BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM

GfS, your arguments asserting that what established scientists say is wrong reminds me of the rhetoric of The Discovery Institute, whose purpose is to push "Intelligent Design." They claim to be scientific, yet they attack established science, while at the same time cherry-picking certain scientific findings they feel they can pass off as supporting their views. This is not unlike those who cherry-pick the verses from the Bible that they feel support their views while ignoring the many that do not.

They claim that accepted scientific theories about the origins of the universe and matters of evolution are wrong, and posit "Intelligent Design" as a "scientifically proven fact" as opposed to "merely a theory," thus amply demonstrating that they don't understand the way scientists use the word "theory."

"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than Creationism disguised in a lab coat.

I have read the same arguments you are presenting about homosexuality being a matter of choice rather than biological predisposition and I have heard the same arguments before. And they are bogus.

This is a civil rights issue. And you are trying to make it sound like some vast, evil conspiracy that will destroy civilization as we know it. I've heard that before, too.

Claptrap!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 03:23 PM

"GfS rants on, in the face of overwhelming medical and psychological to the contrary, about homosexuality being a lifestyle option, and "curable"."

...Absolutely, just the reverse is true. Amos posted a list of studies, that emphatically state homosexuals are that way, and it can't be reversed. I showed conclusively, that those studies are wrong, but that post got deleted. Perhaps, (with some editing) I can re-post it. If I can, and it debunks the politically financed studies, would you allow yourself to re-think your position?..or hold on to the 'party line'...which is not supported by the heads of the party??? I suppose anyone can believe what they choose, whether it's based on solid fact, or not...but what a person believes, may be a 'relative' truth to them, but not a reality, as to the cause and effect, of what really is. I have counseled, homosexuals before, and they unanimously, have agreed with me. Some of the homosexual rhetoric, depends on how long, that person has been homosexual..however, 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. This is not a 'civil rights' issue, any more than smoking, as was pointed out. To make it, and hold on to it as a civil rights issue, does indeed re-direct the issue, and withholds, treatment, from those, who wish to have a nuclear family, but feel powerless, within themselves, or from the community to give them aid.....especially in the critical time, when they face this alone.

By the way Ebbie, I know you are instrumental on having some input on some musical events, up there in Juneau. Do you schedule them when its snowing, then sneer and laugh at all the people stuck out there in the weather??? I find your attitude counter productive to getting these people help, when they want it..which of course, affects the rest of their lives....or at least a good portion of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM

Ake and GfS, why do you care? Why are you investing so much emotion (not to mention verbiage) in this matter? What is it to you?

How does it affect you in any way?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM

Since women outnumber men in the world, ake, I object to laws protecting the minority. You know how in your face they get. Men are pushy, to say the least. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:30 AM

Ake:

This is poppycock.

You are ignoring the distinction between his personal likes and dislik,es and HIS policies--not some webmaster's.

As to what is "the norm", I have no opinion on it. Nor has anyone suggested preferential treatment--that is a cockeyed twist to what has been said. What Obama's office supports, as I have posted upthread, and what I support, is equal status under the law. How can that be preferential? Are you crosseyed?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:21 AM

Amos...don't be a weasel...:0)
Mr Obama is on record on several occasions stating that hye is personally opposed to homosexal "marriage" as opposed to civil union.
How whitehouse.gov spin m
Mr Obama's words is entirely up to them.

I can't speak for GfS, but I take his/her meaning to be, that turning homosexuality into a political cause and opening up the debate, turns the spotlight on something that non-politicised homosexuals would rather keep private.
It may seem to you that homosexuality is now the norm, but you people live in a bubble. Ordinary people all over the world, are uneasy about the complete normalisation of the homosexual lifestyle and its effect on society......and make no mistake that is what this issue is really about..... not civil rights.

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!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 10:24 AM

Mister Obama's POLICIES, akneton, are as described in my post above.

This is all arm-waving flapdoodle. Nobody cares whether you like an idea or don't like an idea. It is the policy of the commons, the civil domain, that is in question.

GtS' last post is as incoherent as anything I have seen here. Is she saying that defending the civil rights of gays to equal treatment under the law somehow does them a disservice?

Welcome to Wonderland.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 09:02 AM

Don..... Mr obama and Pope Benedict are both on record as saying they are against homosexual marriage, unlike GfS and I, these two individuals are in a position to affect the "rights" as you see them, of homosexuals.
Does this make The Pope and the President of the United States "bigots" and we,(gfs and I)merely people of differing opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:29 AM

No Joe,

It isn't what you believe that makes a bigot. It's what you do with that belief.

If you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is right or wrong, and you choose to discriminate, or incite others to discriminate against a group, simply because YOU disapprove of some aspect of their behaviour, THEN you become a bigot.

A man who believes that your lifestyle is wrong, but accepts that you have a different opinion, and adopts a "live and let live" attitude, cannot be described as bigotted.

GfS rants on, in the face of overwhelming medical and psychological to the contrary, about homosexuality being a lifestyle option, and "curable". I find his views abhorrent. Ake is somewhat more balanced, and I merely disagree with his position.

NEVERTHELESS, both are entitled to hold those views, and I am entitled to find them distasteful, without THAT simple fact making any of us bigots. Acting on the basis of those views, to disadvantage a person or group does make a bigot (IN MY OPINION, of course).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 03:02 AM

GfS makes a valid point Ebbie, sneering will not erase that.
Highlighting the homosexual lifestyle as a political cause may not be in the long term interests of homosexuals, I suppose most would be quite happy to keep a low profile; in fact I have read reports in which homosexuals reject the excesses of the radicals and the politically motivated "liberals"

Continual promotion of homosexuality as normal healthy behaviour when the statistics say something completely different, could be construed as a form of abuse....what about the large number of homosexuals who just want a quiet life??

The subject is certainly worth discussion, and should not be dismissed in typical "liberal" fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 02:53 AM

OK, so there are those here who contend that anyone who opposes gay marriage is bigoted. Is that necessarily true? Why, or why not?

I guess I'm ambivalent about gay marriage. I'm not comfortable about the idea, and I feel much more comfortable saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. On the other hand, I don't think government or the majority of voters have a right to interfere with same-sex couple who want to get married. So, I guess I'm opposed to gay marriage, and I'm opposed to the prohibition of gay marriage.

Does that make me a bigot? A bigot against whom?

Could it be that if I believe that the union of two people of the same sex is not really a marriage, you could just let me believe what I believe? If I don't believe what you believe, does that mean I'm bigoted?

-Joe, confused-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 02:20 AM

hahhahahah It is too, too funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 01:30 AM

Sorry, if some of you did not comprehend, or read accurately, or whatever you did not to pick up on it, but I've repeatedly used the words, 'understanding' 'compassion' and words about that place, from where I'm coming from. Is it, that what you 'think' is from a liberal slant, that compassion and understanding, are an abstract concept, or not even part of that political view? But then, why should it be part of a political view??...do we expect politics, or the political mind to be compassionate, or understanding?...Sounds more like religious attributes to me. Nonetheless, it is YOUR political stance that is in itself, denying homosexuals from getting the medical/psychological assistance that they need!! How so??....Because you bought into the corrupt insurance INDUSTRY'S lobbyist's rap, that 'Well, after all, its not treatable, its that way from birth, its now a 'civil rights' issue...let's wash our hands of it...it might cost us something!!' You attack others for being 'homophobic and bigots' and shout and point to how homosexual's rights are being denied......IT IS YOU, and what you have interpreted as a 'given liberal cause' that is discriminatory. I can't see any post on here that gives a rat's ass about the well being, of homosexuals, any further, than what complaints bolster your pet argument for the day! ..and because of it, you've allowed yourselves to be insensitive, non-compassionate, closed off and blocked....Shame on you!!! You are an embarrassment to the other 'liberal' causes, that are justified....but this one, because of the indoctrination that you so eagerly consume, perhaps for 'other' reasons, you've turned your backs on actual documented truth, and have become fanatical, hostile 'party members', of God only knows what! Please, wake up, before that disease spreads to other parts of you!!!
GfS

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

"He is also said to have remarked once, "I am one of the stately homos of England."

I've always liked Quentin Crisp.

That quote reminds me of what Buddy Tabor in Juneau, Alaska sometimes says: I'm one of the living songwriters of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 10:13 PM

In a television interview some years ago with the late Quentin Crisp, England's most flamboyant gay, the interviewer mentioned the way Crisp was dressed—slacks suit, as I recall, open collar with a neck scarf, and his hair was quite long, carefully coiffed, and tinted a bit bluish—one would have to look twice to tell if he were a man or a woman. The interviewer inquired if anyone ever asked him what his gender was. He said that it happened fairly frequently.

"I usually respond by saying, 'Does it matter? What do you have in mind?'"

Don Firth

P. S. He is also said to have remarked once, "I am one of the stately homos of England."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:16 PM

""What I will not tolerate is homosexuality promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle, or the definition of marriage altered to accomadate homosexuality.
Mr Obama and I may not agree on foreign policy or economics, but I'm pleased to say we do agree on that....Ake""

Judging by the following post, Ake, nobody thought to tell Barack Obama he agreed with you on this.

Tough innit?
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 10:36 PM

WTF Ake?

"...homosexuality is tolerated by me... and I am quite sure by GfS. What I will not tolerate is homosexuality promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle..."

So you tolerate it and denigrate it in the same breath?

Talking out of both sides of your ass I'd day.

I've been reading plenty and keeping my mouth shut. Not any more bucko.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM

Ain't been whipped yet, Ake. It's just that sometimes I reach my level of disgust and I have to go breathe some clean air. But getting disgusted frequently is one of the hazards one encounters when one is concerned with matters of civil rights and one keeps encountering blatant bigotry.

I think you are quite probably going to have to learn to tolerate what you said you wouldn't tolerate in the fairly near future.

Some time back I knew people who said they would never tolerate having their kids go to school with blacks. Now look where they are!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM

Well, I agree with most of it, Amos, but the concept of a "hate crime" never made any sense to me. If I murder Alice because I was robbing Herb and she happened to see my face, that's just fine and dandy for the "hate crime" people. But if I'm white and I murder Alice because she saw me robbing Herb, ane either Herb and/or Alice happen to be black, that makes it a "hate crime" and I have to do more time, or die.

             We need to get over this shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

The policy statements from the new Whitehouse.Gov website on the subject are, inter alia:

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:

In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination

: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples

: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell

: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights

: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

---

This is as close as the LGBT community needs to get right now, and I would be happy to see these goals obtained. I am not going to quibble about the slightly neurotic "separate but equal" aspect that has been mad necessary by the religious right. There are much more important issues afoot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM

I'm sorry Don T, but I said right up near the top that homosexuality is tolerated in this society, and as homosexuality is a fact of life in this society it is tolerated by me... and I am quite sure by GfS.

What I will not tolerate is homosexuality promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle, or the definition of marriage altered to accomadate homosexuality.
Mr Obama and I may not agree on foreign policy or economics, but I'm pleased to say we do agree on that....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:01 PM

Not the last two standing, Ake, just the last two who still have hopes of seeing you and GfS exhibit some modicum of human tolerance.

The rest of us have accepted that bigots can't be converted.

Bye bye
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM

Obviously, Ake, we have different impressions of Mister Obama's position.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:10 PM

Obviously you haven't been reading the thread Tia, we've had that shit three or four times already!
Why don't you put your ideas to Mr Obama?

Don, you regularly leave the discussion, your trademark "I'm outa here", but you always sneak back like a whipped pup for another bite.

Right Amos, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr Obama is against the legalisation of homosexual marriage, now by your criteria that means that Mr Obama is in favour of depriving homosexuals of their "civil rights"......Just how does that differ from how you view the opinions of Sanity and myself?

I would suggest that it is yourself and Don (the last two standing) :0)....who are "cornered, jaded and spiteful".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 06:06 PM

Why does it matter so much to some?
Perhaps the answer is here:

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

I happen to be related to a fire-breathing anti-homo preacher, who was....you guessed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM

BEcause you are promoting your personal biases as grounds for public action, and asserting that discrimination should be institutionalized as policy. That is both of your fatal flaw. IOt is the earmark of the frozen heart and the walled in mind not to be able to understand the difference between private taste and the promulgation of tolerance and equality across the commons. That you do not understand this is why you are both cornered, jaded and spiteful on this issue, no matter what other virtues you claim.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM

Jaysus! The sewage being spouted by a couple of people here is reaching the top of my hip-waders! I'm getting out of here!

Don't understand? I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is why do you guys CARE!??? What difference does it make to YOU???

You still haven't answered that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM

But if I am a "bigot" and Sanity is a "bigot" why is Mr Obama not a "bigot"?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM

Jaysus, what a lot of armwaving.

First of all, no-one considers Obama "God:.

Second of all it is not precisely accurate that he "opposes" marriage rights for same-sex couples. He does not agree with it personally but he's a wise enough man to understand that rights have to be uniform.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:28 AM

I thought the buggers had banned you Sanity!!
Good to see you back. Yes I have wondered about the double standards too......We are the scum of the earth and Mr Obama is a hero, yet we hold the same opinions on this issue.....or maybe it's just politics and Mr Obama doesn't really mean what he says?

If that is the case then all our "Liberal" tormentors are in for a nasty shock....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:14 AM

Well, first of all, the posts with the references to animals, getting along, with each other, is one of the most ridiculous arguments justifying why it's 'normal' to be homosexual, that has been used, and really quite a stretch! Perhaps, the folks at PETA, might be impressed.. or it 'suggests' why people, of different..ummm..'species' can get along, but it has little or nothing to do with the price of eggs.
As so far as the person, who being an oceanographer, artist, etc, etc.., again, you are showing us, or at least me, that once again, you completely fail to see, or comprehend, what it is that being homosexual is about. I think these illustrations are so far removed, from what it is, that they are used, by 'supporters' of the 'political' stance, because they lack the compassion and understanding to grasp the internal makings, of being a homosexual.
....and, as long as the subject has been broached,just for what its worth, our 'Celebrity d'jour, elect', also opposes same sex
'marriage'. It's a little surprising to me, that those who consider him 'God', would be arguing the opposite way, against him(?).
Turning this into a political issue, is nothing more than insurance lobbyists, pressuring the psychiatric, and 'medical' community, to come up with studies, and findings to avoid paying out for therapy, and or, just turning their backs, on an expensive correction,...to yet another backlash, that has gained political steam, from other politicized issues gone wrong! (I'd site which ones, but that would open up another can of worms, and being as the simple is so much of a 'controversial' subject on here), why start up on untangling another 'widely accepted misconception'?....especially, when the evidence of the truth, presented on here, overwhelmingly blows away, why the majority, who is opposed to same sex 'marriage', doesn't have the right to vote that way...or why the courts(ninth judicial) can legislate from the bench, against the majority....and base their findings on bogus 'research'! Like it or not, or which ever way it's spun, that's the way it is!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM

Not really. They all had good jobs, security and all that, so they didn't really need Steven's inheritance. Much of it consisted of Steven's writings and art works. He was an oceanographer, maritime historian, and artist. They would have just sold them for what they could get. Penny knew what they were worth in more than just money, and she had the knowledge and skill to make sure that Steven got proper credit for his rather monumental life's work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Kind of a bad deal for the kids, I'd say!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM

I am acquainted with a couple—formerly a couple (relax, Ake, the couple consisted of one man and one woman), but no longer, since the man passed away recently. They had been good friends for years. Let's call them Penny and Steven. Penny was in her late sixties, Steven was well into his eighties.

He had some descendants who were of the "they'll be glad when their old pa dies" school. They had never got along, largely because the kids (all grown up and old enough to know better) were constantly getting into financial difficulty and relying on Steven to bail them out. They were waiting for the substantial wad in money and property they knew their "old pa" had and which they assumed they would receive in due time.

But he hadn't made out a will yet, because he didn't feel the kids either need it or deserved it. So—keeping in mind that Washington is a community property state (unless otherwise arranged, on the death of one spouse, the other spouse inherits automatically), he asked Penny to marry him and she accepted. The main reason, they mentioned quietly, was that they enjoyed each other's company, and that was that. True, but also, Steven wanted to leave his worldly goods to Penny.

Much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth among his descendants. But when Steven passed away recently, Penny was left, not rich, but well provided for for the rest of her life.

Did they have sex? I haven't a clue. Since she was well past menopause, there would certainly not have been offspring, nor did they want any. But that was completely incidental. They lived together for some years before he died, and assuming that they did have sex, there are those who would consider a woman in her seventies and a man approaching ninety having sex as "weird," if not downright disgusting.

I, personally, think it's kinda cute!

Now—under similar circumstances, why should couples Paul and Steven, or Penny and Stephanie, be denied the right to make similar arrangements?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

It is not obligatory, and is not a prerequisite for civil marriage; we've done this loop before.

I think the elephant and the dog should be allowed by the state to marry, if they can sign for the license. It would be a shame to make them go all the way to Massachusetts.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

Que?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM

There ya go, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM

Well Ebbie's response was very funny, but there is a serious side...please dont equate friendship or even love with a sexual relationship.
It is possible to have both but not obligatory

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM

Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

GfS:

Unfortunately, it is you, yourself, who are missing the scene in this thread. The first example I posted (17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM ) concerned a deep and lasting friendship between a retired elephant and an injured dog.

Apologize at once. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

Ah, Rig, they do. The fact that most mules cannot procreate doesn't affect their right to food, shelter, training and tlc.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM

Mules should have all the rights and opportunities that horses and jack asses have.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM

Trans species???? So are you saying, from that model, that homosexuals are another species???...and if so, is it still a 'so called' 'civil rights' issue??? Your nonsensical arguments and 'examples' are running out of steam....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 10:40 AM

Nothing like an honest example to make the case. I was particularly impressed by the trans-species affair, weren't you?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:57 AM

For fuck's sake Amos, are you reduced to citing individual cases(with pictures) now?    It'll be pink lace and fluffy rabbits next!

If you cant post decent debate, just hoist the white flag.
And I agree with Rig BTW.....weird is the word, and if 99% of the men on this forum were being honest, they would agree also.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM

Rig, think of it as a love story. That is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM

I don't see any reason to suppress the story, but I'll have to tell you, it seemed really, really weird to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:43 AM

Thanks for the story, Amos. It kept striking me how very typical a love story it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:09 AM

Here's the kind of love story that should be suppressed, according to the keepers of the Prop 8 mindset.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:34 AM

""Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month""


Not quite all, it would seem, and that reference to the minority of the month is very telling, if only because it exposes in you a propensity to deny the rights of ANY minority which is rocking YOUR boat by claiming, and campaigning for, equality.

Not, in fact, the Akenaton that you would have us believe we are debating with.

Don T.