BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:54 PM

Little Hawk strikes again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:32 PM

As long as we're dealing with statistics here, I think I should mention that approximately 95% of male dachshunds will enthusiastically mount just about anything, male or female or even inanimate, when they are in the mood which is...frequently.

The remaining 5% are too lazy.

It has not been determined if this indicates homosexuality in dachshunds...or merely a complete lack of discrimination. The jury is also still out on whether it's a primarily genetic feature of the breed or a form of learned behaviour. Some researchers feel that it all stems back to a single bloodline of licentious dachshunds bred by the Baron von Bumpsenhausen in the early 1700's, but this remains speculative.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:22 PM

Ake, as I'm sure you recall, I stated at that time that I was going on the figures published by Kinsey in the 1950s, and immediately updated my information when I got the new statistics (once I verified that they were accurate). So you cannot accuse me of chronic inaccuracy or having a closed mind (as I am quite sure is the trust of your current remarks).

That article demonstrates that they have come up with considerably more than "ZILCH," as you know perfectly well, and I was pretty sure that your reaction to the article would be something like this. And I'm sure others with prejudices similar to yours will be reporting in soon. I would like to be able to think of you that you didn't read the article carefully and missed the relevant paragraphs, but I doubt that that is the case. You just don't want to accept it.

I am not trying to convert you, because I know you are locked into your position. So the article is there for the benefit of those who will read it with an open mind.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM

Ake:

That is simply not the case. THere have been multiple studies which found that the genetic vector was a distinct causative factor. The current general conclusion is that it is one among multiple causes. WHy not do your homework?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM

Some time ago Don, you posted the information that one in ten men were homosexual. At that time, I questioned these figures and on reading your article I find that the true figure is about three in one hundred?

There is nothing in that piece which would lead me to conclude that homosexuality is caused by the genes, in fact the reporter tries to make a point that twelve percent of brothers of homosexual men are also homosexual as opposed to two percent in the population, therefore there must be genetics at work, but it is much more likely that this is learned behaviour, as brothers are usually brought up in the same family environment with its attendant parental pressures.

Basically despite all the research by homosexuals trying to find the smoking gun.....they have come up with ZILCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM

This   (CLICKY)   is a very long article, so I'm quite sure that those who need to read it the most will not do so. Nevertheless, it gives an excellent overview of the nature of scientific research into gender orientation with a good look at the findings so far.

This is a challenge, which, as I say, those who really should read it will undoubtedly wimp out on because they won't want to read what it has to say.

There will be a test!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:52 PM

I have a 13 year old son. Since the issue of gay marriage is in the news we have had talks about sexuality that have been fairly open. If his experience is fairly normal (and I have no reason to think otherwise) it seems the kids today are generally quite accepting of this sort of thing.

He has a female friend who recently broke up a long distance relationship with her boyfriend and is now looking for a girlfriend. He later said, quite matter-of-factly, that most of the bi-sexuals are in seventh grade. According to him these issues are mostly non-issues.

This in a mostly working class town of about 3,300 people.

I recently read an opinion piece written by a social conservative who basically said that this issue is lost. Things may roll back some for a while but it looks to me like when we geezers start dropping the new generation will head things back the way they are already going. I could be wrong.

In any event, in four days gays will begin applying for marriage licenses and in one week the nuptials will take place. I will keep you posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:53 AM

ANd I see in no way that anyone's beliefs have to "be completely redefined", except their most oppressive ones about some of their fellow humans. Not sure what the justification for this overblown proposition is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:36 AM

Ake:

Unfortunately there is a good deal of evidence out there -- ignored by some.. And the issue os not the generalized one of human rights, but equality under the law on a specific issue for a specific population about whom people have various opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM

"That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result of genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things."

Are you all blind, stupid, or both!
I have spent a lot of time here explaining that there are many sectors of society which are refused what you describe as "human rights", the right to foster children being one.

for the last time I will repeat, "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour.
I have absolutely no doubt that homosexuality is learned behaviour allied to psychiatric problems, and is not genetic.
According to medical statistics it is as dangerous and destructive as drug abuse.
Amos....I believe you are an atheist like myself, do you not see the belief that homosexuality is genetically based, despite there being not one piece of expert medical evidence to support that view, as akin to a belief the "the supreme being"?

The vast majority of people worldwide, who believe in marriage, define it as between a man and a woman and closely allied to procreation, why is it not affecting those people, to have their beliefs completely redefined to accomodate a minority with behavioural problems?

I've taken on board what you've said Bruce...maybe some things in life are more important than "the current issue".
It takes a real big man to look at life as you do...you are pretty wonderful yourself.
I would also address these remarks to the much maligned Little Hawk.
I strive without much success to be more like him....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:34 PM

Good post, Peace. Very well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM

Peace:

Thanks for an honest and compassionate voice amongst the thundering herd.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM

Dante called the fire department, Don. It was an inferno.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:54 PM

Dear, oh, dear, Little Hawk. Once again, you're starting to sound a bit like an entymologist peering through your microscope or a Grand Lama sitting in a lofty temple up in Shangri-La, totally above it all, disinterested, and merely amused by petty concerns of the unenlightened ones.

Do try to remember what Dante said. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:53 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?).

A good friend of mine on Mudcat is Akenaton. We go back about five years and he speaks against homosexuality. He's a wonderful guy.

Another is Teribus. He speaks his mind in no uncertain terms and he backs up his statements. I like the guy. Period. We go back about four.

Another is Amos, and he was instrumental in me being here at all today because when my world fell apart he wrote to me lots and helped me put it back together--please give him shit for that via personal message.

The 'issue' of homosexuality is complicated. It's rife with prejudices of the past; with cruel jokes and bad 'humour'. As a teacher (when I was a teacher), I had many students who told me they were on the verge of committing suicide because they were NOT allowed to be accepted for who they were/are. They heard the 'jokes' and remained silent, because we all damned well know there is little mercy amongst teenagers.

I have friends whom I love who are homosexual. I feel NO diminishment in my 'masculinity'. They are friends, and the reality of our friendships do not involve sex. Hell, I even have FEmale friends whom I love.

Amos has nailed it, imo. When we open the door and allow people to be stigmatized--I have a child who has had that happen to her (special needs)--based on her 'differences', and I think, "What a pity those people don't see the beauty in her, the intelligence, the brilliance. It breaks my heart, but it does not break my will.

I have friends--real friends on Mudcat who read this type of thread, and it hurts that they do. They are--GASP--homosexual. I don`t ask that people change their views, but I do ask that they be somewhat kinder in voicing their criticisms.

Regardless of which side of the Great Divide they are on.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM

Ah...the endless righteous Mudcat search for bigots, monsters, fascists, anti-semites, racists, sexists, and other deeply disturbed people in need of counseling or the loss of their professions or perhaps even incarceration goes on...with its usual gusto.

Such people are always, of course, found on the opposite side of the latest argument, whatever it may be about. And what a coup when the righteous here have ferreted them out for excommunication! Drinks all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:18 PM

""That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result opf genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things.""

Damn right Amos.

I'm getting more than somewhat sick of GfS's pretentions to being a caring counsellor. The crudity of the references to Homosexual practices, and the unwarranted supposition that gay relationships are based solely on sexual preferences, show clearly how poorly qualified this character is for the job.

Homosexuals tend, in my experience to be warm, caring, individuals, and no more obsessed with sex than any heterosexual of my acquaintance. Their relationships are no less loving, or constant, than any others.

If GfS is truly a counsellor, there is something seriously wrong in the vetting system that should have weeded out such an obvious homophobe. GfS should not be allowed within a light year of anyone who needs counselling.

It is my considered opinion that GfS is more in need of counselling than most.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM

IN response to your armwaving on "thatother thread" (Obama Administration) but germane to this subject, GfS, I have counseled homosexuals also, and neither that fact nor your experience in counseling them has any bearing on the legal issue of reducing their civil equality by claiming them to be sub-human is some respect. They are not. THey are natural human beings much as you and I are, and as such they should be fully entitled to define thier own partnerships and affinities with all the respect of the law on the same terms as anyone else.

That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result opf genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:54 PM

Thank you, thank you. (blushing)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:55 PM

A work of geenious.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:50 PM

I have just composed a poem about BTZZ's. It's on the new Walkabouts thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM

They are the special kind, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM

So, uh, was that then an acronymious post?

HEY. I heard of Zig-Zag papers. They're used to roll--OH    MY    GAWD.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM

Ah. But are they BTZZ's or just the ordinary kind?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:38 PM

They sell ZigZags in a local shop which the police are frequently in.

'Acronym'. Jeri, the Spellinator.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:31 PM

It means we need an accronim/akronimm/acrhonym.

May I suggest BTZZ?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:27 PM

Speaking of bizarre tangential zig-zags, Amos, there have been a few cropping up around here lately, and I'm worried about it.

I spotted a bizarre tangential zig-zag on one of the basement walls, for instance. It seems to have been made by a blunt instrument of some kind.

My dog was out in the backyard yesterday and he made a bizarre tangential zig-zag! I have no idea why.

I have seen several birds make bizarre tangential zig-zags as they flew over my property.

What does it all mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:58 PM

Whatever you say, Amos.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:54 PM

What an absurd, off-the-wall question!!!

Your assertion that homosexuality is "a behavior" rather than a born condition is the keystone of your ignorance. From false premises all things--including bizarre tangential zig-zags--are possible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:44 PM

Well, you had a couple of things going for ya'..one, you're a musician, and two, even a broken clock is right twice a day!!...(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:34 PM

GfS, by hysteria trying to sound scientific, I was referring to the web sites from which some anti-same sex marriage folks keep quoting.

The differences in the hypothalamus are most definitely there. It's the interpretation of those differences--are the subjects homosexual because of the difference or is the difference because they are homosexual? Which came first?

The jury is still out, but research goes on. In the meantime, on the chance that it is the difference in the hypothalamus that makes a person homosexual, I, like other wild-eyed liberals, tend to favor giving gays the benefit of the doubt rather than put them in a straitjacket until the research is finished, which may take years. And even then, if it turns out that homosexuality is indeed a predisposition, there will be anti-gays who will continue to dispute the findings. Guaran-bloody-teed!

Glad we found some agreement on the other thread. Cheers!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:53 PM

Don, if that was in reference to me, it does not apply.
Barry, There is quite a difference between being born black, and being a homosexual. The rights issue doesn't apply here, either, because black is not a behavior. Its a race.
Amos(oh my Dear poor Amos), What if a homosexual wanted counseling, under a medical plan, and in the course of counseling, he came out from being homosexual?..Are you going to deny him medical treatment, because it wouldn't fit in your political agenda? It is a medical, and psychological issue. Keep politics out of it...haven't they done enough damage already???
gnu, I thought this thread had run its course, but the brickheads are back, without learning a damn thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 08:56 PM

Sorry, but quoting from a few anti-gay web sites objecting to the scientific findings is hardly a refutation. Like reading Creationists trying to refute evolution. Same hysteria trying to sound scientific.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 08:38 PM

50 yrs ago, this was the same argument that was held so that bigots (big idiots) could keep the races from intermarrying. Many churches also upheld the idea. It seems that some of the religious are just as bigoted as the homophobes. Claim it as what ever fits your bill, degenerate, unholy, deminishing the values of the church/state married, a watering down of an institution, whatever, it will be eventually looked at as a time when our Government a a large percentage of the public was as as racist as back in the 50's when George Wallace was was trying to keep down the Blacks in Alabama. It's a real shame that we still can't get past the same hard learnt lessons when only the shading or the background is different.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:43 PM

Wrong, lassy. It is purely and only a political problem as to what rights will be granted to whom.

Purely and only a matter of groups disdaining other groups and seeking to subordinate them in social privilege. This is not a kind or charitable impulse on your part, but that has never bothered you before and will not do so now, certainly not because I point it out. But you really should face it squarely instead of rationalizing it. Especially since you have this ambition to be Mudcat's in-house psychologist!!! (Expletives deleted).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM

Holy Moly! Still at it? I just clicked in to see if it was real. Glad I did. Read a few posts. Got a hankering for bacon and eggs... dunno if that makes me gay or not. But, I hadn't planned on goin ta Calleeforneeah soon anahwhay eh?

Keep suckin wind... I'll check back in another few hundred posts.

(Yeah... I DO know. Just dunno why yas all gotta thrash and trash. Don't make no sense ta me.... smile on yer brother... ??)

(Oh, yeah... having said that, I still don't like gay parades... just me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:01 PM

We've been around that bush already...and your 'premise' was well discussed....and found to be nonsense. Just scroll back..OR.... "...Sorry, if that sounded coarse, but when the topic was 'discussed' maturely, no one seemed to get it past their idiotic political stubborn crap."
Bottom line, its not a political problem. That is an exploitation of corrupted, by 'funded studies' 'science'....you must have missed it. I lived through it...(as a counselor who got the memos!)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM

". . . and don't go portraying this to our children as normal, healthy, and accepted behavior."

Not to worry, GfS. Kids these days know what's going on (especially in matters such as this), and they will do what their genes dictate. You seem to be under the impression, as are a lot of people, that the gay lifestyle is a matter of choice rather than genetic predisposition. Scientific evidence in the form of brain research. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's a pretty solidly established fact.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:36 PM

Sorry, if that sounded coarse, but when the topic was 'discussed' maturely, no one seemed to get it past their idiotic political stubborn crap. Let's face it, if two men want to be best friends, even love each other, live together, fine..they do all the time! But now, since the same two want to stick their weenies into the other, well, now that's different..that deserves to be a new political party, a new religion, and the guidepost for how everybody else has to view it???. You have got to be fucking kidding me!!! Put your weenies where you want,(anybody),..and shut the fuck up!....and don't go portraying this to our children as normal, healthy, and accepted behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:52 PM

A wise move, Amos. ;-) Not always easy, but always worth striving for.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM

No, I shan't, LH. I learned the wisdom some time ago of not putting the control of my own feelings into others' hands! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:15 PM

LOL!!!!!!! Great comment, Peace. Thanks for that.

This thread should be cross-referenced with the Susan Boyle one, put them a blender and mix thoroughly, then publish the results with intentions of making the New York Times Bestseller List and see what happens...

I think those results would be almost as impenetrable as Bob Dylan's book "Tarantula", but even more entertaining. Well, considerably more entertaining, I guess...

***

Amos...consider the possibility that he may not just be waving his arms at you...but also sticking his thumbs in his ears, wiggling his fingers, and waggling his tongue at you. Get upset, man. Go postal. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:36 AM

Ake:

Despite your rudeness, th epoint you ARE missing is that you are holding an untenable premise: that some individuals should have the right to define and constrain acceptability about others' private lives.

Your assertions about the "harm" of equal rights in marriage is bogus--"dangerous and destructive"???!! Oh, come on. WHAT danger? WHAT destructive? This is an arm-waving sham on your part.

WHat's worse, you use the arm-waving sham to justify meddling in others' lives. Now,that is destructive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:17 AM

"" These people need compassion not agression, that way leads back to criminalisation and victimisation.""

Do you ever consider following your own advice, and exhibiting some of that compassion, rather than denying same sex couples the same rights as other couples, and advocating that they be VICTIMISED?

This world would be a much better place if people like you would get on with their own business, and butt out of everybody else's.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:01 AM

Well, having followed this thread for one fuck of a lotta posts, it strikes me that bacon and egg sandwiches cannot be eaten by everyone on Earth. Who knew?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 02:58 AM

Seems quite clear to me Little Hawk.
Homosexual marriage is simply another milestone on the road to the normalisation and public acceptance of what seems to be a very dangerous and destructive lifestyle.
It also effects the lives of ordinary people who believe in god and traditional marriage.Rightly or wrongly, they feel marriage to be diminished by what they see as the ridiculous proposal of male/male relationship as "marriage". Their long held beliefs have been redefined without any input from them.

Guest...although I think you have brought a lot of thought provoking material to this discussion, unlike Don and Amos, who have simply parroted off the same old question without listening for an answer, I think your use of coarse jokes lessens the impact of what your are trying to say.   These people need compassion not agression, that way leads back to criminalisation and victimisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:41 AM

I've never felt that it affected me in any way either, Don. Not any more than someone else's watching of Nascar or the Roller Derby affects me. That's why I don't worry about it. That's why, to me, it's a non-issue...from either point of view. I'm not for it. I'm not against it. I simply don't care. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:24 AM

Because they've legally contracted, their properties, to keep their word. I wouldn't call it 'marriage'...but a contract is a contract.

Little Hawk, Because its warm and mooshy! Some people like it so much, that they'll put up all they own, in a contract to only be warm and mooshy, for each other. Besides, it smells so romantic to each other, so much, it gets them hot!

You know how you can tell if a homosexual has been in your house, while you've been away??
You open the refrigerator door, and the rump roast farts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:13 AM

Yeah, Little Hawk, I'm with you on that one. But I don't see how what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom affects me in any way whatsoever.

And I keep asking--without getting an answer--if Steve and Paul are legally married, how is that detrimental to Barbara's and my marriage? How can that affect our marriage in any way at all?

I can't see it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 12:41 AM

God knows, I've never understood it. And I don't understand why a man would want to do that to a woman either. But there's no explaining people's tastes when it comes to that, or anything else either...