 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 09 - 01:49 AM "Rights" are not universal, but conditional. Anyone who says that we should all have the same "rights" regardless of our behaviour, or the effects of our behaviour on those around us, has lost their grasp on reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:33 PM The issue is whether a constitutional republic, which is what we are, has the right to violate its own founding principles because of some less durable or kess balanced opinion on the part of some of them. We have an enduring commitment to equality--meaning equality. That includes a strong precedent against the weaselly "separate but equal" version. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:49 PM GfS, nothing is more obvious when observing people argue that they indeed do repeatedly argue both sides of a principle, for whatever side suits them at the time. I see it happening over and over again, and I bet I've unwittingly done the same thing myself many a time. That's because the human ego is not nearly as rational or fair-minded or objective as it usually loves to think it is. It really wants only one thing: Victory! And that is what makes both people and nations frequently irrational, unscrupulous, unfair, dangerous, and deeply hypocritical while they vociferously charge out to win their various illusory victories over one another. As Shakespeare said, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing...nothing except the universal desire to win. If you point their inconsistencies out to them, however, they will deny it vociferously and just waste another lengthy piece of your time justifying themselves and launching further counterattacks on you, so why even bother? Frankly, it ain't worth the trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM I dunno, Ake--if those observations about sexual encounters in the animal kingdom are true, and I assume they are, why wouldn't they be a natural part of this discussion? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM From: Don Firth Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM "In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules." In that case, a lynch mob is a perfect example of a democracy in action. Does that mean your bitchy wife is always right, too? Does it matter how loud and long people bitch, scream, piss and moan? If the majority isn't the ruling decider...why did Gore want recounts, in Florida??? Some of you guys are just illogical. You argue both sides of a principle, for whatever side suits you! Just pick one...anyone...and stick to the principle, instead of the issue...........for once! If you can't, then YOU are the people who make up, and are the lynch mobs!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM "tyranny of the vociferous minority??? " It's tyranny if a minority want to do what the majority do all the time, which wouldn't impinge in the least on the majority's continued ability to do it???????? (look, even more question marks!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Apr 09 - 06:06 PM What about the tyranny of the vociferous minority??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM "In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules." In that case, a lynch mob is a perfect example of a democracy in action. Basic civics lesson: a democracy, when not limited by certain principles of individual rights, can be just as tyrannical as any other form of govenment. This is the reason for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To protect the individual citizens from both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the majority. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Apr 09 - 02:30 PM The first post on this thread was by Amos. It contained the following sentence......."IF there is any chance you will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed "RIGHTWING" ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls." Capitals by me to highlight the word rightwing.....Why was that word used? Are there no "liberals" who are against homosexual marriage? are all conservatives against? As this was posted at election time, I think Amos has been a "very naughty boy" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM Come on Amos, we have beaten one another up on a regular basis on many threads and I still think you are a decent, intelligent, likable guy, with a bee in your bonnet...:0) Don't suppose we'll ever agree on this subject, but I've enjoyed your input and of course I don't think you've really gone nuts....It's just that there are children of all ages on this forum and they might take your animal post seriously.....Lets not frighten the children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM ".....Now if the other forty six can get their knuckles off the ground long enough to vote.........who knows? The United States' claim to be a DEMOCRACY may once more have some credibility. I don't give a damn about the argument over whether or no you agree with homosexuality being legal. It IS legal, and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their orientation. THEY SHOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS, IN LAW, AS ANY OTHER CITIZENS!" In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules. In the case of homosexuality, it is not a matter of 'political rights' as a citizen, it is a matter of mental and emotional health. I think natural selection should tell you that!..That is, if anything can tell you anything, at all. Now here comes all the 'proof' citing animals and insects...who, naturally, are citizens, too....I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:59 AM Ake: Your remark, which I just now saw, is most unkind and uncharitable. How does this work? (1) we are having a long discussion about homosexuality, gay rights, legal definitiuons and such. (2) I post a couple of items excerpted from poular press providing viewpoints or data related to the topic; (3)Disagreeing with these reports, you say it looks like I have flipped. Does that really strike you as rational? It strikes me as reactive. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 09 - 06:34 AM ""As ever, the casualties of spurious political issues are the objects of said issues. This discussion has been all about Conservative v "Liberal" and nothing to do with anybodys "rights","" IN YOUR OPINION, of course. Rights in LAW are precisely what it is about, and those are, or at least should be, totally independent of politics. Of course, as legislators, the government are bound to play a part, but that part should not change with different governments. It is a matter of law. The government legislates, and the judiciary interpret, and enforce, the legislation. Where, in that setup, do you see mention of politics. The Constitution, by which Americans profess to set such store, enshrines the rights of "CITIZENS". Nowhere in it do I see any mention of exceptions, NO "Except for Jews", NO "Except for Germans", NO "Except for Blacks", and equally NO "Except for Homosexuals". By what twisted perversion of logic do you justify your statement that it is "Not about anybody's rights"? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:42 AM The biggest problem is that "homosexual rights" has been made into a political issue and has become a convenient weapon for the politically motivated to batter one another with. Whether this is in the long term interests of homosexuals or society at large is no longer considered ....the battle lines have been drawn as Little Hawk would say! At the moment the pendulum has swung to what is laughingly called the left,soon it will swing back to the right and another set of "political" moral values will apply. As ever, the casualties of spurious political issues are the objects of said issues. This discussion has been all about Conservative v "Liberal" and nothing to do with anybodys "rights", |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:38 AM If we can discriminate against people's sexual orientation when all else meets the law, then there soon will be nothing to stop us from discriminating against people who wear blue, brown and pink ties. Or have certain accents. Or are confined to wheelchairs. Or have special needs. IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:21 AM ""Iowa is only the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage."" Vermont also is refusing to let the bigotry of one man override the democratic decision of the majority, having moved to overturn the governor's veto. Nice to know that in FOUR of the Fifty states, all men ARE considered to be equal under the law, as the Constitution of the United States would have us believe. Now if the other forty six can get their knuckles off the ground long enough to vote.........who knows? The United States' claim to be a DEMOCRACY may once more have some credibility. I don't give a damn about the argument over whether or no you agree with homosexuality being legal. It IS legal, and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their orientation. THEY SHOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS, IN LAW, AS ANY OTHER CITIZENS! Anything else is undemocratic, and contrary to the letter, and the spirit, of the Constitution. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Apr 09 - 03:22 AM Hi Guest....Seems like we're both still "pissin' into the wind", but every so often the wind drops......keep on pissin'......:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Apr 09 - 12:23 AM Hey, Hi Ake!! Nice to see you again. I've pretty much let this one rest, because, as you noted, the arguments being made, border on the lunatic fringe. Next, will be how the tsetse fly in Lichtenstein, are the new link going up, the food chain, because they are homosexual, and propagate faster that way...except in Delaware, which is because they are discriminated there....or something as equally stupid...Who knows? Anyway, Hi! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 09 - 03:23 PM Sorry to say this Amos, but it looks like you have flipped.....Please stop posting this nonesense, the arguments have been made further up the thread, leave people to make up their minds on the credible parts of this discussion.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM Moral of the story......stop being an elephant! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 16 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM Gay Elephant' Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg A Polish politician, furious over a gay elephant, obviously hasn't been keeping up with the latest research on homosexuality in animals By Christopher MimsPosted 04.15.2009 at 11:56 am4 Comments "We didn't pay 37 million zlotys for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there," said Michal Grzes, a conservative councillor in the Polish city of Poznan, Reuters reported last Friday. What Michal doesn't know, apparently, is that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. The definitive text on the subject, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, written by Canadian biologist and linguist Bruce Bagemihl, is an obsessive catalog of a phenomenon so widespread that the can barely contain it. For the Cliff's Notes version, you have only to look to a 2006 article on the subject, which points out that big horn sheep live in "homosexual societies" in which they "bond through genital licking and anal intercourse." (Male sheep that choose not to engage in the behavior become social outcasts.) And that's just the beginning. "Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in 'penis fencing,' which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages." Naturally, human behavior does not escape the continuum of expression implied by the diversity present in the animal kingdom, and perhaps that's the real origin of Michal's objection. To be fair, he did have one legitimate critique of the situation. "We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females, how will he produce offspring?" said Grzes. (PopSci) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that Vermont's House and Senate voted to override GOP Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, the Washington City Council voted 12-0 Tuesday in favor of allowing same-sex marriages performed in other states to be recognized in the nation's capital. Congress may vote on whether Washington will allow same-sex marriages to be accepted in the nation's capital. But nothing is set in stone yet. The Washington council is expected to hold a final vote on May 5. The bill would then go to Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat who supports gay marriage but told WTOP.com Tuesday that he has yet to review the legislation. If approved, the measure would then encounter its biggest potential hurdle: It would be sent to Congress for a legislative review and vote, setting up what would amount to a straight up-or-down vote on same-sex marriage. Because Washington is not a state, its legislation must pass congressional muster. Some measures approved by overwhelmingly Democratic Washington voters, including a restrictive gun law and a proposal decriminalizing medical marijuana use, have been vetoed by Congress in recent years. "This is a right that should be enjoyed by all of our citizens," Council Member Jack Evans, a Democrat, said in an interview with WTOP. "Today is another major step toward the ultimate goal of all of us living in a city and a country where everyone is treated equally."..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Big Mick Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:11 PM As an aside, I spent the weekend in the Great State of Iowa, in a rural farm community in the northeastern/central part of the State. Joe Offer suggested that I should get some reaction of the folks to the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, which found bans on the legal union of gay folks to be unconstitutional. Most of the folks I spoke with thought it was a correct decision, although there were a few that were very loud in their condemnation. While hardly a decent sampling, none the less this was a primarily rural, bib overall wearing group. I found their views to be very progressive, and certainly outside of the stereotype that "sophisticates" would have you believe. And it is fair to point out that it was Iowa that gave President Obama a major boost in his campaign. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM "BOSTON (Reuters) - Vermont lawmakers on Tuesday overrode a veto from the governor in passing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the state to become the fourth in the nation where gay marriage is legal. The Vermont House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote after it cleared the state Senate 23-5 earlier in the day. In Vermont, a bill needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override a veto. Vermont's vote comes just four days after Iowa's Supreme Court struck down a decade-old law that barred gays from marrying to make that state the first in the U.S. heartland to allow same-sex marriages. Vermont's gay marriage legislation looked in peril after a vote Thursday in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives that failed to garner enough support clear a veto threat from Republican Governor Jim Douglas. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year. Vermont, which became the first state in the country to allow full civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, joins New England neighbors Connecticut and Massachusetts in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry." This one's for Harvey. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:37 PM So was mine...okay, we're all cool 1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:13 PM And mine, likewise, was a general comment. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:49 AM Sorry GfS, I did not mean that to be directed at you. It was just a general comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:41 AM Exc-u-u-u-use me! My comment 'Know your enemy' was in fact, a reply to Amos' comment 'IT is not a matter of overlooking, but refusing to succumb to it..' and only that! It was not meant to be taken like Homosexuals, women, blacks, Mexicans, Polish immigrants, Chinese, women, guys, rich, poor, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, Def Leopard, Lucille Ball, Mr. Rogers, Ebbie, Amos, Sarah Palin, Ralph Nader, Sherlock Holmes, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Brown, Batman, Big Mick, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Morrison, the Pope, Wiley Coyote, .....the tooth Fairy....just to mention a few...okay???? ..Jeez!, Trigger Happy Mudcatters! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:26 AM Thanks, KB--exactly the reasoned thinking I would expect from an Iowan! :D As to knowing thine enemy, the first one that should be closely inspected is internal willingness to hate. Self-distortion is at the root of distorting others, and thus having enemies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:23 AM I am right here in the middle of this new front and let me tell you, it has not caused the world to implode or spontaneously combust. It isn't even a general topic of discussion. Outside of the folks who will be applying for marriage licenses in about three weeks or those vehemently opposed to same, it does not seem to be that big a deal. The word I have gotten from the newspapers is that it would take a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision. That takes a while. It has to pass two separate legislative sessions and then pass a popular vote. We take changes to the constitution pretty seriously here. My understanding is that the earliest this could happen is 2011. I find the comments of those who assume Iowa to be a backward reactionary state amusing. "Know your enemy" indeed. I was told by my mother (a tireless defender of the right as she sees it) that Iowa was targeted as a state in which to bring this case because of our history of tolerance and forward thinking. They obviously picked well. Just so there is no confusion about my stand on this, I have long thought gay marriage should be allowed but I am not gay myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM Yes...but "KNOW your enemy!!!"-Lao Tzu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM IT is not a matter of overlooking, but refusing to succumb to it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM It can...................and then again, it might not. Let's not let our optimism overlook reality....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:27 PM Sanity in political policy can go a long way toward supporting mental health without making any impact on the mental health system; the Bill of Rights comes to mind as a good example. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 09 - 12:38 PM Not going into this loop again, but just going to touch on it. Often, political policies, should not be confused with mental or emotional health! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM "Iowa Decency SEND TO PHONE SHARE Published: April 4, 2009 Like the state's earlier landmark civil rights cases — striking down slavery in 1839, for example, and segregation in 1868 and 1873 — the ruling on gay marriage by Iowa's Supreme Court is a refreshing message of fairness and common sense from the nation's heartland. Related Times Topics: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships A unanimous decision by the seven-member court on Friday approved marriage for couples of the same sex and brought the nation a step closer toward realizing its promise of equality and justice. Iowa is only the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage. California allowed such marriages for five months until November's election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative. A ruling on the validity of that initiative is expected soon from California's Supreme Court. In finding no "persuasive justification" for the different treatment of committed gay and lesbian couples, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court holding of two years ago. That ruling overturned, on equal protection grounds, a 1998 state law confining civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa before the month is out. The new decision says marriage is a civil contract and should not be defined by religious doctrine or views. "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further an important governmental objective," wrote Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee. "The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."..." NYT It is nice to be reminded of Iowas past breakouts on the major issues of civil rights, and notice it is dmaking anoother.. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:16 PM "Iowa??!! Lots of lonely farmers? Whoo-hoo, regardless!" Hide the sheep and the pigs! PETA is going to claim equal rights for them too! Amos, If you scroll down, and re-read my posts, instead of having a general opinion of where I'm coming from, you should instantly recognize that I have more than once expressed compassion...for both sides. So, stick to rebutting the text of the posts, rather than reading into where you THINK I'm coming from. Fair enough? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 03 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM Iowa??!! Lots of lonely farmers? Whoo-hoo, regardless! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:31 AM "The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state's same-sex-marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal. In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay-rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the two states that allow same-sex couples to marry. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year. Meanwhile, the Vermont House of Representatives late Thursday approved a bill legalizing gay marriage, a measure that now faces a veto from the state's governor. The Democratic-controlled house voted 95-52 in favor of the bill, which had already cleared the state Senate in a 26-4 vote. The state's Republican governor, James Douglas, says he now plans to veto it. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas is hugged by opponents of the gay-marriage bill in Montpelier Thursday. Douglas has threatened to veto the measure. Supporters of the Vermont bill would need additional votes in the house to override the veto, which requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the legislature. Lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine also are considering bills that would allow gay marriage." A sorry state of affairs when California is more reactionary than Iowa!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:19 PM She hasn't made it at all, Ake, nor have you. Expressing hatred, irrational fear, cross-eyed bias, and the like, is not "making a point very well", or even making it at all. She, and you, have a belief that there should be a social institution, with appertaining legal rights, to "protect" heterosexual mating, as though it really depended on a social formula, and to keep it from being brought low by such a horrible proposition as equal status in the eyes of the law regardless of gender pairing. I believe that no such special institution is needed to encourage heterosexual pairing and that while the protocols and fluff and pomp of solemn rituals is all well and good, there should never be a legal privelege allowed to some and denied to others on the basis of their sexual orientation. You think htere should be. Neither of you has justified this slant. I think this slant is undemocratic and inhumane, and essentially a defense of bigotry. Shall we start the whole conversation over again? Why don't you jjust read the thread into a tape recorder?? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM Guest has made his/ her point very well.....Any refuting must come from the "liberals" who so far have failed to make even sense! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM Lots of snide tap dancing, but not a genuine refutation in the whole carload. (Yawn). Nothing new here. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM Forgot to post my name, again... Sorry, that i didn't get back sooner....recording. Ok..down the line:From: TIA Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM Shine a light on cockroaches, and they scurry away. GfS: I wouldn't know about cockroaches. I guess if you had the time to observe them, maybe you could spend that same time cleaning your house...until then, try eating over the sink! Don: Yeah, as a "guest," it makes it easy to try to adopt different personae and develop what appears to be a whole horde of people who agree with you. Fairly transparent ploy, however. GfS: Is that the best you can do??...The weak accuse others of their own motives!! Riginslinger: like e. e. cummings... GfS: Rig, Do you really think that many people on here are that well read. When I looked at that post, I figured he typed that way, because he was a chat roomer. Oh well, I suppose 'assumptions' in here, are the equivalent of an edict! Maybe. some flexibility, in data gathering, before coming to a conclusion, might be a novel idea.....(?) By the way, thank you for interjecting possibilityFrom: TIA: Don T. - ".... "Guest Curious Reader" and "Guest lansing". They share an aversion to capital letters," GfS: I think that was covered above. Hey, did you ever work for NASA on the Gemini, or Challenger projects? Don Firth: "bubblyrat, that is not the fault of gays, it's a streak of idiocy in your "Social Sevices" bureau." GfS: Don, it must be that time again!..A broken clock is right, at least two times a day!! Amos:.......well Amos's post was too unintelligible, to understand, to reply to it. Sorry ol' chap! Ebbie: You know, curious reader, if you become a Mudcat member you can communicate directly with Guest from Sanity. GfS: Another piece of rocket science. Hmmmmm. I just realized - Membership won't help you when it comes to communicating with GtS......GfS: Thinking out loud, or what?....Ebbie: because he has never seen fit to reveal himself to that extent......GfS: Ebbie, sweetie, I'm so 'fit', that is why you can't understand me. GfS: Sheeesh! Her post is self-explanatory..just by itself. So far, I've managed not to name call with personal attacks, or be nasty spirited. Suck it up..the best is yet to come....(unlike,..well never mind..) AND TO YOU, CURIOUS READER: Sorry I've been long, in replying...I'll do that in my next post. Been doing some intensive recording sessions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM I learned something interesting this morning; one of the older gents we regularly have morning coffee with at Tims pointed this out: General Motors is in immediate danger of bankruptcy. Ford is at least hoping to get along without federal aid. At one time Both GM and Ford "supported gay people", but Ford has since "repented" of doing so. Which just goes to show you... All that I actually learned, of course, was that the old guy is much more "that way" then I realized previously. He prefaced his whole "case" with his own realization that we would disagress; there wasn't much point in arguing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM IMO, THIS is beautiful and heartwrenching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 09 - 03:34 AM I agree that this seems to be a case of mismanagement Ebbie and probably not avery good example for this discussion, but the problem here is that social services are obliged to grant adoption rights to almost any homosexual couple who apply, in order to keep to the same ratios as hetero couples. This is now a legal requirement. As a result, the needs or wishes of the children or of their extended family are being ignored. I'm afraid that in my view the law regarding homosexual fostering of chilren is "an ass" I know you don't agree with my point of view Ebbie, but thanks for all the interesting and reasoned posts that you have contributed. Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM Shine a light on cockroaches, and they scurry away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM Thanks, ake. An amazing story. In the US - as an operating rule - relatives are considered valid adoptive parents when a parent - usually a woman - is deemed unfit. There are numerous adopted children in my extended family- I have two adopted sisters and several of my sisters have adopted a daughter. This is in Oregon - although one of the adoptions began in Canada. Two others happened in Virginia. It frequently is not an easy or swift process. Several times the adoption has been held up for months because a relative is on again, off again about taking the child or children. In fact, right now, a niece who is a single woman who is an American Sign Language teacher and deeply involved in social work is in the process of adoption. She first fostered two children and then when she expressed her desire to adopt them both, they brought her the children's two siblings. So now she is foster parenting the four and would like to adopt them all. At this point a cousin of the children is in the pipeline as to whether she would be willing or able to adopt them- she has not yet decided. In the meantime Sheryl takes the children to visit the cousin on a weekly basis. She also sees to it that their mother sees them as she is able. I think adoptive parents are remarkable people. (One of my nieces and her husband have adopted nine children- the first three, all unrelated by blood and less than a year apart in age have now left the home. They are 19. One of them is a social worker working with youngsters on the street in Tacoma, another is pursuing a singing career and the other has discovered travel. Everywhere he goes he finds places where he would love to live- China, Belgium, Ireland... He is now back in his hometown and is engaged to be married. His traveling days may be over. :) A great kid. OK, that niece may not be the typical parent!) The grandparents' ages and health issues are NOT good reasons to turn them down. They could be adopted by a healthy young mum and dad who are killed in a car accident a year later. As for the adopted parents being two gay men, good for them. I have two gay men friends who would be wonderful parents. However, this whole matter seems to have been badly mismanaged. I hope this is not the end of the story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM Sorry Ebbie, just realised you can get the article through the search function in the link....duh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM Sorry....try this! link |
