that's okay...because he can be allowed his own preferences surely when it comes to what he finds disgusting and what he doesn't? That does not classify him as a bigot.

I find anal sex disgusting...whether it is done to a man OR to a woman. I think it's a disgusting practice. I would not, however, pass a law against it or persecuate couples who freely chooses to do it...because what I find disgusting doesn't have to be made illegal for me to feel "safe"! ;-) I accept the fact that other people will do a certain number of things that I find disgusting....and that's life!

The fact that Akenaton is disgusted by the idea of men having sex with other men does not make him a bigot...it simply indicates his particular taste, that's all.

I find the sound (and attitude) of most rap songs disgusting. Does that make me a bigot? No. It just indicates my own taste in music. I don't go for rap music. Many teenagers don't go for classical music. They're not bigots either...it just isn't to their taste, that's all.

Any comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 09 - 07:38 PM

""I would be pleased if people in general would stop their knee-jerk labelling of other people as "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "anti-semites", and other such damning labels in today's society....""

I'm sure you would, LH, and I wouldn't argue with you if you could explain to me why you feel that I, or anyone else should accept you as arbiter, and accept your opinion as more valid than anyone else's.

You sit on your high moral cloud, looking down on us lesser intellects and comment in judgement on me, and talk about knee jerk reactions, and name calling.

If I see a shovel leaning against a wall, I'm not going to say "That's a manually operated earth shifter".

It's a bloody shovel.

Ditto, if I see the kind of nasty, crude, irrational rants so evident in postings by GfS, and they, IN MY OPINION add up to bigot, then I WILL say so, with or without YOUR approval.

That is emphatically NOT a knee jerk. It is my CAREFULLY CONSIDERED opinion, which seems to be shred by rather a lot of quite intelligent people besides myself.

Ake is a slightly different matter. I don't think he can help his hardwired disgust toward gays, but the logic of his position completely escapes me, and I feel it has escaped him too. His emotions have blinded him to the one fact that destroys his argument completely.

Ake maintains that his major objection to homosexual marriage is on grounds of danger to health.

But he hasn't yet explained how allowing "gay marriage", as opposed to "civil partnership", is going to increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Nor does he offer any insight as to how refusing that right will decrease the incidence.

Inquiring minds would like to know the scientific basis for any such belief.

Don T.