 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:44 AM Well Ebbie you may or may not be correct in suggesting that homosexuals spread Aids by their promiscuity and sexual practices, but personally, I would rather wait on the results of a proper medical study before making such a suggestion. I agree that the figures do point in that direction but the issue requires a scientific examination before anything regarding homosexuality and Aids can be proved or disproved. You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "homophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells. It would be a tragedy to see someone with so many decades of "life experience", reduced like myself and Little Hawk, to the stature of a "non person" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM Oh I see! the "we are right you are wrong" default position, haven't you used that before somewhere? The head of that pin must be getting very crowded....what with all the dancin' that's going on.....wriggle, wriggle. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM ". . . you weasels . . . are unfit to lick [Little Hawk's] boots. . . ." No, I don't think Ake cares to debate anything in good faith. Too many times he resorts to that sort of thing. My natural reaction is to respond with some truly acid remark, but I will not lower myself to his level. As to Little Hawk, I regard him as intelligent and knowledgeable. However—he seems to have a streak of shallow frivolity larded over with what he probably regards as being some kind of "peacemaker." "Now, children, let's not raise our voices. . . ." He lectures us from the viewpoint of his dabbling in Eastern philosophy, and this is old stuff to me. Back in the 1960s, there were hordes of self-appointed Zen Buddhists and Taoists, and God only knows what all, wandering the streets, especially around the University District. I've talked with dozens of them (which is to say, I have been talked at), and all too often Little Hawk sounds just like them. The problem is that their dipping into Eastern philosophy is on the dilettante level and they never really gain any kind of deep understanding of what it's all about. They get off on the ideas being exotic and different, and they never seem to get beyond the feeling that they now know something beyond what everyone else knows. And behind the mild and pacific exterior often resides a monumental ego! I knew a lot of foreign exchange students when I was at the University of Washington, including many from India and Southeast Asia in general. Deb Das was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, and he and I spent many long hours in fascinating conversation. And I also went many times with a friend to the Vedanta Center on Seattle's Capitol Hill and listened to lectures (I wouldn't call them sermons) by a genuine Hindu swami. Comparing what I learned from Deb and what I heard at the Vedanta Center with some of these self-appointed gurus who have read a book or two and gone all "spiritual," I find the self-appointed gurus to be shallow in the extreme and often a royal pain in the ass to their friends and acquaintances. It's always their air of detachment and superiority. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:34 PM Even if they are married! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM "Extreme promiscuity, and the practice of anal sex appears to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle in general terms, if this behaviour does cause Aids(as you suggest)..." Just for the record, ake, no one is saying that "...this behaviour does cause Aids ". Not cause, ake, but facilitate the transmission perhaps due to torn tissue. And again, just for the record, you and a host of thousands can parade past a host of AIDS sufferers and not a single one of you will pick up a single AIDS germ. So relax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM Amos, we've been over this ground about a dozen times now. Akenaton doesn't have an answer for this. He either won't respond, or will say something about the figures speaking for themselves and nothing further needing to be said. Then he will, in two or three days, make the same claim that you so elegantly and effectively refuted just now. During those two or three days, he will make one of his other off-base comments, and they will get refuted, and he won't answer, and then we're back at the beginning again. This is what causes the debate to go in circles and why a while ago I declared -- facetiously, of course -- Akenaton to have lost the debate. Why do we keep going? Perhaps because Akenaton comes across as an intelligent person who believes he's doing the right thing, and we just can't believe he can't see the error of his ways. Maybe we just like debating issues, and this is a favorite. Maybe we can't stand not confronting injustice. Maybe just to see how deep Little Hawk will actually dig his hole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM Ake: The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful. Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously. There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy. No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, a challenge you to do so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM See what I mean LH? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:51 PM You all insist on taking everything I say about society personally, eh? I have not named any of you as being a fascist, a hypocrite, a bigot, or anything else like that. It would be wrong to, because you are all complex people, and you can't be summed up by one derogatory word. I'm talking about the behaviour of human beings in general. I'm discussing philosophical things about human nature. OK. But you still haven't said why you say things in response to other people that you don't mean to apply to the conversation, and don't mean about those people. I ask again: why are you answering people with generalizations that you don't think apply to them? If I may say so, that's a really stupid thing to do. If nothing else, it makes people think you are talking to them while you're talking to them. John, I don't have to agree 100% with either side of this argument. It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument. No one says that you have to agree with anything. I do think you should either support the things you say or shut up. You guys seem to resent that. I have to assume you do think in "all or nothing" terms, and your rhetoric certainly suggests so. This is where you are on shaky ground. Our rhetoric has been directed toward encouraging Akenaton to support his statements with both facts and logic. Really, I think you all protest overmuch. I think you're getting carried away with your own need to completely win something here...not a prize...not a medal...not anything that will last...just a longwinded argument here on an obscure internet forum that doesn't matter and that won't change anything for gays in California. You won't quit until you think you've "won" or until anyone who says differently from you stops posting and goes away. Really shaky ground here. Saying this just shows that you don't know squat about me or my motives. I don't feel any need to win anything. I do feel a need to confront injustice, since I believe that not doing so is going along with it in a way. Well, I don't care. (shrug) I see it in shades of grey, I see some reason on both sides, I see that you all have high ideals and are defending something you deem valuable, I mostly favor you guys on the legal arguments, and I respect the fact that you all are sincere in what you say. Thank you. That's a much nicer thing than just about anything else you've said on this thread. And if that ain't good enough....too bad. ;-) I have no emotional need to prove anything to any of you and it would be a waste of my time trying to. I come here because I like to talk. Period. And so do you. But you can't talk and remain friendly, it seems, unless you get your own way on everything. That's unfortunate. Back on shaky ground again. Trying to draw conclusions about my inner emotional state. Please stick to things it is possible for you to know about. Here's the deal, Little Hawk: I'm tired of being taken to task by you, especially since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about most of the time, and you really don't know what's going on in my head. Every time you come up with one of your rude "generalizations" about what's going on in this discussion, I'll demand that you support what you're saying in more than general terms. I've asked three times now why you think that we've not been trying to understand what Akenaton has been saying. You've said that several times, and haven't offered any evidence for the statement. Since you repeatedly haven't answered, I am left to assume that you can't support that sentiment. So is that one off the table now? Can we trust you to not wait two or three days and then say it again, as has been your pattern here? Here's time two for the next question: Why do you say insulting things to people in the middle of a conversation, and then, when you are called on it, say that you are just making general comments? If you don't mean the statements to apply to the people you are talking to, why say them? Don't you understand that both sides of that are rudeness? Either you are insulting people, or you are putting up straw men and wasting everyone's time. You see, Little Hawk, your involvement in this thread has largely been what looks to me -- and apparently to Don and Amos as well -- being a sanctimonious prig who doesn't pay attention to what other people are saying, and who says outrageous things without bothering to support them in any way. Perhaps you should consider following your own advice and consider what you are saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM Amos...I have already given instances of other minorities who are discriminated against regarding civil rights, not just marriage rights, but fostering rights etc These minorities are deemed to be disqualified through their behaviour or their psychological condition. Do you think that everyone should have the same civil rights regardless of their behaviour or psychiatric history? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM The latest figures from the Cuban outbreak show between 78 and 85% of Aids sufferers are homosexual or bi-sexual. Amos and Don seem to think that the reason for the large number of homosexual Aids cases compared to heterosexual Aids cases can be explained by extreme promiscuity and dangerous practices by homosexuals, if this is indeed the case,should this behaviour not be taken into account when we decide whether or not to accept homosexual practice into mainstream society. Extreme promiscuity, and the practice of anal sex appears to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle in general terms, if this behaviour does cause Aids(as you suggest)....where does that leave your argument? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:14 PM ""I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy."" A very neat piece of work this. In two sentences you have managed to state that all the epithets used by Akenaton and GfS are perfectly acceptable, in spite of being demonstrably untrue when applied as a stereotypical description of a whole group, and at the same time all the descriptions applied to the demonstrably biased, one sided, attitudes and language displayed BY them, are unacceptable and amounting to bullying. As a self styled supporter of the underdog, you have ably proved that your support bears no relation to truth and honesty. I for one am happy that you support bigotry, because I would begin to doubt the honesty of my own position were I suddenly to find you agreeing with me. Tell me LH, WHO appointed you arbiter on the rights and wrongs of a situation you, by your own admission, don't give a damn about. My advice?........Tend your own potato patch, and leave us to tend ours. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM Ake: Fair enough; if you do not believe that homosexuality causes AIDS but are just curious about the statistical correlation in some areas (not world-wide) I can understand that. But it is no argument against equal civil rights. The exclusion based on sexual orientation should be limited to privileged clubs, like churches, where discrimination is not reviled. In matters of civil law it is anathema. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM "It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument." Not all that rare, Little Hawk. There are moral and ethical issues—such as this one, the denial of civil rights to a specific group of people—where that is the case. And you can't dodge them. You have to take a stand when you encounter them. Not to do so is moral cowardice (and you fall into the category that Dante spoke about in The Inferno). Don Firth P. S. And you keep chanting this mantra about "winning." That indicates to me that you simply don't understand the issue. You're the one who seems to be hung up on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM Amos....you're at it again you little devil! You know very well that I never said homosexuality brings about Aids, what I did say....for the thousandth time, is that the figures state that percentage wise homosexuals are many times more likely to be affected by Aids than heterosexuals. I don't know why this is so, but it patently is so! As I have said many times, I would like to see an extensive medical inquiry to determine why this is so. Now would you weasels leave Little Hawk alone, he has explained his position many times, he does not share my views on homosexual "marriage", he is simply a fair minded individual who hates to see bullying and mob rule, he is quite correct to say there is merit in my argument regarding the health statistics....no one could seriously refute my argument without refuting the CDC figures! Little Hawk is very well respected in this forum and you are unfit to lick his boots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM HELLO CLONE??? Could you remove those links please? The Café has been loading SLOW ever since they were posted. IF this has nothing to do with the fact the site is so slow... nevermind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM You all insist on taking everything I say about society personally, eh? I have not named any of you as being a fascist, a hypocrite, a bigot, or anything else like that. It would be wrong to, because you are all complex people, and you can't be summed up by one derogatory word. I'm talking about the behaviour of human beings in general. I'm discussing philosophical things about human nature. John, I don't have to agree 100% with either side of this argument. It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument. I don't think in "all or nothing" terms. You guys seem to resent that. I have to assume you do think in "all or nothing" terms, and your rhetoric certainly suggests so. Is it not good enough that I agree with most of your points? Why must I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING you or Don or Amos or Akenaton say on this thread? And what prize would I win if I did? Really, I think you all protest overmuch. I think you're getting carried away with your own need to completely win something here...not a prize...not a medal...not anything that will last...just a longwinded argument here on an obscure internet forum that doesn't matter and that won't change anything for gays in California. You won't quit until you think you've "won" or until anyone who says differently from you stops posting and goes away. Well, I don't care. (shrug) I see it in shades of grey, I see some reason on both sides, I see that you all have high ideals and are defending something you deem valuable, I mostly favor you guys on the legal arguments, and I respect the fact that you all are sincere in what you say. And if that ain't good enough....too bad. ;-) I have no emotional need to prove anything to any of you and it would be a waste of my time trying to. I come here because I like to talk. Period. And so do you. But you can't talk and remain friendly, it seems, unless you get your own way on everything. That's unfortunate. I will continue posting here until I get too bored to bother or until it's just not fun anymore. And so will you. Anyone want to hang in for 3000 posts? Man, I wish I was getting paid a penny letter for all this bla-bla....I'd be able to retire by now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM Amos: "Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread." Little Hawk: "I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument." Can you be more specific, Little Hawk? Exactly what merit? Exactly how would this miraculous infection work? Before you respond, remember that your answer, in order to make any sense, has to refute all the rebuttals to that idea that have been posted here. Or are you just talking out your ass again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM ". . . perched high on the pillar of their own smug self-righteousness and using it to personally attack other people. . . ." And you are doing exactly what, Little Hawk? I am not adding my voice much at this point because I just looked in this morning and found that both John and Amos have said very much what I would say. Ake is the master of the personal attack and the collective attack as well, dismissing both moral argument and established scientific data with epithets like "Orwellian liberalism" and accusing those who don't agree with him of trying to force their agenda on people like him--when it is he who wants to force his agenda on a whole category of people. And Ake also uses the term "hypocrisy." Yes, indeed, Little Hawk, there is a lot of hypocrisy going around. You and Ake need to look in a mirror. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM Oh, but you're not directing these observations to anyone on this thread, right? Or are you, as seems to be the case, accusing anyone who tells Akenaton that he's acting like a bigot of being a fascist? If you're not making that accusation, why are you bringing this issue into this thread? One more thing: how is dismissing peoples' opinions as being part of some "politically correct climate" not an attempt to marginalize and silence them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM Well, just between us mindless parrots from the Orwellian mind-controlling thought-police Liberal conspiracy, Little Hawk, you have agreed with my points, except one on which you cleverly disagreed and agreed simultaneously, a deft art of avoidance indeed. I think you will find the name-calling and mud-slinging on this thread has not been unidirectional, and Ake and the unlamented sister in panic, GfS, have between them waved their arms and spat out reviling characterizations more energetically than the rest of us. I have no objection to Ake defending his opinion, and supporting it with data if he can. I expect as much from him as a stout Scots lad. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM Hmm. Seems that we just reached 2100. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM "The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law?" I don't see why not. (?) "The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it. " I agree with that. "Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread." I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument. "Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual." I don't know if they're factual or not, but they are significant in a social sense. Customs are based on a society's consensus as to what people like to do and think is "normal and proper"...as such, customs are more a subjective than an objective manner. They don't rest upon measurable facts as much as they rest upon people's preferences...and their expectations. "AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights." I agree with you on that. "Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement?" I am not arguing in favor of any such infringement nor am I looking for such facts. "Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement." Absolutely. Look, I've said before on this thread that I do not object to ANY pair of consenting adults marrying one another. I don't necessarily object to the custom (in some societies) of one man having several wives...and I wouldn't object to one woman having several husbands if it were customary in that society...AND IF all the adults involved consented freely to the arrangement. I wouldn't object to a man or a woman marrying a dog IF it could be clearly established that the dog understood the arrangement and was in favor of it. (It can't though...so that negates that possibility, doesn't it?) I am in favor of free choice for people, Amos. I don't miss your point. I'm just talking about a different point that concerns me, that's all, and it has to do with the hazing of individuals who in some way don't conform to the majority opinions of people in some peer group. When those individuals start being labelled as "homophobes", "anti-semites", "racists", "sexists", and other highly charged words of that sort, I don't like to see that. I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy. The aforementioned terms however (racist/homophobe/sexist/anti-semite) are tantamount to an accusation of heresy in today's politically correct climate. They are terms commonly used now to brand and destroy people in a professional sense, and to silence them, and sometimes even to bring legal actions against them under what is called "hate" legislation. I regard that as fascism in action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM Little Hawk, if you aren't directing your comments to people on this thread, why are you making them? We could as easily say that calling Akenaton a bigot is making a general comment about people who oppose equal rights for all, not talking about Akenaton in particular. When you respond to things others have said by saying that you don't like it when people are parroting the prevailing party line, are slavishly conforming to trends, see others as heretics or monsters for the views they hold, and are being reactive, one gets the idea that you are addressing those comments to the people you're talking to. If that's not the case, then you are just blowing wind and wasting peoples' time. Please find something real to say to the real people you are actually in a conversation with. As it is, all you are doing is strongly implying that many of us don't really think for ourselves. This is very insulting. Let's try again to get into the specifics of what you've been saying, third time for this question: Let's start with the accusation that we're not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM THe point that you miss is that we are not trying to overwhelm one set of opinions with another. We are trying to clarify a policy based on the facts which are germane to it. The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law? The facts: The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it. So far no such facts have been presented. Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread. Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual. AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights. Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement? Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM John, why are you taking everything I say as a direct personal insult to you? I'm simply talking about why I defend underdogs and why I don't like slavish conformity to trends. I'm discussing general problems that can and do occur in ANY society, I'm not condemning you as an individual. I don't see that Akenation is harming anyone. He's expressing an opinion which diverges from yours in some way. That doesn't harm anyone. If we are to have a free society at all, then we must be able to allow a variety of opinions to be expressed freely without treating people like heretics or monsters just because they don't echo our own viewpoint...or the latest fashionable trend. But in saying that, I am clearly bucking the entire tide of history, because the majority of people everywhere have always looked down on people who don't support the latest fashionable trends. Well, I resist that tendency. My belief is that resistance is not futile...and I will defend those few who are ganged up on and bullied by an aggressive majority in any peer group. I'll defend them if they're gay. I'll defend them if they aren't. I'll defend them if they're on my side. I'll defend them if they're on the other side. See...I was in a minority of ONE when I was in school. I've seen how bullies and groups of people who follow trends operate. I will resist them. My issue here is not about matters of law as regards gay marriage. My issue is about how a group of people choose to treat a nonconforming member of the group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:00 PM I don't like gang bullying of people who are outside the norm of opinion in some way, but who are not harming anyone.>/i> Can you define "not harming anyone" in the context of someone repeatedly calling for denying civil rights to a group of people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM Little Hawk, That causes people to all repeat the same stuff like a bunch of parrots, because they're trying to fit into the going trend. Oh, good, now we're parrots as well. Let's just say that accusing people of posturing, of not listening, of willfully not understanding, of being ridiculous, of being reactive, and being terminally vain is a whole bunch of name calling. It's a type of name-calling that is intended to shut others up and to make it OK to marginalize their statements -- exactly what you've been bitching about. "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to what Don and John say, they're just being reactive, not really thinking at all." You are being condescending, dismissive, and rude. And accusing us of things we're not doing, like not listening to Akenaton and not trying to understand where he's coming from. Let's start with the accusation that I'm not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up. You follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM amendment to my last post. what i meant to ask was: was the animal rights example similar to what you are talking about on the liberal way of thinking, not the gay issue. take care all jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM Well, John, there is a strong tendency in any society to "impose thought control on everyone" through conformity. It's always there to some extent. I wouldn't necessarily call it a conspiracy...I'd just call it the weight of conventional thinking, herd instinct, trendiness, the desire to fit in, the desire to avoid criticism, the fear of what others may think, etc. That causes people to all repeat the same stuff like a bunch of parrots, because they're trying to fit into the going trend. And if you don't fit in you get picked on unmercifully by some of those conventional-minded people. I've always had an instinct to fight against that kind of herd mentality. If I saw a gay person here being persecuted in that fashion, I'd defend him. I don't like gang bullying of people who are outside the norm of opinion in some way, but who are not harming anyone. You follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM Little Hawk: But you won't hear me call you or anyone else here an anti-semite, a homophobe, a commie, a sexist or any other term like that. And if you do catch me doing that, then toss a humorous barb my way, because I will deserve it. And Little Hawk earlier: And that is the problem on this thread. Period. People's own hysterical righteous posturing is interfering with their ability to actually listen to and understand anyone else who doesn't agree with them. And what else is new? ;-) I've been watching this ridiculous reactive BS go around for years here between the terminally righteous and the terminally vain. Sorry Little Hawk, I don't seem to have a humorous barb at my fingertips. Let's just say that accusing people of posturing, of not listening, of willfully not understanding, of being ridiculous, of being reactive, and being terminally vain is a whole bunch of name calling. It's a type of name-calling that is intended to shut others up and to make it OK to marginalize their statements -- exactly what you've been bitching about. "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to what Don and John say, they're just being reactive, not really thinking at all." You are being condescending, dismissive, and rude. And accusing us of things we're not doing, like not listening to Akenaton and not trying to understand where he's coming from. In fact, we've been listening very closely to Akenaton. We've been begging him to explain his statements, since they don't add up either factually or logically. You can tell us what a great, liberal, left-wing, thinking, caring person he is all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he supports denying civil rights to a group of people, that he thinks there is some link between AIDS and homosexuality, that he thinks there hasn't been any research done on this theoretical link, that he thinks admitting homosexuals into normal society is in some way dangerous to straight people, that he refuses to respond when presented with facts that disagree with him, that he calls anyone who disagrees with him a moron, and that he thinks there is some left-wing conspiracy to impose thought control on everyone. All the names he's been called here are supported by the evidence he has presented about himself in this thread. Neither Akenaton nor you can say the same about the names you've called other people. I freely admit to being angry about this topic. But you seem to be confusing anger with reactivity. Sorry, but you don't get to draw unsupported conclusions about what's going on in my head. Reactivity usually implies a lack of reality and logic. Almost everything that has been said to Akenaton has been a response to things he's said. Which is a very different thing than being reactive toward him. One of the reasons people are getting pissed at you for trying to get everyone to act nicer on this thread is because you are doing it in a supercilious, superior, condescending, dismissive, inaccurate, and not nice manner. Let's start with the accusation that I'm not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM AKe: I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned your last diatribe is pure horsepucky, and comes close to being wildly paranoid and delusory. I have addressewd you throughout this thread on one issue, and only one, the one defined at the beginning of the thread. Little Hawk, I have always forgiven you your occasional foray into vaunting superciliousness and condescension, because you a a blithe spirit and I generally like your style. But spare me the marshmallow wisdom; even if you mean it, it still sounds sanctimonious. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:50 AM Little Hawk... Don't waste your time trying to explain your position to them...they already know your position, just as they know what I have been saying for months. By objecting to the words they use to close discussion, you have committed a thought crime and your place here is about to be lowered accordingly, you have planted the seed in their minds that you may be a dissenter....and a very popular and persuasive dissenter at that!!.......You will suffer in future threads...:0) They will not be satisfied until you or I get down on our knees and apologise for our heretic views, tell them that they were right all along and promise never to mention those views again. The "Orwellian liberal" agenda will have been satisfactorally achieved......silence will reign, there will be no need to deal with "inconvenient truth", no need to engage in the troublesome thought process.....all will be well with the world. The older I get and the more I examine political thought, the more I come to realise that the enemies of society are not the "right wing" with their mantra of individual freedom and personal responsibility, but the ideologues of the centre left, with their crazy Orwellian ideas on mass manipulation. The sad thing is that they don't even believe the shite they preach, the "centre left" is awash with hypocrisy, they simply bully and brainwash most people into giving them tacit support. They talk of egalitarianism, but what they really want is a society free from dissent, fashioned in their own image and most importantly, with the word "freedom" expunged from the dictionary of "newspeak".....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:09 AM Nice post, jade. ;-) Amos, your complaints about my style are not justified, and I'll tell you why. The only reason I came into this thread...as I have explained again and again and again...is that certain people on it were personally attacking other posters in what I consider an immoderate and unreasonable fashion. That's it. Period. That's why I started posting here. Then I got to talking about some other things that interested me as well. Whenever I see people perched high on the pillar of their own smug self-righteousness and using it to personally attack other people and call them things like an "anti-semite", a "commie", a "homophobe", a "sexist" and other personally damning terms of the present political era like that, I don't like it. It reminds me of the behaviour of a lynch mob or a bunch of witch burners. Even if it's in a good cause....I still don't like it. And I will toss humorous barbs at people who do it because I'd like to puncture their little vainglorious ego balloons. You, of course, think your own conduct is of the best...so does Don...and you think that mine is lacking in some way. Well, that's the world, isn't it? We all believe that our own conduct is quite appropriate. Everyone's like that. And yet we're all different... ;-) So one can expect these differences of opinion about whose conduct is most appropriate, no matter what is going on. But you won't hear me call you or anyone else here an anti-semite, a homophobe, a commie, a sexist or any other term like that. And if you do catch me doing that, then toss a humorous barb my way, because I will deserve it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:36 PM Man, that gal sure can put oil on troubled waters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM wow that took a long time to catch up. i love this thread, i have had a history lesson, an R.E one a language one and a political one with some humour and seriousness thrown in, now where else can i get that? LH, correct me if i am wrong but i can sort of see where you and ake, are coming from. example(may be wrong) animal rights groups,people who spout rights for animals and then neglect their own pets by not fleaing or worming them, they take them to rallies and protests where there is alot of noise, where they cannot see anything but legs. just to prove how much they love their dogs,and cats but they do not get hauled around as a sign of comitment. is that the type of people you are both refering to, only about rights of gays. the ability to have children should not be an issue, there are plenty of people who cannot have kids, does this mean that society would frown upon them getting wed? or what about widows and widowers who are past child bearing age, should they be stopped from having their union recognised by others as a marriage? the abitilty to have kids should be the same as science,just becuse we can, doesn't mean we should. don't get me started on the people i know who have them and don't look after them as they should do. just a sec aaaaarrrrrrhgggggggggggggg! thats better. take care all and never take for granted those who love you jade x x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:46 PM OR one remains silently resentful, convinced that the jester's impersonation of enlightened insight is actually a woebegone dramatization of apathetic resignation and indifference, glossed over with the thin but sour veneer of condescending righteousness characteristic of unjustified acts of claimed superiority. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:37 PM Fair enough. But I'm quite sure that you can understand that when the subject is a serious one, such as the denial of civil rights to a particular group of citizens who are guilty of nothing other than offending the sensibilities of some (not too different from someone of a different ethnic group or religion moving into the neighborhood) when that life-style truly has no effect on those others other than they don't like it, that someone breaking into the discussion and acting the clown can be just a bit annoying. It's especially annoying when the jester, especially from a position that at least appears to be one of lofty superiority, takes people to task (no matter which side of the argument they are on) for having strong feeling on the matter. One tends to think that the jester fails to see the issue for what it really is. Either that, or just doesn't care one way or the other. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM No problem, Don. If you scroll down some through my recent posts, you will see that I myself said to Amos that: "Any combination of people can effectively raise a child if they are good people and they do it well." I am not opposed to a gay couple adopting and raising a child. All human beings are unique, thus all relationships are unique, and each should be assessed strictly on its own merits alone rather than on some artificial or steretypical ideas based on the partners' gender, race, religion, political affiliation, etc... I've done a fair bit of serious talk on this thread...and also a fair bit of humour and satire. I use humour and satire sometimes to make a point...or sometimes just to provide some relief in a discussion that is getting too negative or hostile. It's kind of like playing a set of songs...you don't want them all to be deadly serious. You mix it up some for the best effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM Missing words above: ". . . I do consider the subject of this thread to be a matter of importance. . . ." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:21 PM Little Hawk, I'm sorry my link did not work as well for you as it did for me. I tested it before submitting and it worked just fine for, and it apparently worked all right for Ebbie. I am, however, highly impressed by your assumption about me and the maturity of your response. Perhaps I'm just being silly myself, but I do consider the subject of this thread to be a matter, even if there are others who do not. So here, in case you're at all interested, is a cut-and-paste of the post in question—in response to your comments about passing one's genes along. Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:33 PM I've read enough of it to be able to say "I was there". ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:27 PM Paste it? Hell, he ain't even READ it! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM I will copy and paste the entire TMOABST when hell turns into green cheese and is sold in little cellophane wrapped packages at the World's Fair. Don't worry, okay? It's not something I'm intending to make a habit of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:36 PM Did it? Hmmm. It was taking ages to load here for some reason, so I finally assumed that he had just made a link to the entire damned thread...sort of a humorous jab in my ribs, as it were. ;-) Well, sometimes things are slow on computers and there's no clear explanation why. This one's usually quite fast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM Knock that shit off! Copy and paste it or yer gonna fry the server! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM :) The MOAB? That's cruel. By the way, Don's link did indeed after a moment go to his own post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM LOL!!! Peace, Don's "Clicky" was a link to this entire friggin' thread....so it was taking a long time to load, and I thought...WTF? So then I posted him a "Clicky" to the entire "Mother of all BS Threads" thread. You can sit there all afternoon waiting for that one to load. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM ..and though neither remembers What they are battling for, They'll post one more link In the Blue Clicky War! In the war of BLue Clickies Information will rule And the man who posts more Wins the day. But though links multiply, You may still feel a fool Finding new kinds of nothin to say. Oh the Blue Clicky War, Oh the Blue Clicky War Can anyone tell me What these links are all for? There's a screed waiting for you Behind every door Beware what you step in, In the Blue Clicky War! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 09 - 11:49 PM Is this the War of the Clickies? |
