BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:30 AM

The purpose of posting the link above was to show that homosexuals are aware of the low rates of homosexual "marriage".

The web site makes many observations that I disagree with, including various reasons for the low rates....all of course simply opinions just like mine.

Shooting myself in the foot?....certainly not, the link(there are many others) bears out what I have been saying, that the majority of homosexuals have no interest in "marriage"

Basically this is a political issue, driven by the current "liberal agenda" and homosexual activists.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:33 PM

Akenaton,
I respectfully ask; please try to think back and remember the occasion when you decided to become heterosexual. How old where you? Had you heard about gay people yet? If not, when you did hear about gay people, did you have to rethink for a moment? Or, was it never an issue?
Thanks very much for considering this question.
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:06 PM

i noticed this in that article too


"Of course, if you believe that a "change in the definition of marriage" to include same-sex couples is itself harmful to marriage then marriage will be worse off even if no gay couple actually gets married—but you don't need studies to make this argument. To me, this definitional fear has always seemed far too abstract to count for much."

it seems you have shot yourself in the foot what?

thankyou bruce,
i thought the whole point of a debate like this was to present your' arguements and reasons whilst being honest. if someone asks you to imagine yourself in a situation, then if you cannot or will not then i would expect someone to admit it. of course that is if someone is capable of such things that grown ups do.

the lack of empathy for someone else is something i have been told to be wary of in a person, there was that thread a while ago to do with sociopaths and pycologically disturbed people. that displayed the same symptoms.

back on point, if that is the best you can do for evidence then you are scraping the barrel my freind.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:45 PM

Always the numbers game, Ake?

First of all, it is as KB noted. The article is prior to the same-sex marriage movement getting well under way, and it is obviously biased.

What it all boils down to is that, no matter how many or how few gay couples want to marry, it should be among their CIVIL RIGHTS (equal protection under the law) to have the same rights and privileges as hetero couples—the same protections that other committed couples have. The same rights of ownership, the same tax privileges, the same inheritance laws, and the same hospital visitation rights (as a spouse) in case of illness. And the same right to have their union religiously sanctified in a church that is willing to marry them (and there are many such churches, as I have noted several times above), and have that union recognized under the law.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:42 PM

I'm gettin' all fucked up here. Which round is this?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM

ake, did you read the article you linked to? First of all it is three years old. Also, the numbers it gives came from an anti same-sex marriage group and the article questions if the numbers are correct. It goes on to give several possible reasons for the low numbers if they are correct.

I like this quote from the article:

"Low marriage rates among gays make it even harder to see how this tiny fraction of the population will cause any practical harm to marriage as an institution ."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM

Just one of many, from a homosexual website to boot!

why so few gay marriages?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM

"I'm still wondering why anyone else's sexuality should be another person's business."

And that, Peace, is the crux of the whole matter.

Quentin Crisp, the famous English eccentric, writer, raconteur, and homosexual (subject of the movie "The Naked Civil Servant" starring John Hurt) was on an interview show a little over a decade ago, and the interviewer noted that his appearance was quite androgynous. His voice was light and well-modulated, his hair was blue and fairly long, and from his appearance and the way he dressed, it was next to impossible to be certain if he was a man or a woman.

The interviewer (might have been Charlie Rose, but I can't recall) noted this and asked him if people ever asked him, and if so, how did he respond?

"It happens quite often," Crisp said. "My standard answer to this question is, 'Does it matter? What did you have in mind?'"

Touché!!

Exactly the point!

Quentin Crisp is also said to remarked on more than one occasion, "I am one of the stately homos of England!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM

Jade,

Not to worry. Indeed you deserve to have your posts answered. But sometimes people just don't HAVE the answers. I'm still wondering why anyone else's sexuality should be another person's business.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:27 PM

i can't say that i speak any other lanugage but english, but even to me the last 4 posts have made more sense.

hey where's my beer? well ok lemonade please. i am a very cheap date!! PMSL

what i really want to know is why does AKE, seem to respond more to some than others?

i was starting to learn those "quotes" off by heart. thankyou for not carrying on with that.

like i have said before i may not be the most eloquent among us, but i have the right to be answered.

enjoy the rest everyone battle commences at sunrise!!

cheers!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM

Time to pay attention Jeri :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM

Korean.

Good one on the "'Suing lo, sueyt Cha ryuht!'" LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:09 PM

What language?

The first thing I thought when you wrote 'Cha ryuht!' was 'Suing lo, sueyt', but you were probably actually saying something intelligent. (Don't destroy the myth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM

Cha ryuht!

Seijak.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

Shi gan!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM

As I understand it, very soon after same-sex marriage became legal in California (prior to Proposition 8), some 18,000 same-sex couples got married.

It would appear, Ake, that your "view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in 'marriage' or monogamy" has about as much solid foundation as Wile E. Coyote standing about on thin air about twenty feet out from the canyon's rim.

Don't look down, buddy! Hitting reality that hard can really smart!!

CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM

so a tea break seems in order.

I was thinking more along the lines of a beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:37 PM

Well I don't mind a bit of argy/bargy, over the finer points of the English language....as she is wrote......But Don is starting to lather up again, so a tea break seems in order.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM

This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy

What other areas, ake? Have you seen some data showing what happens when same-sex marriage becomes a legal option? Who gathered the data and by what method? I'm not giving you sh*t here but I am hoping that if you are going to make a statement like that ("results from other areas") there is data to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM

And it was just starting to get fun...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

""I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.""

WOW!
KB in Iowa said:-

""And another thing ake. When you do quote me correctly you take my very small sample of a very small sample and turn it into a blanket "the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy..."

The two papers I read represent a small population base and, as I have said, I check very infrequently to see if there is an announcement of the marriage or engagement of a same-sex couple. To think that this is somehow representative of the entire homosexual community is absurd.""


I too picked up on that and my comment was as follows:-

""Now that is what I call jumping to conclusions.

ONE man reports that HE hasn't seen any reports in HIS LOCAL PAPER, and this is extrapolated by our resident everythingophobe to prove HIS manic contentions about a worldwide group of people who fail to squeeze themselves into the pigeonhole he has so generously provided.

That is a leap deserving of at least an Olympic Gold Medal, maybe even a Nobel prize for Lunacy.

BRAVO!!   I don't think you'll EVER top that example of sheer illogical lack of reasoning.

Don""



Come on Ake. You are very selective in what you choose to quote, but ask for accurate response from others.

So take your own advice, QUOTE, DON'T PARAPHRASE, especially since you are pretty crap at maintaining the meaning when you do paraphrase.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM

I'm not only basing my assessment on the information you provide KB, there are many other sources available, as I made clear in my first post

"KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in.... "I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals."

And now, as this is getting a bit silly.....shall we move on?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Jaysus, Joseph and Mary,

DING, DING


Deep breath.

























Round Two

DING, DING

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said, but surely this,

"I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often."

....could easily be perceived as "very little activity?"

Let's try an exercise.

I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so regarding my dog doing his business.

Shall we assume there has been 'very little activity' in that area? I can assure you such is not the case.


As an aside - in my previous post I say a position is absurd. I don't mean you are absurd, I respect your right to disagree with me on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:07 PM

And another thing ake. When you do quote me correctly you take my very small sample of a very small sample and turn it into a blanket "the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy..."

The two papers I read represent a small population base and, as I have said, I check very infrequently to see if there is an announcement of the marriage or engagement of a same-sex couple. To think that this is somehow representative of the entire homosexual community is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:06 PM

Well, I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said, but surely this,

"I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often."

....could easily be perceived as "very little activity?"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:43 PM

That was not a "quote", the "quote" followed immediately after that paraphrase.

When you say "KB in Iowa states that" what immediately follows should be something I actually said. It was not. What followed was your interpretation of what I had said and your interpretation was not accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM

That was not a "quote", the "quote" followed immediately after that paraphrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM

KB....My quote was accurate.

No, it was not.

KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in....

Show me where I said that. You can't because I didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:51 PM

as usual you have taken what i have said wrongly.

i don't want to ban anyone from getting married. i was wondering why you were not up in arms about straight people who sleep around, there are plenty of them just as there are gay folks.

it seems to me that the consequences for hetro's that have unsafe sex is somewhat larger becaause of pregancy.

surely the child who has a child is more likely to get into problems.

being a parent is such a big job,the fact that you are responsible for how another person turns out is THE biggest responsablity ever.

i really do worry that we have become complasent about this.    before someone says that i am being bigoted on this i am aware that alot of these young parents do a fantastic job, the ones who have their families in particular, but what about those who don't have any support? i am 31 and still couldn't handle it.

there are worse things than having many sexual partners or gay marriage, maybe we should concentrate on that.

anyway that is me done for now

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:52 PM

KB....My quote was accurate.
Studies suggest that the "take up" rate for homosexual "marriage" are very low...."Marriage" is a non-issue to most homosexuals, especially young working class homosexuals.

For some strange reason the rate seems to rise a little as homosexuals reach middle age.

I am very surprised,that the pro homosexual "marriage" team make no effort to familiarise themselves with the results of various studies into homosexuality.
Jeddy says we want to ban people who have had sex with more than 3 partners from getting married.
I would suggest she looks at the figures for the average numbers of sexual partners homosexuals have, in comparison to heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:34 AM

KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in.... "I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.

You have misinterpreted my post and misquoted me ake.

What I said was:
"I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often."

As you can see I did not say there has been 'very little activity' on the same-sex marriage issue. I said it has not been covered lately in the papers. It was when it first became legal but, as I predicted upthread, it has dropped out of the news cycle. For the first few days there were interactive maps on some local websites showing numbers of licenses applied for on a county by county basis, there were quite a few in the more populous counties. I did a quick search but was unable to find an updated version. When the map was available earlier no search was required, it was right there for all to see.

As for the comment I made about announcements, I am only saying that I have not seen any such announcements in the local paper. I don't check very often so there may have been some that I did not see. I live in a very small town with a weekly paper but also subscribe to the daily paper from the somewhat larger town about 15 miles away.

There have been and will continue to be same-sex marriages in Iowa. Life goes on as before for those of us not entering into such a union.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:16 AM

""those who claim that being gay is a choice,"

I have not read everything.""


Yes Keith...Notably, and VERY persistently, GfS, who has, at some point in this thread, quoted just about every crank and homophobe you coul find in a year of turning over rocks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:11 AM

""I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.""

WOW!

Now that is what I call jumping to conclusions.

ONE man reports that HE hasn't seen any reports in HIS LOCAL PAPER, and this is extrapolated by our resident everythingophobe to prove HIS manic contentions about a worldwide group of people who fail to squeeze themselves into the pigeonhole he has so generously provided.

That is a leap deserving of at least an Olympic Gold Medal, maybe even a Nobel prize for Lunacy.

BRAVO!!   I don't think you'll EVER top that example of sheer illogical lack of reasoning.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:24 AM

"those who claim that being gay is a choice,"

I have not read everything.
Is that claimed by anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:04 AM

The highest rates of HIV in the world are in Swaziland, southern Africa. I hear nobody suggesting a ban on marriage in Swaziland as a way of combating this.


And, I'll try this one one more time (since it got no answer months ago. For those who claim that being gay is a choice, please try to think back and remember the momentous occasion when you "decided" to be heterosexual. How old where you? Had you heard about gay people yet? When you did hear, did you have to rethink for a moment? Or, was it never an issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:44 AM

i think that i have proved my case as regards to AKE, don't you everyone?

there is no reason that prevents anyone from asking for help and thearapy, in gay or straight marriage, whether playing the field or not. the unequality in some of these arguements is very plain to see.

hetros play the field without thinking of the consequences hence the rise in teen parents, hence the rise in STDs but does that make these people turn red faced and jump up and down?... NO!! does this make our freinds want to ban anyone who has had sex with more than 3 people from getting married?... NO!!

this is homophobia at its best.

tom robimson.

sing if your'e glad to be gay,
sing if your'e happy that way hey
sing if you're glad to gay,
sing if you're happy THIS way!!!!

take care ALL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:39 AM

'.....perhaps the only one in captivity'

Thanks akenaton - that's probably going to be the best smile of the day :)

Just one observation....

As akenaton said - we have agreed to disagree on this issue because, as members, we have been able to communicate outside of increasingly tetchy threads like this one using PMs

However, GfS opts to remain outside mudcat membership despite posting 1711 times since June 2008 yet continues to snipe anonymously keeping always the tone of his first post...

"I could go on. from what I know, but why bother? You either know this to be true, or you don't!! "

Forgive me if I perceive our 'guest', who is really so very liberal with his certainties, as little more than an internet construct.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:35 AM

KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in.... "I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.

The two serious problems associated with homosexuality and allowing the practice to become part of mainstream suciety still stand.

The health issuse.. and the link with HIV/AIDS
Rates of promiscuity associated with the lifestyle, many times higher than in the hetero community.

I praised Emmas post, not because I agreed with her opinions(we have agreed to disagree :0) but the even handed and civil way in which she presented it.

I think Emma may be a real liberal....perhaps the only one in captivity....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:02 PM

In fact the logic of GfS' point is strangely null.

It seems to posit that IF someone is a homosexual and marries another homosexual it will prevent them from asking for therapy.

In the hetero universe there is no such barrier. There have been many cases of hetero husbands deciding they were on the wrong track and divorcing or just coming out. They were cured of their "marital hetero" state by simply announcing it was wrong. In some cases, their wives stayed with them, too!

So what is it about a legal marriage between two gay people that is going to act as a barrier to one or the other of them "seeking therapy" if they feel they need it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM

The truth about "conversion therapy" ("curing" homosexuality):

CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2.

And there are dozens more articles saying essentially the same thing.

(A few more things for the Bobbsey Twins to blow off as "liberal bullshit." But then, sho's word would they take? No one's, of course. They're not open to reason).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM

acytually GfS, you have a point although the counceling should be there to help someone accept who they truely are and be comfortable in their own skin rather than try to change what ultimately cannot be changed.

if someone really cannot stand to be attracted to the same sex as themselves, surely they could get the same medicines that they give to peadophiles that take away the sexual urge.

personally i would rather that then EST.

where i do not agree with you, is when you say that marriage will be to the detrement of such people.

nobody would be forcing anyone to claim their right to marriage, just as for straight folks.   

as for saying that non religious people should not get married in a church, fair enough, since i am pagan i would never dream of it, but to say that they should find their own religion...isn't that an oxi-moron?

hello, i am an aithiest but i wished to be blessed or wish to start my own church??????????????????    not going to happen is it?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:08 PM

GfS, as a "counselor," are you sure that your zeal for insisting that homosexuality is "curable," in the face of considerable evidence otherwise, doesn't have a pecuniary streak in it?

This is a test:   try to answer that question straight, without resorting to words like "bullshit" or "liberal agenda" or "moronic," etc.

That sort of rhetoric only indicates that I'm on the right track and that I've hit a sore spot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:03 PM

Good lord. I am amazed that two men or two women who choose to get married/live together would cause this much controversy. Folks, GET OVER IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:55 PM

Froggy:"Gfs: You compliment Emma B., who says, "To conclude, all the research, at present, SUGGESTS that, while post-birth development MAY well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, APPEAR to be in place by the time a child is born".

Now re-read it...note the caps...'SUGGESTION','MAY, 'APPEAR'....is what?..a suggestion????

My compliment to Emma was because is APPEARED to be from the 'impartial observer', prospective.

As to the rest of the nonsense, the position of the pro homosexual marriage 'rights', would by its very premise(which is in fact erroneous), deny treatment, should a homosexual request it. Though I do not particularly agree with the homosexual 'marriage' proposals, my chief complaint in more with the moronic, championing, of the cause, which would in fact work AGAINST, counseling, therapy, or any other treatment that a homosexual would seek, should he/she decide they might want to re-think their choice...and to undo the damage brought on to themselves, which of course, could impede their healing and recovery. (now watch them go ballistic, without thinking, what I'm saying, through!)
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM

frogprince, don't forget that "liberal" should be in quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM

Gfs: You compliment Emma B., who says, "To conclude, all the research, at present, suggests that, while post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born". But you continue to treat homosexuality as a bad choice based soley in gross emotional immaturity. She also expresses clear disapproval of treatment to reverse homosexuality.

Keith cites, and credits, some of the same studies that Don Firth has repeatedly cited. Keith is bringing sense to the thread; Don was spouting liberal bullshit.

Paco also gets credit for his "sensible" line of commentary :... "people who ain't christian 'who wont to marry should bugger off and find their own religion!!".

Gfs, you've accomplished something really remarkable: hopping around frantically in circles, without a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:25 PM

Surely, Iowa would have crumbled into dark smoking ruins by now? The moral fiber of society completely liquidated from Sioux City to Dubuqe, and half of Illinois trembling with early-stage infections of moral decrepitude!! Surely!!

No???? Wait....how can this be???

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:58 AM

Update from the heartland of the USA.

It has been two months now that same-sex couples have been able to get married in Iowa. Society has yet to crumble. In fact, outside of it now being summer rather than spring, things look pretty much the same round these parts as they did before.

I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often.

cheers