 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM Here's a marriage of true minds -- who would to it admit impediment? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:21 AM With all due respect, 'semi-literate diatribe' was not entirely meant as an insult, just that if you looked up the actual definition,(posted), it was the most accurate, descriptive word to describe what I was talking about. Semi-literate, ...half learned, or half read Diatribe Di"a*tribe\ (?; 277), n. [L. diatriba a learned discussion, Gr. ?, prop., a wearing away of time, fr. ? to rub away, spend time; dia` through + ? to rub: cf. L. terere, F. trite: cf. F. diatribe.] A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic. Perhaps, you misread my tone, as I was not in the last heated exchange that was going on....nor have I been 'sarcastic' on this issue....(well, not as sarcastic as I've been on occasions) GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM Wow!..You pulled, what I thought was a most, powerful post to bring a resolve to the whole debate, and bring people together.....that's really interesting.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jan 09 - 02:23 AM A change of pace! http://www.flixxy.com/validation-short-film.htm?a=0
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:08 AM Yes I know Amos...but we're not really talking to each other any more...just posturing. Thanks for the discussion as ever....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 09 - 07:05 PM It seems to me that "believing in rights for all" is a bit contradictory when you support a system wherein same-sex couples cannot have the same civil status as opposite sex couples under the law. That strikes me as very hypocritical. But you knew that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Jan 09 - 05:09 PM What minority would it be this month, white males in America? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM And as far as "minority of the month" is concerned, I can guarantee you that this isn't going to go away, Pope Benedict notwithstanding, so you'd better get used to it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:43 PM Sorry Amos,,,I think I was a bit annoyed after reading Dons Post full of idiotic assumptions.....Peace! Congratulations BTW.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:40 PM I understand a helluva lot more than you seem to think I do, Ake. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM Motives? It's a perfectly ordinary question. I am happily married, thirty years next April. I was just curious. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM Amos...What the fuck's wrong with you? I've freely given personal information on other threads when it came up in discussion,but I don't like the tone of your request. I dont ask personal questions of you, or make assumptions like Don. If you volunteer personal information fine, but I will never request you to make your status public. If I misunderstand your motives, I apologise, but reserve the right to give personal information when "I" wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month" It really would do you some good to re-read and try to understand the words of Benedict Ratzinger. "we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation" Especially "the future against the exclusive claims of the present" Get it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM Ake: Are you, yourself, married? Or have you been in the past? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM Credibility with whom, Ake? I have been reading the posts, and I understand the issue thoroughly, much better that most people posting here, because I am acquainted with some of the people involved in the issue, both pro and con. And the vociferous responses of those who object to my asking "Why do you care?" merely proves that I've hit the real source of the more strident objections. I've been around a bit, Ake, seen a lot, and I know people pretty well. It's just sound psychology. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 06:23 PM "The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage" Don...Making statements like that, as if they were absolute and incontravertible truth, does nothing for your credibility on this issue! Who hasn't been reading the posts then? Tut...Tut! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:52 PM GfS and Ake, what you folks don't seem to get is that same-sex marriage is NOT an "attack on the family." Among other things, the relatively small percentage of same-sex marriages would have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. The only people it would affect are those who are outraged by the idea of homosexuality per se. And that's their hang-up. The marriages of Steve and David, Paul and Philip, Herb and Michael, Nancy and Virginia, Susan and Gwen, and Luanne and Tamara have do not affect in any way the marriages of Bob and Judy, Martin and Shannon, Melissa and James—or Barbara and me. In fact, the marriage of these same-sex couples means that they are in a much more stable relationship than they would be otherwise. They have a stated commitment, which is recognized by their friends, and in a couple of cases, their church. Two of the couples I mention (they are real people) have bought houses, are involved in community activities, and one of them was recently elected to the state legislature. They sound like solid citizens to me. The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage. And since that is the case, why do you care? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:12 PM Sometimes,you don't get basic common sense from a university course! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: MMario Date: 12 Jan 09 - 11:53 AM GfS - you don't have any background in biology or in anthropology, do you? Because " families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce" is not a correct statment according to either the anthro or biology courses I've taken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:10 AM Dear Don and Fumbles, The difference is, that families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce. Families, communities, towns, cities, states, and nations were built up by, and primarily for them. It would suffice to say, that those who would oppose that basic structure, would, could, and most likely should be seen as a threat to the very society, whose 'prosperity' has made allowances and room, for those whose self indulgences now wish to dictate to them, what, how to change those rules. Now, being as the family structure, is in the majority, not just here, but globally, so much, that 'unions' that wish to re-invent those mores, are frowned upon, or seen as 'freaks' and 'queers'. (Now, for all the fast draw, trigger happy, I am not using those terms, in a personal derogatory way, just describing how they are seen.) You may wish to notice, that during these economic harder times, the national divorce rate has gone down as well. Why is this?? ..Because people, when they know the chips are down, and things get more serious, that the 'lesser things', that one or the other, tend to bitch about, begin to not be so 'all important', next to surviving. In other words, its time to buckle down! In recent years, in this country, we have seen frontal attacks on the family, and the family unit..not to mention the ridiculous 'war of rights' waged between men and women, and now even their children. When a state or even a church, starts dictating to the parents, what they can and can't do, in raising their families, when corporations, for their own greed, begin changing the roles of men and women, even to the point of both parents working their asses off just to provide a roof, clothes and food, for their families...but end up ceasing to be a family, just to do it, then it becomes just a matter of time before their will be a backlash, that even threatens that society. You will see, as time goes on, that the harder things get, the LESS tolerance their will be for a lot of things, that are seen as threats to the basic structure, that people gave their lives to have. It almost is a matter of 'cause and effect'. When things that work pragmatically for generations become accepted, as opposed to what doesn't work, and they become the rule, as time goes on they are seen as 'morals'... When people of the majority, see what they deem, as a 'breakdown of the morality', which is the framework of 'safety' to raise their families, well, you are going to get resistance...and stiff resistance at that! Now, for the nuclear families, that are still out there, functioning as one dad, one mom, with their own original family, see where the country is at now, and where it is going, well, they will attribute that to the moral breakdown of the family structure. I hope that answers your question, as to the sociological, profile of what is going on..and why. Much the same, can you imagine, parents, as per aforementioned, raising their children to adopt a homosexual lifestyle??..I d-o-o-on't think so..do you??........and why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM I don't think that's written in stone anywhere. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: fumblefingers Date: 11 Jan 09 - 10:10 PM I agree with what Amos said about a possible genetic factor along with other factors being the cause. It's also been my experience that almost always, it is the youngest child that becomes or is a homosexual. Not always, but in most of the homosexuals I have known. I disagree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. They have the same right to marry as everyone else. They are demanding a change in the rules. But unless it is scientifically possible that the union can produce an offspring, then it cannot be marriage. I'm not going to split hairs and talk about geriatric marriages and other such factors that preclude making babies. The sexes must be opposite or it cannot be marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 09 - 08:28 PM So, GfS, explain to me if you please, what's the difference? Both same sex and mixed sex couples could "defraud" the system. Why would sleeping in the same bed or in different beds make any difference? How can you tell if it's a true marriage (having sex) or a marriage in name only (no sex), and what difference would the gender of the people involved in this "fraud" make? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:46 PM "...but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions),..." If you leave religion completely out of it, is it still marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:41 PM Don, your premise is not accurate as to my position, nor am I suggesting that homosexuals do not deserve the same 'rights' as heteros. On the contrary, they already have the rights that all have, but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions), and re-naming that arrangement, is not 'marriage'. Suppose two room mates, of the same sex, or not, find it 'financially advantageous' to claim marriage, and therefore want equal rights..wouldn't that be defrauding the company that the one who works for them, their rights of protection, from paying out benefits?? The room for abuse, by others, looking for a free hand out, would drive up medical premiums, to those honestly receiving it, even more astronomical than they already are.,,and so far, that argument was the best presented on here so far. To avoid that dilemma, all insurance companies would have to do, is to place prerequisites, and physicals on those couples,..and even provide funded counseling, to get them off their pay out lists!...or cancel them outright. Another plan should be offered, as to include 'households'....but that to would be a tangled up mess too. No, stick to the traditional marriage and family units, and perhaps a different accommodation for other situations. Still, the motivational force difference, between hetero family units, and homosexual couples are different, in priorities, purpose and function. They really are not the same thing, at all. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM By the way, these two fellows are both attorneys, and they're loaded. The boys are going to highly rated private schools (in the UK, I believe that would be "public schools"). So, as I said, their futures are much brighter than if they had been left in China. Incidentally, one of the boys is now an acolyte in the church in which his adoptive parents were married. Lutheran church, woman pastor. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:14 PM Fair point. But that still leaves the matter of whether homosexuality is either a physical disability or a mental condition, OR part of inherent brain structure which may have a genetic factor. I know an extended family in which one of several brothers was gay. He never married. But one of his cousins and two of his nephews (not siblings) were also gay. And, no, they didn't really have that much contact with each other. The nephews grew up in a different part of the country from their uncle. That's a statistical anomaly, which tends to indicate a genetic factor within that family. As to the adoption of children, I know one gay couple (two men), who, incidentally were married in a nearby mainstream church, which, of course, recognizes their marriage whether the state does or not, who have adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Got them as infants. As they grow up, they get plenty of feminine attention from the sister of one of the men, plus a number of women friends. So growing up with females around is no problem. And no, the two guys are not molesting the kids! [Knee-jerk response of most homophobes] They (the two men) are fully aware that brain scientists maintain that sexual orientation is inborn and that the boys will be what they will be. They're still pretty young yet, but the oldest one is showing signs of being "all boy," and he's quite interested in girls. The lads are also fully aware that their family situation is regarded by some as "unusual," but they take it in stride. These two are normal, healthy kids, and believe me, they are certainly better off here, with two fathers (one they call "daddy" and the other "papa") than they would be if left in a Chinese orphanage. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM All depend what "rights" your talkin about Don. I certainly wouldn,t be in favour of allowing two herion addicts or people with serious mental health problems to foster young children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:43 PM Okay, Ake and GfS, here's a different take on this: Since you seem to be maintaining that homosexuality is a form of physical or psychological disability, do you favor withholding civil rights from people who are, say, victims of post-polio syndrome, or cerebral palsy, or have Asperger's syndrome, or are manic-depressive, or who are subject to anxiety attacks? According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), someone with a disability (including psychological problems) has the same civil rights as any other citizen. In certain ways, we're a lot more civilized than we used to be. But we have a way to go yet. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM I'm certainly not neurotic about THAT Ebbie :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:02 PM Your neurosis is visible, Ake? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM I could send you a photo Ebbie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:44 PM Another sheesh. For a certified (?) counselor, GtS, you seem pretty dense and uninformed. Check out the prevalence of neuroses and health. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:42 PM Well, I'm quite sure you haven't...........(wink) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM Pretty good, because I've never met anyone without neuroses. Thanks for asking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:23 PM How's your finances? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM sheesh I wouldn't give a dime for somebody with no neuroses that they have recognized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM Not so fast, Ebbie,....if you perceive Ake is neurotic,...and you have a running dialogue, such that you have, and the nature that it is...perhaps the need for a neurosis feeding need in you, may be your clue, that you in fact have the symptoms, projected......in 'everyone else'......consider another's feelings, and their reality, before you accuse them of your motives!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM believe it or not Ebbie, you couldn't meet a less neurotic guy than me in real life....I walk around spreading sunshine and happiness wherever I go..:0) I try to go out of my way to spend time and have a crack with everybody, especially the old folks! I love hearing their stories, and a smile or a joke makes all the difference to them. My job as a builder takes me into their homes and some of them haven't seen a friendly face for weeks at a time. I feel a happy person and a contented one, in that I think I understand what life is about. I know the world is imperfect but the secret of personal happiness is to understand what the imperfections really are. On Mudcat, I just like to debate....to show all the different ways of looking at things...opening minds....bet you think that's a laugh! but most minds are fitted with ten lever locks!! and they only allow to enter whatever fits their political views. Go on Ebbie crack a smile...you know it's the best medecine...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM I'm speechless - almost. Ake, you mean to tell me that you are not neurotic?? I would never have guessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 10 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM Well said GfS! I think you've pretty well nailed it with that post. I've worked for a few homosexual couples who have moved into our area and they all seem to suffer from a neurosis of some sort. I feel very sorry for them, no matter how our "liberal" friends here try to spin my thoughts. I don't think the "liberal" agenda of "normalisation" of Homosexuality, is actually in the interests of homosexuals if their happiness and well being is what we are talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up." Two thoughts: 1) Feeling deep sadness - in anyone's life - is nothing unusual. You can probably scratch the skin of anyone = even you - and find that there are elements of frustration and a sense of "Is this all there is?" and "Why haven't I accomplished more?" 2) Is it surprising that living a life that so many others - even you - denigrate and don't accept should create sadness? Incidentally, I don't think it is necessary to cite 'genius' in some gay people; simple acceptance will do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM EXPLOIT? Of all the consarned bass-ackwards inverted head-in-lower digestive tract propositions I have heard, that about takes the cake. It is simultaneously profoundly stupid AND insulting, a neat trick. The fact that you have some emotional insight into some gay's inner sadness is a nice testament to genuine communication, GFS, but it has no fuindamental bearing on the issue as a legal, consitutional, civil rights question--which it is. Nor does it provide any universal insight into homosexuality, because it is an uncontrolled observation on a very small population. Surely you can see that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Jan 09 - 09:54 AM "I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?" Yes! Absolutely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM Ebbie, I think I said pretty much the same thing, in an earlier post, when I said, " Yes, I know some homosexuals, who are very gifted and creative people, who in my opinion, border on genius, some who have taught, and worked with me, in both music, sound, and laser engineering, but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up." Now, for all of those who mistakenly call me a 'bigot, or homophobic' try reading that with some comprehension, instead of, rose colored preconception. IF, in the course, of discussions, with a homosexual, which I've had quite of few, they honestly admit that the reason they felt more compelled to be attracted to the same sex, was because of certain events, and feelings that they have experienced, in their youth, coupled with alienation, towards a parent(or lack of one), and because of that attraction to the same sex, they become homosexual, and now feel they are compelled to remain that way, even if it means that their sadness, includes, the fact, that they may never be able to have their own biological children, and they are offered a way out, they tend to paint a complete different picture of being homosexual, than most of you even begin to understand.....and it's not a happy, political one!!! Nor, does it champion, a 'civil right' issue...which 'calling' it marriage, satisfy the deeper inner needs, that most of you are not even addressing!...nor care about, as fellow human beings! To you, you just exploit them to bolster a political stance, which you assume incorporates this issue...when in reality, never even approaches it!!! Now before you get ultra trigger happy, with your name calling, and pigeon holing, consider, if you are able, that position. Consider another person's emptiness, in certain areas. It might be a life changing experience, for you!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:13 AM Ye gods. There is more scraping and scratching and digging going on - "...since it appears that didn't work, let me try this..." S/He/It has gone the gamut from disgust and fear and exhortation to patronizing pleas. Heckfahr, as an elderly friend of mine used to say. For your edification, Gohsofarfromsanity, I don't feel sorry for my gay friends. good lord. They happen to be happy, productive, talented people. Among them is a singer/guitarist who also is a boat pilot who holds the rank of Captain and in her spare time makes furniture; another is her singer/guitarist/mandolinist partner who teches nature sketching in the field and composes fiddle tunes in her spare time; another is a manager of an upscale hotel who is an excellent boss with great people skills. There are others. Why should I feel sorry for any of them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:24 PM " They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge! " I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:14 PM "...knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass,..." They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:06 PM RIght, GfS. Exactly right. In this case. Go back and check that Federalist 10 discussion up thread. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:58 PM The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters....knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass, and now the losing side is whining! Rather arrogant, don't you think that you think ALL the voters in California don't know what they are doing?????? ...I know, "It's not me, it's the rest of the world is crazy," right? |
