 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:47 PM "They're" is a contraction for "They are," "Their" is the possessive of "they," as in "compaign lies." Thus endeth the grammar lesson for tonight. Unless you would care to parse that sentence so that the possessive actually does make some kind of obscure sense. Would you mind checking it against some authority such as The Chicago Style Manual for example, and refer to the page number so I can verify it in my copy? Don Firth P. S. In addition to being a young cartoonist, I worked for many years as a technical writer and editor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:27 PM No, I spelled it right.....look it up. (Figures!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM I think that should be "they're," GfS. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM ANd some folks know the difference between a comma and a period, too. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:17 PM D-u-u-uhh! Some jerk-offs even study campaign lies and think their gospel, too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:09 PM There are many people in this world who claim to be well-educated, but who have totally missed one of the major aspects of what a truly good education involves. They graduate from an institution of higher learning with their heads stuffed with facts that they have committed to memory during the past however many years and think that constitutes being "educated." They assume that the job is done. Finished. But the overlooked major aspect that I speak of is the most important thing that a good education can teach: how to learn. A good education doesn't end with a diploma. If it doesn't continue with the acquisition of new knowledge and the updating and revising of what one has already learned, then one frequently tends to lapse into general close-mindedness and chronic pomposity. Such as stubborn refusal to even consider recent and current scientific research. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:20 PM Try it, before the make it illegal! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Apr 09 - 07:57 PM . . . Speaking of "mental health". . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:05 AM Is this the link you were talking about, frogprince? Note the interesting part, (about the son's speech) given towards the end of the 'interview' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE What is most concern to me, is that political activist groups, bureaucrats, money driven lobbyists, and flocks of parrots, and political wings, are the ones who decides what is defined, and who what and to what end, people would, should, and won't get medical help. That being said, (being as the political pendulum swings)...do you want THESE people deciding on mental health issues?????????!!!!???!! Right as it stands now, within the LAST YEAR, physicians accepting Medicaid, has dropped 50%...due to paperwork, and qualifying issues, limitations etc etc.. If you want a better understanding of this, hang out in a hospital cafeteria, or restaurant, where those in the medical field, hang out, and talk (secretly) about what is going on....you'll get a far better grasp, than listening to Harry Reid, Carville, Bush, Obama, or any political figure, under the influence of their personal 'special interest lobbyist'. If a certain company in a Congressional district, made 'Camel Toe Widgets', and the owner of that company, wanting to make a huge amount of profits, and was a political 'donor'...he goes to his congressman, who refers him to a lobbyist, who comes up with a group of money, AND A 'STUDY' to present to his preferred congressman of that district,..who in turn sees big benefits and profits for him, if he gets it approved, to mandate a law, requiring 'Camel Toe Widgets' in every household, so he, in turn, parleys another congressman to '..if you vote for this proposal, I'll vote for your proposal...' '..hmm, I don't know if that will fly..." ..oh, yes it will, we have a 'study' provided, that will let the people think this will be a great idea for them....(blah blah blah)' ...ok, we'll get the word to our 'political action' committees, and they'll see that the activists are 'informed'..we'll get the word out! You can count on my vote..' and the handshake is made! This is your representative government at work, these days! From there, its just winding up the parrots, dangling crackers of 'self importance' and doing 'something to feel busy, toward a noble end,'....and off it goes to the street!!! This is where we are with the FDA, insurance companies, mortgage companies, pharmaceutical companies,...and on and on.... This is the shit you've been reading...and I hope all the parrots get enough crackers, to make them feel wonderful about it..so they can 'feel' that the did SOMETHING worthwhile.....Thanks. THIS is how you want the decisions made in mental heath!! Because, this it what it is become. Before you jump for the keyboard....just take a moment, and think, consider..wrap your brain around it..before you rebut! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM As I recall, the proof offered so far as to the "curability" of this "issue" has been a Youtube claim by one individual - scientific proof by one anecdote. As anecdotes go, I have heard several stories of "cured" homosexuals who later faced up to the fact that their orientation remained unchanged. One was a long-term associate of Jerry Falwell a few years ago. You haven't proved that sexual orientation is reversable, and I haven't proved that it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:44 AM See, the thing that I think , that is really whackers, and my chief, complaint, with how this is being presented, is that, when an issue, any issue, is misrepresented, and turned into a political 'cause', and adopted, then from there, becomes an issue to bolster a political agenda, in which ton loads of misinformation is unleashed, to support the political base, at the expense, and exploitation, of the people who it was about, in the first place! Then from there, one side proposes 'remedies', which are not beneficial other than popularizing it..to make it acceptable....then cramming it down everybody's throat, whether they like it, accept it, or support it, or not...and impose, in this case, a sexual lifestyle, on the dissenting, majority. Add to that, this particular issue, used to be treated, and successfully, as a dysfunction....and now, its not treated at all..due to the politicized, misinformation in regards to it. To accommodate that, the proponents of the political agenda, driving it, begin tearing down institutions, faith based and otherwise, redefining the language, and the mentality, of the very basic fabric, of a society, which allows the freedom, to think and live as we wish. All this for the political machine, who in reality doesn't give a rat's ass, about the well being, of that same society, at large. It in turn, as Akenaton, very clearly points out, is in fact detrimental to that society. Meanwhile, the parrots feast on the crackers...and are deluded that it is 'health food'! Polly want a cracker?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:08 AM Proposition: homosexuality should have no weight under the law. Proposition: Legal categories available to people at large--such as civil atatus, marriage, citizenship, insurability, employability, and the like -- should be applied without regard to gender, race, color, religion, creed, or sexual preference. Proposition: There are no genuine ethical grounds for denying the legal civilian status of marriage to people who wish to elect it on grounds of their gender. There ya go. The evidence: the codified civil contract embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; the survey articles linked to throughout this and the earlier similar thread. So far, the counter-evidence: personal opinions expressing hatefulness, disgust, self-righteousness, and other shabby, second-rate attitudes of unreason. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:14 PM Don T., it was not you I directed those remarks toward that you put in the quotes, it was Don Firth. I should have typed his whole name out, I suppose, but I thought it would be clear who I was addressing. People should be able to perceive the reasoning and the honest intentions on both sides of the various debates that have raged on this thread, understand where people on both sides are coming from, understand their legitimate concerns, and not fall into the easy intellectual laziness of just dividing it into stark terms of the black & white, the good and evil. That would require some patience and a genuine desire to understand what someone else's concerns really are and what they really meant by something they said, rather than to just leap instantly into labelling them by some automatic condemnation label of our era...such as "bigot"...or "sexist"...or "racist"...or the other favorite damnation labels of this time we live in. We all want freedom (for people generally). We all want justice. We all want fairness. That's a given. If you want it, then you have to give it also. You don't do that by just dumping people into some "pool of the damned" over some fragment of something they said that you misinterpreted in the worst way possible because it made you feel good to catch them out and nail them. And that's my point. That's what concerns me here on this forum...again and again and again and fifty times over after that. I seriously doubt that anyone posting here wishes to see gays persecuted in any way. I know I don't. I don't particularly wish to see anyone persecuted at all, but what I do want to see is an end to witchhunts...whether they are inspired by conservative rhetoric OR liberal rhetoric. They're equally ugly in either case. And that's why I post here. I have virtually no interest in debates about gay marriage itself...because it's not a subject I'm concerned about personally or even interested in. I don't feel threatened by it nor do I feel worked up over it either. It's a non-issue to me. What concerns me is how people are debating about it here...how they conduct that debate...how they treat each other...how they denigrate the character of the person they are debating with...and why they think it's okay to behave that way just because they are presumably "better" (morally speaking) than the person they're talking to. That concerns me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:01 PM "I was busy getting an education." To bad it didn't take. As far as cartooning is concerned (you must have had to really research me for that one), that was something I did as an extracurricular activity while I was going to grade school. For your information, I've spent a total of seven years in institutions of higher learning studying a wide variety of things, mostly English Literature, Philosopy, and Music, and my education didn't end there. I have a pretty massive library, containing books I have actually read. Such innuendoes out of you, GfS, are merely another example of your turning nasty because you know you're trying to defend an untenable position. Do try to apply your education. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:48 PM As "compassionate" counsellors go, GFS reminds me somewhat of a Sunday School teacher I encountered in 1965. He was very proud of a ministry to interracial couples that he had carried on in a previous setting. He didn't encourage them to break up. He explained that once he brought them to the point of accepting that they had sinned against God by mixing the races, and repenting of that, they were really able to grow toward spiritual maturity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:42 PM Amos, and parrot, I am, never was, or know 'Joybringer' other that how she was treated. If you go back to where ever that was, you will see, that we were all on there.....another bad call from the 'perceptive' ones! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 09:59 PM Sorry Don, I guess I'm not like you....into cartoons. I was busy getting an education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:42 PM Nobody's "scurrying away." And rather than an honest debate, GfS, you've turned it into a slagging match. Because you are there, like Wile E. Coyote, twenty feet out from the canyon's edge and you just haven't looked down yet, but you're getting abusive because you're beginning to realize where you are--hanging in mid-air I have some real work to do. Legislators to phone and e-mail. Prepare yourself. Lock the doors! Raise the drawbridge! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM ""Don's running"". Yeah, right....I'm really really scared of being beaten up by a crackpot with delusions of infallibility. Nope, I'm just sick of wading through crude, obscene, drivel. Talk to yourself GfS, and maybe those nice men in white coats will take you off for a little holiday, with your very own rubber walled room. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:07 PM First of all, this thread has not taken a nasty turn, but rather a good one, in the fact that the bullshit parroting is being exposed, and the perpetrators of it. Look at them scurry away!!! I think, if you're going to put forth a premise, then be prepared to take on the honest debate...without resorting to name calling, and trying to discredit your 'opposing' debater, by calling them names, and ganging up on them like a crazed lynch mob. Sometimes when you got to get to the meat of a subject, one needs to break through the shell...and where that sounds nasty, perhaps there is place for constructive dialogue, though an honest and heartfelt, intelligent..and therefore the HEALING process can begin,...usually, once the party line nonsense has been exposed, for what it is. Amos, your still not off the hook..... Don's running TIA is pretending not to read any more..(besides, I don't think he wants to be a glutton for punishment) ..and the other Don,,the article you posted is largely irrelevant, being as it goes into a 'hatred of gays'..and 'homophobia' which I am neither...but I do understand the mechanisms that take place, that may lead to it..and the path back out. Nice try, but stick to the spirit, and topic. As far as the other concern, about the 'thread topic', I believe that we, through much interference wind bagging, are getting to the core of just what 'marriage' is.....and therefore, what completely understandable, salient grounds Californians, among others oppose it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:00 PM ""Don T. Button it, or you're next!"" And WHAT?.........You certainly do have a superinflated view of your capabilities. ""Don, your thirst for ferreting out "bigots" and other such deviants of that sort on this forum (meaning people who deviate from your own opinion in some way) is comparable to the single-minded devotion of a crack addict looking for his next hit. ;-)"" Thank you LH. I have quite considerable respect for YOUR views too. A propos of ferreting out, I don't have to dig very deep, when two extremely vociferous and biased posters turn a discussion about discrimination under law into a contest to see which of them can find the crudest, most malicious, and most obscene description of a whole group of people who do no harm whatever to the posters in question. That's not about whether they agree with my view or no. It is a matter of FACT. ""P. S. Hey! Amos! DonT! Others! We're wasting our time here. Let's get to work in the real world!"" Damn right. It's gonna happen anyway, and they'll just have to live with it, or move back to Mars. Out of here. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:18 PM "Considering the nasty tone this thread has taken, I believe I am going to absent myself and turn my time and efforts to accomplishing something in the real world." Excellent idea, Don! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM "Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:43 PM If you give a rational statement about why you disagree with homosexual marriage, that's one thing. When you talk of it as "perv marriage" and "DEPRIVED FILTH," then you lapse into the wicked realm of bigotry. So, Joy Bringer," is there something rational you have to say, stripped of all the hateful terms? Rational arguments are welcome, but you have seriously stepped beyond the bounds of rational discussion. Oh, and I think the word you wanted was "depraved." -Joe Offer- " I can see why you might have abandoned this unsuccessful identity, counselor. Don--you buying? Vamonos. Demasiados pendejos por aqui. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:58 PM Considering the nasty tone this thread has taken, I believe I am going to absent myself and turn my time and efforts to accomplishing something in the real world. In both Connecticut and Rhode Island, gay marriage bills are passing in their state legislatures, and in Washington State, Senate Bill 5688 has just been passed by both the House and the Senate, and the Governor has already said that she will sign it. The only thing that is holding it up is a small coterie of eastern Washington Republicans who are attempting some obstructive hanky-panky along the lines of California's Proposition 8. However, the proponents of SB 5688 anticipated this and are taking steps. My representative in the state legislature is a friend and neighbor whom I knew long before he ran for public office. I will start with him and ask him what I can do as a citizen to see to it that this bill goes into law. I will look into this thread from time to time to see if anything has changed, but I seriously doubt that will happen. In the meantime, Guest (strayed one helluva long way) from Sanity, you might read THIS for you enlightenment and edification. (Fat chance!! Talk about "parroting". . . .). Don Firth P. S. Hey! Amos! DonT! Others! We're wasting our time here. Let's get to work in the real world! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM GtS: Your fired, for having a complete vacuum as a sense of humor. To set the record straight, though, I am not likely to engage in introspection at the impulsive behest of someone whom I neither trust nor respect as to their wisdom or psychological abilities. So you can put your bag of tricks down. None of this has anything to do with the issue or topic of the thread, in any case. Take about avoiding the issue!! I take it Joybringer was one of your alter-egos or sub-personae? She had a similar cattiness to her as I recall, but I don't remember if we clashed, or about what. Anyway, back to the topic, the survey article linked to just upthread kind of waters down your "homosexuality as acquired behaviour" worldview, no? I am curious to know specifically what the particular danger on an individual transactional level you imagine would transpire if the California Proposition were to be overturned. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:07 PM Don, your thirst for ferreting out "bigots" and other such deviants of that sort on this forum (meaning people who deviate from your own opinion in some way) is comparable to the single-minded devotion of a crack addict looking for his next hit. ;-) And it gets in the way of having useful discussions here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:03 PM What does any of this have to do with whether or not same sex couples should be able to get married? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM Distant, well, ok.....but answer the question..something you should try, and so often avoid....you're NOT getting out of this one by one of your usual tactics, avoidance...(unless I let you off the hook), because you brought this on yourself...and you've (up to a point) stifled quite a few other threads, and been abusive, to more than just me(remember Joybringer?)...then just walk away to 'cut and paste' replies...when people asked you in threads past, to say what YOU thought. Well, its time to stop being a legend in your own wine, sober up, take a big breath and take the plunge...is it your perceptions, or your honor???...Now you're trying to opt out by suggesting you might be a lesbian??? Hiding behind a terrified woman's skirt??....(I guess that settles the 'honor question')...I guess by process of elimination, you're copping to a screwed up perception plea??? Go ahead, If you're a man, show some balls..if a lesbian,..pretend (lesbians in the room should be offended by you)! Don T. Button it, or you're next! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 09 - 09:21 AM GtS: Part of the syndrome of diffractionitis is seeing your own distortions in Them. When all you have is a hammer, everybody looks like a nail. I have issues with women? Hooyah, surely I do. Maybe I'm a lesbian, huh? As for my father, an honorable and distant man, that ground has been well covered in my endless quest for fictitious normalcy, so no dice there. Haven't you got anything else? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:04 AM ""That's why most little boys are scared of little girls up to a certain age...(when their biological sex drive starts to take over and completely alters their viewpoint on that subject)."" Classic innit? Little boys are driven by their biological sex drive if they are hetero, but the little twerps are choosing to be deviant when the same drive orients them toward other boys. ""I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?)."" Bruce, more often than not I agree with your view of life, but I can't help wondering if we are talking about the same person. Is your GfS the same pompous, opinionated, patronising bigot that has categorised everyone here who disagrees with her view as blinkered and brainwashed, and has set herself up above the best medical research brains of the WORLD,as the one and only fount of knowledge in respect of homosexuals, described by her as "men who want to stick their wienies in other men". I think the pillory might be too lenient!!! DonT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:10 AM Hi Ake, Its always a pleasure to see your name pop up, as well. Here we are, again in this same ol' stuff...I thank you for your input along the way! Absolute Warmest Regards,(pretty good to give a self proclaimed atheist), GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:35 AM I agree with Hawk Guest, You have certainly given us all pause for thought....Doesn't matter if you're man or woman, your heart is in the right place! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:30 AM Just read your post again....I think way back, that's where we came in, but it was during the primaries....Good Lordy oh Lordy, was that a crock! Change??..Yes, like changing diapers, but every time its the same old 'filler'!! ..and thank you for the compliments!..a breath of fresh imaginative air. As to Amos, I'm awaiting his...umm..decision(?) I mean he either has hostile, resentment toward women, or his perceptions are all screwed up....So what is it, o' wise one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:17 AM Amos..Should I curtsy?...I mean if you talk down to me, I personally think you have an inordinate, hostile,resentment toward 'lasses', and 'ladies', and you've been treating me this way for a while..is it that you can't get past. Perhaps you have issues with women... On the other hand, if I was a man, it would only mean your sense of perception is as bad as you've repeatedly displayed.... Little Hawk, Should I pump my fist into the air, and grunt, 'HOOyah!'... ..or should I retreat, and wonder what I did wrong? Amos, Did you and you father get along?..I mean were you close? Don't have to answer on here..but, think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:11 AM Little Hawk: You're showing symptoms of acute diffractionis responsibilidis, pal, known in laymen's terms as "Themitis". I'm glad you have found someone to share your symptoms with, but the only known remedy is to notice who is generating your bubble of choice, and retake the viewpoints one has endowed "them" with. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:52 PM Beautifully put, GfS. You are voicing a number of the same concerns I have tried to articulate over and over again on this forum...usually to the incomprehension of people who, as you say, are wrapped up in "merely promote(ing) an ego gratification(game), of winning an argument, for some sort of validation, (and it) is nothing but useless self absorption..." They are, like good little parrots, repeating endlessly the things that they think they "should" believe in order to be the kind of people they think they "should be" in order to earn a certain set of credentials: the credentials that prove they are not "racist", "sexist", "gay-bashers", "bigots", etc... But they're not actually thinking and they're not actually communicating in any thoughtful way. They're mouthing accustomed slogans and accustomed positions of acceptable doctrine and searching for scapegoats...the presumed violators of their acceptable doctrine. When they find what they think is one, the pack mentality takes over. It's a subtle thing you are pointing out, and it demands patience to understand it. It's way too subtle to reach most people, because they are just parroting a familiar party line (of their accustomed variety..."liberal" or "conservative"). They're enjoying watching the verbal parade of their own imagined righteousness imprint itself on the page. It's an unaware form of behaviour. I do not expect that those engaging in it will understand what I'm saying at all...(shrug)...well, that's life! Don Firth thinks, for instance, that I am engaging in a kind of Buddha-like detachment...and that's not it! As you said, GfS "I wouldn't have to (make provocative statements), if somewhere along the line some of you were showing signs of knowing HOW to think, instead of your glowing retention, of parroting off crap you were taught (about) WHAT to think!!" Bingo! That is it, in a nutshell. Some original and creatively independent thought is what is needed around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:31 PM It's not really fair of all of us to persist in our unthinking moronic parroting Koolaid drinking irrational dittoheaded haze and force this poor lady to push buttons just to try and stir some life into us. Really, where are our manners? This is unacceptable indolence and rudeness on our part. Imagine putting a hardworking psychologist to all that extra work! We are forcing her to do double-duty as the Mudcat Mater and CHief Button Pusher de facto, if not de jure-- when I am sure she has her hands quite full with other deranged halfwits she gets paid to prod. We must rectify our sloppy ways around here and stop forcing her to push buttons all the time. She's made it clear she wouldn't have to if only we would think for ourselves. One can only assume the result of that process would be insights parallel to her own, since she has made it clear she is an accomplished thinker. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:08 PM "I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?)." Yes, I push buttons...and I wouldn't have to, if somewhere along the line, some of you, were showing signs of knowing HOW to think, instead of your glowing retention, of parroting off, crap you were taught WHAT to think!! Before I started this line of posts, which got a little 'coarse', I fully explained BEFORE, that I would, and why...and then proceeded to do just that. Some, could see through it, and some of the 'blocked' started wagging their heads 'TSK TSK'.....but, it did accomplish one thing, needed....some actually started thinking it through further. I don't believe there are many, is any, in here, that given the circumstances of seeing someone hungry, cold or in other ways 'down on their luck', wouldn't stop to help them(at least I hope so)..and it wouldn't matter if that person in need was a homosexual, black, rich, or poor..etc, etc. That is because of something INSIDE us, and now it is up in all our faces...and you know what?...that's good! Would a 'political bent', stop any of us, from showing care, and compassion, toward a fellow human being in need of a hand?? Well, that's the same here, but on here, the hand that is needed, is understanding that is far wider in scope, than the 'political notion d'jour!'...and what is 'politics'?....the art of persuasion? Nobody needs persuading of anything, what is needed, is a remembrance, of who we are, and that little voice inside, that re-acts to truth, and then acted upon...as if the truth really IS important. To disregard the truth, to merely promote an ego gratification(game), of winning an argument, for some sort of validation, is nothing but useless self absorption...and in doing so, two things: A chance to ADD to your knowledge, and being constructive to others, are out the window. I've 'perused' some other blogs (political) in nature, and they are getting absolutely no where...but now, on here, minds are considering other points of view..which means here, in Mudcatland, there is more 'unifying' than in all the empty promises about unifying, coming out of Washington, by the usual band of liars. Keep your minds open! Yes, I might say something a certain way, to push a button, and that button could be linked to the 'think' circuit..which is good, and far healthier, than the listen and adopt blind obedience, to the propaganda machines, pumping out sewage for brain food, and telling you its delicious! Not only that...sometimes its just downright fun, and entertaining...in a world of the 'politically correct word police'!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM My god...Masters and Johnson bad data?? This may change EVERYTHING!!!! :) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Desert Dancer Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM Can Psychiatrists Really "Cure" Homosexuality? Masters and Johnson claimed to convert gays to heterosexuality in a 1979 book. But did they? Scientific American April 22, 2009 By Thomas Maier [excerpt:] Back in 1979, on Meet The Press and countless other TV appearances, Masters and Johnson touted their book, Homosexuality in Perspective—a 14-year study of more than 300 homosexual men and women—hoping to build on their groundbreaking sex studies of heterosexuals that had helped ignite America's sexual revolution. The results seemed impressive: Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent. But were Masters and Johnson's claims of "conversion" in those 12 cases -- nine men and three women -- even true? Prior to the book's publication, doubts arose about the validity of their case studies. Most staffers never met any of the conversion cases during the study period of 1968 through 1977, according to research I've done for my new book Masters of Sex [a biography of Masters and Johnson]. Clinic staffer Lynn Strenkofsky, who organized patient schedules during this period, says she never dealt with any conversion cases. Marshall and Peggy Shearer, perhaps the clinic's most experienced therapy team in the early 1970s, says they never treated homosexuals and heard virtually nothing about conversion therapy. When the clinic's top associate, Robert Kolodny, asked to see the files and to hear the tape-recordings of these "storybook" cases, Masters refused to show them to him. Kolodny—who had never seen any conversion cases himself—began to suspect some, if not all, of the conversion cases were not entirely true. When he pressed Masters, it became ever clearer to him that these were at best composite case studies made into single ideal narratives, and at worst they were fabricated. Eventually Kolodny approached Virginia Johnson privately to express his alarm. She, too, held similar suspicions about Masters' conversion theory, though publicly she supported him. The prospect of public embarrassment, of being exposed as a fraud, greatly upset Johnson, a self-educated therapist who didn't have a college degree and depended largely on her husband's medical expertise. With Johnson's approval, Kolodny spoke to their publisher about a delay, but it came too late in the process. "That was a bad book," Johnson recalled decades later. Johnson said she favored a rewriting and revision of the whole book "to fit within the existing [medical] literature," and feared that Bill simply didn't know what he was talking about. At worst, she said, "Bill was being creative in those days" in the compiling of the "gay conversion" case studies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:13 PM LOL!!! So true, Amos. There's nothing like the fear of the unknown or the unfamiliar to spook people, is there? That's why most little boys are scared of little girls up to a certain age...(when their biological sex drive starts to take over and completely alters their viewpoint on that subject). Remember all those amusing Calvin & Hobbes cartoons where he and Hobbes (the stuffed tiger) are having their club meetings in the tree house and deciding how to resume their war against the dreaded and despised enemy: Girls! (*shudder*) The club was called GROSS (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS). The main object of its stratetic plans was to inconvenience Susie, the little girl who lives next door. Susie, however, was usually able to outsmart Calvin. No big surprise there! (grin) And Hobbes was secretly in sympathy with Susie anyway. Tigers have an instinctive grasp of the romantic, and they appreciate friendly female attention at any age. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:12 PM It also has the threatening component, Little Hawk, of making people less predictable. As the song says, Plant a carrot |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:55 PM I think reincarnation could have a good deal to do with cross-gender behaviors and tendencies in people. Have always thought so. If you've been both man and woman before in other lives (which I regard as very common and very probable in the human race), then why would not the characteristics of one gender show up in the physical framework of the other? Culture is also an influence, and a major one. The people you grow up among can have a very big influence in forming your later behaviours. That's not a case of genes. Some people are genuinely bisexual in nature, and why should that be surprising? In most traditional societies, however, we find a very strong pressure to separate the male and female characteristics and roles as much as possible, and to enforce heterosexuality. What drives that pressure? Well, it's part of the struggle to define one's cultural identity. The more people are afraid of their own cultural identity being threatened, the harder they will press for a clear separation between the genders, and the less they will tolerate exceptions to "the rules" (as they see them). "the rules", however, are usually largely arbitrary in nature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM Another for Little Hawk. Superdawg and his sidekick Woofie. #### Yeah, Amos. I thought the idea of hormones in utero was pretty interesting. In any case, it seems pretty firmly established that, whatever the cause, personal choice just doesn't enter into it. Therefore, back to the civil rights issue. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:30 PM I've already got that one, Don, and it's one of my favorites. I love the worried look, the furrowed brow...it's the typical look of an anxious dachshund. They are world-class worriers, specially the "smooth" ones (shorthaired variety). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM My Gott in Himmel!! Das ist ein YodaHundt berspeken!!! Don, thanks for the informative article. I was up on almost all of those data points but the bit on the young twins was faskinatin. I think reincarnation must be playing a role. Having unresolved issues as an A would make it very awkward to give in to being a B no matter what part of the alphabet you were born as. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM Ominous. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:24 PM Omigod. That is just...wonderful! I am in your debt. Well, for an hour or two, I am. After that, no guarantees... ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:16 PM Always happy to oblige. . . . CLICKY. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:57 PM Dang! I was hoping for a funny dachshund picture, Don. |
