 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM Amos, I thought you'd like it...He's a Ph.D in psychology, who does this bit, to try to help men and women to understand the differences in the way they think, and interact. When I first saw it, I cracked up, he has quite a way of explaining it....and the analogies, are quite clever. I could explain it to you, in more medical/psychological terms, but for some, that can be quite dry. Besides, on this thread, I don't think some people are ready to accept that there is a DIFFERENCE between the way men and women think, and that 'wiring' has to do with their natural instincts, in the rearing of offspring. (Not 'gay' enough) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:18 AM Hey Ake, You never mentioned what musical instrument you play..or the kind of music you gravitate to, or your influences.... As so far as this other stuff goes, it seems that the points I raise, they dodge, and comment about the minutia....of course only backing it up with political 'talking' points...so while there is a lull, in anything of substance(like most of their posts), I thought we could get caught up in something about music.....I'd like to know, if you'd feel free to post something about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:16 AM GfS: Thanks a lot for that link. This is a guy who UNDERSTANDS!!! LOL!!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:42 PM Tony Robbins discusses emotion and motivation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM Enjoy this, as well..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMZ73mT5zM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:02 PM Some insights into the little-understood brotherhood of Man through genomics. Enjoy!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:32 PM The excessive protest, good Ake, comes from your own posts. You protest offering civil equality to a group of people, and jump to every corner scraping for rationale to defend this essentially bigoted position. The reproductive value of heterosexuality is certainly a survival trait, GfS, no question about it. However, law is not a matter of survival of the fittest, and if it becomes so, you will be among the early losers. The law is inspired by a sense of justice, a trait which also exists in nature, but is generally subordinated by tooth-and-claw destruction of tohers for the sake of one's own survival. Under a code of justice, however, destroying others for the sake of one's own betterment is generally outside the pale except in extreme exteuating circumstances. All your sarcastic labels add up to a fish's fart against the power of a simple fact: that we hold that all men are created equal. Regardless of their religion, sexual orientation, skin color or gender. Why don't you let that notion sink in a bit before you wave your arms any more? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM "All independent studies are in agreement that there is absolutely no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. "Of course you already knew that Don....." No, I don't know that, and neither do you! If we're all going to be honest about it, the most we (you, too!) can say is that the jury is still out. And your constant harping on a "homosexual lobby" is pure fictional nincompoopery. Right up there with the Hollow Earth and the Illuminati, with a generous mixture (if you actually believe it) of paranoia. "PRO-gressing?" "RE-gressing?" You do have a fascinating way with words. Let's face reality, GfS, humans are animals, whether some of us like it or not. You may like to think you're above that, but you're not. No. My arguments are sound and standing tall. Sorry. Not your day. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:07 PM Are we not just a little more 'evolved' than animals?? If 'evolution' is correct, shouldn't we be PRO-gressing, rather than RE-gressing?? Your argument falls down at every turn! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM And.....despite your fruit fly bullshit and furious searching by the homosexual lobby, no human "homosexual gene" has been discovered. All independent studies are in agreement that there is absolutely no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Of course you already knew that Don.....but perhaps readers of this thread did not. Those readers may view your posts rather differently from now on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM I do not believe in "God"! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM "Normal." Let me raise an interesting question. Our opposable thumbs and prehensile fingers evolved so our forebears could grasp things and leap from branch to branch without falling on their little keisters. So—what's normal about, say, playing a guitar? That's not what thumbs and fingers evolved for. "Normal" is a tricky word. If one wants to claim that homosexual behavior is abnormal because it's not found in nature, that is patently false. Many animals engage in same-sex copulating behavior. Bonobo apes are particularly noted for this. I have seen male dogs mount other male dogs, female dogs mount other female dogs. How about the neighbor's dog who is always trying to hump your leg? Birds do it. Bees? Educated fleas? I couldn't tell you. So that idea of "normal" isn't going to wash Sexual activity that leads to procreation is normal, but not if it doesn't? Masturbation is almost universal in the human species, and other species as well. How about humans engaging in intercourse while using birth control? So that idea of "normal" isn't going to cut it. No, Ake and GfS, you're going to have to do better than that. Religious prohibitions? There is ample reason for keeping the Church and the State separate, and the Founding Fathers were profoundly aware of this, their families having recently come from countries where religious dogma and moral prohibitions had the power of secular law—and the abuses that invariably follow from such a mixture. There is much wisdom to be found in the play A Man for All Seasons. For example, this dialogue between William Roper, a hot-headed, religious young man, and the older and wiser Sir Thomas More: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!Or for those who would like to see religious dogma take on the force of secular law, this conversation: Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:52 PM I'll broach it. If all living creatures have these two things in common, the will to survive and reproduce, and your sexual organs are the 'normal' way of doing that, what is so 'normal' about the practices of homosexuality???? Acceptance in a society, is NOT what defines a 'normal' function of the body. You guys are just too filled with the radical left, political view of things. By the way, are ANY of you, born in this life, on this planet, the product of 'normal' homosexual practices? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:10 PM AS well they might. Despite the caterwauling of unthinking Christian extremists, there is no mandate in Christian teachings--meaning the teachings of Christ--that reflects on the subject. The God of Gomorrah, I would remind you, was a God who came to his semnses and reformed, unlike some of his followers, in favor of cleaving to the more binding doctrine of affinity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM And by the way, despite that fact that most things like Propostion 8 are put forth and supported by religious organizations (trampling on the Constitutional mandate of seperation of Church and State), not all Christian churches support this position. I know of several who have actively opposed such laws. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:35 PM Game, Set, and Match. Don Firth P. S. There's lots more where those came from. I note with some interest that most of the studies denying the genetic and/or physiological factors predisposing a percentage of the population to same-sex orientation come from religious web sites, and that supposed scientific studies that purport to disprove the contention are conducted by scientists who are avowed Christians. Want more? I've got lots more! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM It's a red herring. Suppose it was a deliberate choice of sexuality? THEN do you t hink it would be acceptable to deny those that made that choice the civil rights that other couples get? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM When either you, Amos, or the other Don, bring me the gene....on a pink platter.....then I will believe....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 09 - 11:54 AM I'm supposed to be finished here Don, but as I have a lot of respect for you I will give a short reply. I don't agree with your statement that if you view homosexuality as an abnormal practice then you cannot view homosexuals as "normal" people. Homosexuals are human being, members of society and they are a fact of life, as such they are normal. They are different in that they feel compelled to have sex with their own gender, which to me is a very dangerous condition. Statistics tell us that those who practice this condition have in general terms a much lower life expectancy than those who practice heterosexuality. If this is taken in conjunction with other negative issues pertaining to homosexuality, I do not consider that it should be promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle. I view homosexuality as I would a psychiatric condition like depression or addiction and I certainly would not catagorise anyone with clinical depression as "abnormal". I realise that my opinion on this issue is different from yours, but I hope the above has answered your point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: goatfell Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:51 AM have a gay day |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:59 AM ""I'm sorry to say this, but you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I write I have never used the phrase "normal people" to describe heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals; please look back through the posts if you wish. I have said that there is an agenda by some homosexual radicals and bubble dwelling "liberals"(I wouldn't wish to deny the bubble dwellers)to normalise the practice of homosexuality, which is something quite different."" Sophistry, Ake. You can't divorce the description of homosexuality as other than normal, from your view of those who practise it. Stop trying to fudge the issue, be honest at least with yourself, and recognise that if you consider the first to be true, then the second inevitably follows as a corollary. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:41 AM 400 1 whoop-ti-doo!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:40 AM Oh,...I'm convinced, now...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:31 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:29 AM Nope. Too Medieval. Jeez, man, take a Valium. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:15 AM I thought, (if you all can remember), that candidate Obama, ran on revising the health care system, right? Meanwhile, I'm trying to get you ahead of the curve, about false studies, and insurance lobbyists, the medical/pharmaceutical industries community, and their influences on health care, ...that is, if you really want 'Change'...it is imperative, that the lobbyists, and the folks they represent, get OUT of the health care system..with all their phony bullshit(this issue being only one of them)....and you are actually resisting this thing being put straight!!!???!! Wait till they tell you what really causes cancer!(but that's another subject)...... So, the first thing Obama does, is put on a show, with the signing of executive orders, about lobbyists, and their ties with Clinton's, I mean 'HIS administration'......Oh well, I don't know if you get it, or can.....Hmmmm, I wonder if he is aware of something, that his devotees are oblivious to, for some mystical reason.......I'm showing you the studies are fraudulent, and those studies are the basis for determining if a homosexual is a homosexual, and I'm opposed to denying them their rights to medical/psychiatric care,...you want to keep them in the position they're in..by those definitions....and NOT CHANGE the health care system........and you think, I'M the loony toon??????????????.....Hmmm, what if ,in the course of granting them medical coverage, psychological counseling, goes with it....and they discover a way not to be homosexual any longer????...are you going to deny them that, too?.....All that, and 'marriage' is still marriage, and whatever living arrangements that homosexuals have, is not 'marriage' ...By the way, if you deny them their rights, because of sexual orientation reasons...how about discrimination of age??...Next is a crusade to 'free' the pedophiles,...and then deny that those who they prey on, they are not victims, but rather 'unenlightened freedom fighters'...who just don't understand that they are not really victims, but a new 'elite'??????????...the minority d'jour?? Now if this sounds preposterous....who should read your posts from this side......... And for whoever it was that posted, "Why do you care about them so much"........because its faster and better than waiting so someone else to...especially with the present mentality displayed on here..and in other 'so called liberal, mob rule, circles" Gosh, reminds me of an old song...Will the circle, be unbroken, by and by, Lord by and by........except in this case, the circle of the 'vociferously illiterate' must at least be penetrated, to get some truth into them.................I mean, if you really voted for 'Change'......... GfS P.S. Is this too fast for ya'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:57 PM AKe: Twisting to the very end? There is no "cause of homosexuality". This thread is about the cause of equality under law. That's what you decline to address. All you ad hominem characterizations and your red herring side-issues and your mischaracterizations of the discussion will do nothing to cover up the fact that that is the one issue you, inlike Mister Obama, are not facing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:41 PM Well......As they say in Obamaville...."Thats all Folks" Thank you all for the discussion, especially those who kept it civil! and for those like Joe who posted common sense. The only thing I really didn't like was when some members used the ancient ploy of implying that I was a homosexual in denial,in place of constructive discussion. Sometimes we just have to travel the road that our brain points us down, regardless of the current fashionable point of view in our sector of society. The financial crisis which is now affecting everything around us will bring many changes, changes in lifestyle and what is socially acceptable will be one. Hopfully,traditional values will re-assert themselves, sanity will return.....we must wait and see. At the very least this thread did become a real discussion and not just another bout of liberal cheerleading for the cause of homosexuality, in great measure because of the contributions of Guest from Sanity.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM ""Ummm....as many times as it takes for you to get it right..apparently, you are living proof, that you can't comprehend, what you read..which explains a lot....Its Richard Cohen!"" So, let me see if I understand the logic of this statement, GfS. 1. Richard Cohen flies in the face of the whole worldwide body of scientific thought, and the overwhelming weight of contrary evidence, and this, to you is proof that he is RIGHT! 2. Therefore you blithely post insulting comment about the sanity of any who don't immediately recognise the irrefutable truth of your blinding epiphany. 3. You and said Richard Cohen are the only two people on earth, with sufficient mental capacity to understand what is going on in the minds of these poor unfortunates, and to counsel and "cure" them. NO! I still think YOU are the ones who are twelve cents short of a dollar bill. Last post on this. YOU are boring me. Dijit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM Okay, GfS, I got the guy's name wrong. Richard Cohen it is. Can I help it if Jimmy Kimmel mumbles? It doesn't alter the fact the Richard Cohen is full of buffalo chips. Is that the best you've got? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 23 Jan 09 - 01:14 PM Not impugning anyone at all. If homosexuals make a consciuos decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, then heterosexuals must make a conscious decision to be attracted to the same sex. I do not remember ever making this decision. Does anyone? I similarly do not remember making the conscious decision to like eggplant, but be repelled by okra. And, the slightest knowledge whatsoever of my family history and current configuration makes any charge of bigotry laughable. Sorry, no traction on that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jan 09 - 12:26 PM TIA, from your questions it sounds like you are asking me, personally when was I 'Chose' to be attracted to the opposite sex?'...you're inferring by both questions, that I am other than hetero(straight). I don't know if that was a 'shot in the dark' or another supposition, but I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to ask. I'm straight. I'm not a homosexual. Now I'm beginning to think that your question was a wild shot to discredit me..in which case, ..umm,.. maybe you are the one with the bigoted bias...(?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jan 09 - 12:10 PM "How many times has this one interview with Richard Owen, which contradicts a whole body of scientific evidence, been posted?" Ummm....as many times as it takes for you to get it right..apparently, you are living proof, that you can't comprehend, what you read..which explains a lot....Its Richard Cohen! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 23 Jan 09 - 08:31 AM On the subject of homosexuals (which he/she has "counseled"), GfS says "...all of them, at one time or another, recall the time when they made the conscious choice, to get involved sexually, with another of the same sex" a) deciding who to do it with is not necessarily related to whom you are attracted to. b) do you recall when it was that you consciously chose to be attracted to the opposite sex? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 09 - 08:11 AM No, its a fraudulent analogy because there is no basis in law for it; there are no medical, biological or public health risks involved. Just a lot of opinionated meddling.. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 09 - 07:24 AM The point I was making, as you well know Amos is that rights are conditional. Of course homosexuality and herion addiction are different, but both are conditions that affect the rights of those who practice them. Regarding the dangers of homosexuality, Pope Benedict seems to believe it a "real and present danger" and he is certainly not an idiot...In fact he may have better academic qualifications the you...:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 09 - 10:33 PM And only an idiot would paint homosexuality as a parallel danger to heroin addiction. It's a completely broken (or completely fraudulent) analogy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:55 PM Practice what you preach Don! I'm sorry to say this, but you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I write I have never used the phrase "normal people" to describe heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals; please look back through the posts if you wish. I have said that there is an agenda by some homosexual radicals and bubble dwelling "liberals"(I wouldn't wish to deny the bubble dwellers)to normalise the practice of homosexuality, which is something quite different. Homosexuals can have all the rights afforded to heterosexuals in a civil union,the redefinition of "marriage" issue is simply another step on the road to normalisation, without taking into account the rights or wishes of the many millions who define marriage as between a man and a woman.....If you cannot see that this new definition diminishes traditional marriage for a large number of ordinary folk, then I'm afraid you must have joined Amos and the other Don under that "bright shiny dome" Getting back to universal human rights, people who are addicted to heroin are not criminals, but only an idiot would grant them the right to adopt a small child, a right that has been granted in many places to homosexuals and one which you no doubt support.....so civil rights are not universal, but are conditional....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:49 PM ==SPOUSAL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:13 PM AKe: Civil rights are not granted to every human, but they are granted to every citizen under a code of law, at least in this country. Second-hand homosexuality is not a threat to your health, no matter how paranoid you become. Two individual humans should have the right to live their life in peace together with uniform rights appertaining to joint identity as a couple. Their sexual orientation should have no bearing on whether they have those rights or not. I am talking here about spusal rights. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:16 PM ""Radical homosexuals in the media have pushed this issue to the forefront and it has been latched on to by the "Liberal bubble dwellers", but homo sexuals are in reality no more deserving of preferential treatment than any other sexual minority.....or even smokers!!"" My how you do wriggle, Ake. Nobody here except you is talking about preferential treatment. What is being sought is EQUAL treatment as laid down in both English and United States LAW. You can't even manage to discuss the issue without constant snide little put-downs. Constant mention of Homosexuals versus normal people, or ordinary people. Digs about "liberal bubble dwellers". With every sentence you write, you expose your prejudice and bias for all to see. NEWSFLASH! Most "normal" (whatever that is) people don't give a sweet Goddam about how others choose to live, as long as they are not expected to do the same. I suggest that you are further from normality than many of those you decry. Better to keep ones mouth shut, and be thought a fool, than open it, and prove it so. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:00 PM Let me see, now. . . . How many times has this one interview with Richard Owen, which contradicts a whole body of scientific evidence, been posted? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM I can't tell if these are just not getting on, or being deleted, so, here's another try. Everything below is quotes from studies, with their source posted. After that, click the link below, the judge for yourself...if even by the testimony of this one man.
The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a given and cannot be changed by doctors; and trying to do so is harmful to the patients and often leads to suicide attempts, and sadly some of the attempts are successful. LINK: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:27 PM The same-sex couples that I have mentioned in my posts are in stable relationships, whether they are legally recognized or not. Their chances of spreading diseases such as AIDS are minimal, unlike those who are not in stable relationships. If one is concerned about homosexual practices spreading disease, thereby affecting everyone's health insurance costs, then I would think that stable relationships should be encouraged. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM Smoking in public places (and for that matter, in the building in which I live) can affect the health of those in the vicinity of the smoker(s). The hazards of second-hand smoke are well established. Cigarette smoke from other people's apartments frequently drifts into ours through vents. What Paul and Philip (both non-smokers) do in their apartment does not affect us in any way. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:07 PM Also bogus. Not parallel at all. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:58 PM Health authorities in the Uk are threatening to withdraw health care from patients who are also smokers, if they don't quit!....Do you think we should remind them of their "human rights"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:51 PM Bollox Amos!! civil rights are not granted universally to every human. People do not have the right to do whatever they wish, regardless of other peoples rights. The smoking laws are an excellent example of this. latest on firemen dispute |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:36 PM It doesn't matter whether it is "curable", a "choice of lifestyle", a "genetic phenomenon", a "curse from God", or the will of ALlah. We are not talking about remediating homosexuality. We are talking about whether or not sexual orientation--no matter WHERE it comes from--should be sufficient grounds for bounding a set of civil rights. ANd the answer is no. Sexual orientation, no matter WHERE it comes from, should not be grounds for denying civil rights to a class of people, which is what Proposition 8 proposes. If it is simply trying to protect the ecumenical use of the word "marriage", then it has no business in law. A |
