BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 12:19 AM

I knew we could make it! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:13 PM

"'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work..."

Really, GfS?? Now we have a whole mew point of major disagreement.

For Crissake buy yourself a dictionary!! And a good book on political science!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:26 PM

"Liberalization" means many things, it seems, to different people. ;-) To me it means easing up on old rigid rules and providing greater freedom and greater latitude for free thinking.

The Catholic Church, for instance, has been greatly liberalized over the past many centuries, as have most of the other Christian churches. As a result, they are now more tolerant in a number of areas and women have a far greater voice in the community than used to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:45 PM

Here's the entire dictionary answer on what the world "liberal" means:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1325–75; ME < L lîberâlis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to lîber free + -âlis -al 1

Related forms:

lib⋅er⋅al⋅ly, adverb
lib⋅er⋅al⋅ness, noun


Synonyms:
1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.


Antonyms:
1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.


*****

It is quite clear that the word "liberal" has been misused a great deal lately in certain American political rhetoric. I know of no other country besides the USA where "liberal" has become a common insult word, but I gather from my history readings that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all hated the liberals of their time with a vengeance...as did the Spanish Inquisition. Authoritarian movements can't stand liberals.

We may have to find some brand new words to express what we're talking about, because the old ones simply aren't serving their proper function anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:50 PM

And.... "liberate" means: to make free

Whereas... "conserve" means: to maintain and not waste

Either proposition is a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:16 PM

One of the standard techiniques of "black PR" skills is the insidious redefinition of terms in order to create a distortion of the things or people who use the label.

Throughout the Bush years, foaming right wing mouths like Ann Coulter and Rush LImbaugh took up the cry to redefine the word "Liberal" from its core meanings, given above by Little Hawk, to some ridiculous epithet laden with the meanings of "Commie", "mooch", "tree hugger", "socialist pinko", "pushover" and "stupid bleeding-heart slob".

The word means none of these things, but Ann didn't mind; she needed a hate-label and she drummed up a huge mess of pottage and slapped it into her vitriolic books in order to make some dough by slandering people of different political philosophy.

That this was an un-American, anti-social, counter-productive course of action seems to have escaped her attention.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:21 PM

Of course it escaped her attention, Amos. ;-D She thought she was saving America!

Don't forget, Hitler also thought he was saving Germany. The Messianic complex can justify anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:00 PM

Thanks for posting that, Little Hawk.

The primary thing I was stomping on in GfS's post is the idea that liberals favor living off the work of other people. That is not, in any way, part of the definition of "liberal," nor is it what liberals want. The whole thrust of liberalism is freedom from the kind of restrictions and interference that tyrants, bullies, and the kind of people who think they have the right to tell other people how to live. This is what liberalism opposes.

Of course, it is those tyrants, bullies, and interfering snoop-nuisances who, for that very reason, hate liberals the most. When the world needs changing, it's the liberals and progressives who see the necessity, initiate the action, and take all the crap from those who have a vested interest in trying to maintain the status quo.

I tend to agree with Benjamin Disraeli, who once said, "I regard myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal."

If you think about it, you can readily see that the two are not mutually exclusive, as some would have you believe.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:58 PM

For sure, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:49 PM

It is my dog who favors living off the work of other people, and he's NOT liberal! As a matter of fact, he's deeply conservative about everything. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:56 PM

Your dog is a secret commie homo, Little Hawk. Face it.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:59 PM

I think he's a closet Stalinist or something. I keep hoping he won't "come out", for the sake of domestic tranquility around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest From Sanity
Date: 11 May 09 - 10:14 PM

Good Lord!..Don't go into a tizzy!. I was merely being facetious!.Referring to present day political rhetoric, ONLY!
By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??(I mean the real one, not the political nonsense????)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:02 PM

Many (if not most) people are extremely liberal about some things, moderate about other things, and very conservative about still others. ;-) That's what makes the labels "liberal" and "conservative" so misleading.

For instance, here's an interesting conundrum. One of the definitions of "liberal" in the online dictionary I consulted is: "4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

Okay. Now, that would seem to go hand in hand with a cause that is normally espoused by people who call themselves "conservatives" in the USA, namely the cause that says citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Well, if to be liberal is to be in favor of "maximum individual freedom possible", then it should be an extremely liberal position on guns to assert that everyone should be free to buy and own firearms of every kind if they wish to....and it should be a conservative on guns who is in favor of restricting gun ownership and stringently regulating it!

Restrictions and regulations on gun ownerwhip ARE conservative measures on gun ownership, going by the dictionary definition of what "liberal" is supposed to be. ;-D

I find this very ironical.

The truth is that every liberal is quite conservative about stuff he's against, but quite liberal about stuff he is for! The same is true of conservatives...they are quite conservative about stuff they are against and quite liberal about stuff they are for. Whoever you look at, "liberals" or "conservatives", they would clearly both like to shut down and shut up "the other side" of the debate if they could. In that respect, they are both acting in anything but a classically "liberal" fashion, because they are both demonstrating intolerance, prejudice, and a desire to control and restrict the actions of the people they don't agree with.

The conclusion I draw from that is simple: both the "conservative" and "liberal" movements in America today are absolutely riddled with self-serving hypocrisy, prejudice, and delusions of moral superiority. They recognize it as such, though, only when the other side does it...not when they do it themselves.

The pot is calling the kettle black, and the kettle is responding in kind. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:17 AM

"By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??"

Not closed-minded at all, GfS. I've considered your viewpoint and rejected it, in the same way I reject stock arguments put forth by the Flat Earth Society.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:19 AM

And by the way, Little Hawk, you're waffling again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:29 AM

Waffles are good with butter and maple syrup.

Re LH's dogs: remember the dog's philosophy of life: if you can't eat it and you can't piss on it, fuck it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:10 AM

No, Don, I am not waffling. I am dealing with EACH thing that comes up with on its own merits, regardless. Only people who think they must always represent one and only one partisan viewpoint in a generalized political discussion will insist on backing every single assertion that is made ON one and only one side of that discussion...and rejecting all those made on the other side as a matter of course.

I am not a "liberal", and am not obliged to parrot all liberal positions, though there are many liberal positions I agree with.

I am not a "conservative" and am not obliged to parrot all conservative positions, though there are a fair number of conservative positions I may agree with.

I am a free being and a free thinker deals with each matter strictly on its own merits.

Both you AND GfS have said many things in this discussion that I find myself in agreement with, and some that I don't agree with. I am under no obligation to exclusively back either one of you at the expense of the other. I do not take sides in that fashion.

I deal with each single statement that comes up on its own merits.

I find it fascinating how both "liberals" and "conservatives" are so often guilty of the same kind of bloody-minded unfairness and prejudice towards one another...yet they cannot see it in themselves.

That's because they have fallen into a partisan ("we're always right and they're always wrong") mindset. It's something to remain alert against, and it's a good reason to avoid being partisan altogether if one possibly can.

And I'm not just talking about political parties when I say: partisan. I'm talking about attitudes shared commonly by various groups of people who have strong opinions of any kind. They form a sort of "club" of people who think alike. Everyone in the club parrots the favored line.

I don't wish to belong to any of those clubs...

This does not mean I'm a moral relativist, as you put it. It means I think independently for myself, regardless of the prevailing styles and preferences of my peer group.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:36 AM

Exatly so LH.....many so called liberal positions are simply political issues dressed in such a manner that any questioning of that position can be battered into submission by foul language and innuendo.....this thread is a typical example.

"Bigot", "homophobe" etc has been used in many of the posts here in place of reasoned discussion and to try to stifle debate....these people are "liberal" in name only, in reality they are fascists.

Closed ears...closed eyes....closed minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:26 AM

Legal equality is an issue about which we should be open-minded...how? I have asked for reasonss that would justify legal exclusionism and haven't been answered with any actual ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM

Thank you both for clarifying, "political rhetoric", because that's exactly what I meant, when I wrote it.
Just open your minds, just for a moment. I am not writing this in any contentious manner, but rather trying to give you something very salient, to consider. (A wise man hears all the matter, before he speaks)
As I've said MANY MANY times, especially during the primaries(you can go back and check), is that the right wing, and left wing are on the same bird! (I used an analogy of a boxer, in the ring, beating his opponent, with a right, another right, then a left, a left hook, then another right.)..What he is beating up, is US!!! Both the wings, and political parties these days are nutzo, do not represent the people, have everybody bickering over shit, that they TOLD you is important, while keeping us distracted from the major shit going down!
When I first started posting on this particular thread, I already knew what was going on with the homosexual agenda, verses the actual hurt, pain and resentments that not only bring on homosexuality, but how they, through this issue, are only evading confronting any honest help, or solution, to a situation that they have found themselves in, because they FEEL helpless to do anything about it!!
Now its become a political issue, which is comfortable, and far enough away from their inner needs, and their sense of being helped out of it, to have a normal life, being able to survive and reproduce,(as ALL living organisms on this ball spinning in space), and have to confidence to raise their own natural children, with the woman that bore them with him. Why??? Because their sensitivities,(needed ones, and gifted ones), were neglected, or perceived of being neglected, when they were young?..For the male homosexual, a needed, and not fulfilled place in his heart, from his father...so he resents his masculinity. Why??..Because a child, even you, either created or expected certain attentions, and love, security, and bonding as a given, to and from your parents. It is one's reality he lives in. When he is denied those things, or perceives he is being denied these things, he FEELS two things as a result. One, the realization that he is resented by his father, which leads him to feelings of worthlessness, to be loved by him, and hopelessness, that it will ever come from him. Two, resentment of his own masculinity, because he is like his dad, in that way, can't get the love and attention, gravitates, to the mother, resents the dad, and takes on unforgiveness to him, and learns more feminine traits to communicate closer to the mother..to be of interest to her!
In other words, the love inside them, towards their dad, he sees as ineffective!!
Listen to me,..open up...these two things are prominent, in virtually all homosexuals. The reverse for lesbians, except in cases of sexual abuse, and or, being with a man, who usually they feel ineffective with.
You have heard homosexuals say, "I FEEL like a woman trapped in a mans body(and vice versa)"...Ok?....Who gets trapped??!!?? VICTIMS!!!! Yes, VICTIMS..and who is victimizing them?........a combination, of neglect, and their sensitivities. That's how powerful it was! Ever notice some of the most brilliant artists, are homosexual??...Why? Sensitivities, and learning to speak to the other side of themselves, giving them sometimes a wider perspective!
I had originally thought of sharing a story with you, about a friend of mine, I mentioned in another post, I guy I knew, who was the most brilliant, composer, sound engineer, laser engineer, it think I had ever met, up to that point..and still heads and shoulders above many since. He taught me volumes about sound, and composing, that still is ahead of the pack. He finally opened up to me, when he finally felt no threat from me, or condemnation, but rather objective, caring, interest in him,, and his true inner needs. He and his father were distant, due to a long history of mutual bitterness, and disapproval. This guy was in the USMC Marine Band, had scholarships for music, and could play a variety of instruments..and WELL!
When we talked about sensitivities, I pointed out to him, that being sensitive was a huge quality, and being as he knew that, and we both acknowledged it, and he was gifted with it, I asked him, if instead of either resenting it, or hiding it, why not nurture it, in a child of his own, being as he knew so very well, how valuable, and powerful it was. Just hearing that, tears welled up in his eyes, and he admitted that he always wanted to do that, but didn't think he could because he had been Homosexual so long, that he lost touch with that ability, of what he really always wanted to do.
Not long after, he found his partner, Mark had come down with something he just could shake...and not too long after, Mark died of AIDS. Mark had the same issues with his dad, and in that, they found 'common ground'.
Deeply saddened, bordering on mourning, we talked more, and he opened up more. I asked him if his father had ever heard his incredible recordings. He was resolved to the thought, that his dad wouldn't like them, be interested in them, or him, and so his father never heard it.
Making a long post shorter, I'll skip the details of our conversations,(unless anyone is curious), and he took his recordings, and masters, up, and was going to get 're-acquainted with his dad, in Sacramento...possibly with the hopes of reconciling with him. Turns out, he stayed up there with him for better part of a year....and then died from AIDS, with his father, taking care of him, to the end.
So Dale, (the guy), you told me, that you wish you could have known before, and sooner...so where ever you are out there,..I'm honoring your wish..to all the other 'Dales' out there. I told you I would have, if I would have know sooner too!
Now, dying of AIDS was not the issue, I was trying to underscore. He could have died, for any reason....The thing is, my children's generation, is also denied of that genius and that gene pool is forever lost...NEEDLESSLY!!!!!! THOUGHTLESSLY!!!
What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals,..well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate...OR..you really can, consider another side.
Thank you.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:38 AM

The most interesting phrase in that long tirade is "virtually all homosexuals". How do you know ? Have you asked "virtually all homosexuals" ? You haven't asked me, my partner, my two gay work colleagues, their partners, my ex and my previous ex, or my nephew. And, for that matter, I suspect you might not be in regular correspondence with Ian McKellen, Elton John, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady, Ben Bradshaw MP, Rupert Everett (I'm English so excuse the list of British names).....you get the point.

I would never presume to know about "virtually all heterosexuals". It is a nonsensical term, as it would include John Wayne, Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Tony Blair, Fred Astaire and Fred Flintstone. Not people who have a lot in common, really, except for their choice of gendered sexual object.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:53 AM

GfS:

Thanks for the compassionate and insightful post.

I don't know the reason for extending from your experience to all cases of homosexuality. I suspect that's not likely to be borne out in the long run, but it is clear 6that abuse and loss CAN result in major identity problems including sexuality ones.

When other observers document a probability for genetic factors, do you just reject it as bad research, instinctively?

Finally, your view that emotional distress is the major precipitating element in people "becoming" homosexual does not seem, really, to address the issue of legal exclusion. Similar factors, for example,make other people turn neurotic, Christian, promiscuous, alcoholic, gambling-addicted, stuttering, and other syndromes. Yet none of these are selected out for legal exclusion.

Because your exposure to one angle is intense and personal, it is strongly felt, but it doesn't make it true, or just, or equitable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 10:04 AM

GfS, that post of yours from 4:28 was going quite well until the last line. I was gaining some respect for your input here but with that you completely lost me again. I find your attack dog tactics very off-putting. Ake obviously holds a position very similar to yours but I read his posts and consider his ideas because they are generally posted in a thoughtful manner. I try to do the same with yours but find it difficult.

I very much like to read and hear opinions that differ from mine. It requires me to defend my position in my own mind and sometimes I decide that was wrong. I am with LH on the idea of thoughtful debate. A barrage of attacks is not likely to change anybodys mind, it is rather the reasoned phrase that makes one stop to consider.

I have until now not addressed you directly, GfS, because I do not intend to get in a squabble with you. I realize I may have put myself in the cross-hairs with this but what the hey.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:27 AM

KB..the very last line is ..".OR..you really can, consider another side."...so what's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:07 PM

It was the part before the "OR" that I found objectionable and I do not think it was needed. I feel your post would have been more compelling without that bit. You are free to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:42 PM

Well, we all sometimes get a little too vehement when our emotions are strongly involved in something, KB. It happens.

Very good post, GfS. What I find really interesting about what you said is that the dynamic you describe of a boy being very alienated from his father while growing up, that whole thing, that's exactly what I went through....and yes, it did make me move closer to my mother's mode of being, it made me instinctively move toward sensitivity and artistic things, it made me talk and perhaps think more like a woman to a greater extent than the average guy does, and it has undoubtedly helped me to be a more subtle and creative person in the arts...at least I think it has.

It did not, however, result in my moving away from the traditional role of heterosexuality...though I can see why it might result in that in any number of possible individual cases.

I remain very attracted to women, and not to men, but I did suffer this pain around not getting the approval and love of my father.

Interesting indeed.

I guess that some people will react to that situation by rejecting their traditional sexual role in some way and reversing it, but I did not.

One thing though. I never married and I took pains not to have any children. Those are probably some after-effects right there of the family dynamic you refer to.

I remain utterly romantic about women to this day, but I am highly reluctant to get tied down in any arrangement such as marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:47 PM

A gay friend of mine grew up in a 3-child family. He was especially close to his mother, it is true, but he is close to his father too. Family is important to him.

His brother is a politically conservative, money-making, goal-oriented straight man whom my friend is not close with. His sister is gay. They have a nephew who is also gay.

Given all that - and countless other pieces of evidence - I fail utterly to see why the idea of genetics is so difficult, so resisted, among those who feel so vehemently about homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:54 PM

Amos, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that gays should be excluded from having gay relationships if they wish to, but some posters feel that the present political campaign to make same-sex marriage officially legal and the same as heterosexual marriage is not necessarily what it purports to be: something that will make society freer and better in every way than it is now.

Rather, it might be seen as a sort of attention-getting ploy on the part of various special interest groups and various self-interested political parties to manipulate votes and to distract the public from tremendously more vital issues.

It might be seen as more "divide and conquer" strategy, in fact. If so, it has succeeded brilliantly. Just look at the history of this thread.

Do you follow what I mean by that?

Note: I am in no way opposed to gays getting legally married if it makes them happy. I AM opposed to this issue being given way more press and media spin lately than, frankly, I think it deserves. As I've said before, I think it's a tempest in a teapot. I think it's a political game.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:06 PM

"I AM opposed to this issue being given way more press and media spin lately than, frankly, I think it deserves."

Now that the battle is (at least for now) won in Iowa the main play it gets in the media is because of the continued opposition of those who fell the same as Ake and GfS. I think it would drop out of the news cycle altogether if the anti crowd would let it. "Same-sex couple weds" is no longer a story.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:08 PM

LH:

The exclusion, as I have mentioned about fifty times on this repetitive thread, is from a legal status (marriage) extended under the law to other consenting adults due to a difference in their plumbing while excluding some. Under the law a civil status should not be denied on the basis of plumbing or preferences for plumbing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:21 PM

Well, we all sometimes get a little too vehement when our emotions are strongly involved in something, KB. It happens.

My problem is that GfS presents the argument this way on a regular basis. Ake gets carried away on occasion (as do some of those with whom I agree on this issue) but not as standard practice.

"well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit

Really, you expect me to take this seriously? Should I alter my position based on this? Like I said, up to this point it was a good post but this blew away the goodwill that had been built up. This is not a verbal sparring match where things come out before you have a chance to reflect. We are sitting at our keyboards and can re-read what we have written before we hit 'submit message'.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:26 PM

No, KB, I don't expect you to take that one sentence seriously. I expect you to realized it's someone venting some inner tension they're feeling at the time. It does not, however, invalidate the whole rest of GfS's post which is very thought-provoking. I don't see why one should throw the baby out the window because of a single blemish on its face... ;-) (if you see what I mean)


Amos - Yes, I agree with you that "Under the law a civil status should not be denied on the basis of plumbing or preferences for plumbing."

Fine. But that's not my concern here. Do you understand what does concern me about the present political situation in North America vis-a-vis same-sex marriage and the gay rights movement generally and how the media is handling it?

I think that if the aggressive zealots and extremists on BOTH sides of this issue would get off their raving little soapboxes and quit bitching at each other and accusing each other in the media that, yes, it would, as KB says, drop out of the news cycle permanently. And we could all then get on peacefully with our lives...gays and straights alike. I'd like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:30 PM

Wal, I dunno who's a zealot or an extremist. I'm kind of enthusiastic about defending what looks to me like a core civil right that has been curtailed by heavy prejudice, and that in violation of our core precepts about equality under the law. Does that make me a zealot? To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "If this be zealotry, let us make the most of it."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:37 PM

It's not you I'm talking about, Amos. It's the people who make an actual full time career out of raising hell over this one issue that I'm talking about. They are the people who dominate the issue in the national media and they are the main force driving the hostility that is brought to bear around the debate.

Anita Bryant, for example, was one such person...on the anti-homosexual side of the argument. She was the natural antagonist of people a lot like her on the other side of the argument....zealots...both sides bolstered with their own utter certainty of their moral superiority, their love for justice, and the rightness of their cause.

That's who I'm referring to as "zealots"...I am not referring to you or to someone else on this forum. We're just some people engaging in chit chat here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:39 PM

I don't see why one should throw the baby out the window because of a single blemish on its face

It isn't one blemish, it's the pattern of name calling and be-littling of ones opponents, LH. It grows tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:41 PM

KB, The part you are referring to, I used to address those who resort to the name calling, and labeling those, including me, of being bigots, etc etc. I also used that phraseology, to emphasize how strongly I resent small minded, excuse seeking, politically motivated, closed minds, who only resort to division, instead of meaningful dialogue, whose end result, only leads to enlightenment. Let's not forget the intended hurt, these people are trying to inflict by accusing others of things that are untrue, just to shut them up, and/or discredit them. THAT, I find more offensive than my verbal re-action.
However, I do respect your opinion, and be not afraid..you are NOT IN MY CROSSHAIRS
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:14 PM

GfS, your description of the experience of your friend is anecdotal, and it may very well be true in his case. I, however, have had discussions with gay men who tell me a whole different story. Many of them had perfectly fine relationships with their fathers. In some cases the relationship turned out not to be so fine when the son "came out of the closet," but by then, the son's gender orientation had made itself manifest. And it was not their decision. In fact, it was something they often denied and fought against.

I know one gay man quite well who had a very good relationship with his father as he was growing up. Through grade school and high school, he always had the feeling that he was somehow different. He liked girls, but he just wasn't as interested in them, especially physically, as the guys he knew. And—he found himself attracted to other boys that he admired, although (he realizes now) he always had to repress disturbing feelings of physical attraction; the kind of feelings that he knew his male friends seemed to have about girls.

And he would have punched out anyone who said that he was "gay" or "queer."

Following the "norm," he dated girls, and eventually he married. It didn't take him long to realize that this had been a big mistake. He liked the woman very much, but their physical relationship was a disaster. And they were both miserable. After a couple of years—and marriage counseling—it became clear what the problem was.

This was not a "decision" on his part. It was a recognition of what IS.

They had an amicable divorce. Shortly thereafter, he met a man. They have been living together quite happily for several years now. They own things together, including a condo and an automobile. A stable, monogamous relationship.

They are both "out of the closet" to their families and friends, and they would like very much to render their relationship official. But so far, the existing laws will not allow them to do this.

Mark says that he has always been gay. It just took going through hell to make him realize it, then finally admit it to himself. "Now," he says, "I feel like a whole human being." On the same-sex marriage issue, he says, "I just don't see why David and I shouldn't have the same rights everyone else has!"

GfS, because I am concerned over the matter of denial of civil rights, and am willing to argue the issue and present both ethical arguments and scientific evidence as to why it is unjust and unfair, you insist on accusing me of being a brainless, closed-minded idiot and (oh, horrors!!) a "liberal," along with being "small minded, excuse seeking, [and] politically motivated."

(You silver-tongued devil, you!)

And even though you may not be a bigot, you often descend to talking like one, and you use the same litany of arguments, debating devices, and pejorative terms that bigots generally use to try to support their prejudices. So we're back to ducks again.

Anecdotal evidence does not trump the results of scientific studies. And attempting to dismiss them by claiming that the scientific evidence has been "bought" by "the gay lobby" is just more of the same kind of bigoted rhetoric.

So if you resent being labeled a "bigot. . . ."

Being (as I have been accuse) a "brainless liberal," I find it strange that I should be quoting that paladin of the American conservative movement (now regarded by conservatives as a bit too much of a "centrist"), Barry Goldwater, but it's pretty hard to deny the truth of one of his best known quotes:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:30 PM

Aside from the civil rights issue of equal treatment under law, all the arm waving and spite-spewing in this thread is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether homosexuality is born in the genes, or is an occasional reaction to loss or abuse, or if it is endowed by hung-over Tooth Fairies who are too drunk to use the right spell.

The remaining sole issue is whether the exclusionist principle or the inclusionist principle should be followed in addressing the legal codes. It's either "all men are created equal" or "some men are created more equal than others".

Your call, big girl.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:57 PM

The remaining sole issue is whether the exclusionist principle or the inclusionist principle should be followed in addressing the legal codes.

This was the reasoning of the Iowa Supreme Court. They found there was no compelling interest to the state in denying marriage based on gender.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:19 PM

That's the remaining sole issue for you, Amos, (smile) becaue it's the one you wish to focus on. It's not the remaining sole issue for me, because I don't have a problem with the legalization of same-sex marriage in the first place.

Why would you assume that your "remaining sole issue" has to be everyone else's?

It's other issues altogether that have kept me interested in posting on this thread...the usual issues that interest me, and they mostly have to do with good human relations, clear communication, and mutual respect for one another...even IF our views, our lifestyles or our politics may differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:26 PM

Is somebody missing something here? Somebody must be missing something here!

As far as I'm concerned, the civil rights issue is the sole issue here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:33 PM

It's not the sole issue for me if I'm not against it, Don, and I'm not against it.

It's not an issue for me at all. I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have never had any problem with same sex marriage. I don't care if people decide they want to do that. I don't care if it's made legal in Schenectady or Blind River or anywhere else. I shrug my shoulders. It's not my business anyway, is it?

So, yes, you are missing something in regards to why I am bothering to post on this thread. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:13 PM

Well I see we are back in repitition mode from the pro homo "marriage" gang, so it is pointless to go through it all again
I am absolutely delighted by the way the anti Homo "marriage" argument has been presented by GfS and I am happy with what I have written.
Little Hawk as always has been the voice of reason...not a pro and not an anti, but a free thinker and democrat who should be an inspiration to us all.
I care not a whit about changing the minds of political weasels, but I am certain that this thread, which was started as a cynical Democrat vote winner, has become a document which any fair minded person can read and be informed by.

That is what is really important...that people have the guts to stand up to the lynch mob. Never be cowed when they tell you how many degrees they have or their depth of education.....intelligence reason, understanding and bravery are the important attributes.

Let the parrots chatter, reason has been set down against bullying and abuse, let those who read this, next week, next month, next year, make up their own minds...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:48 PM

How cool that I would stop by at this juncture... only because the hockey game is still a bit off and I am bored.

I read a couple of posts and can "conjecture"... same shit, different day. Glad I left long ago.

Think I already said this, but, if I did, once again, youse have fun eh. See you after another thousand posts.... unless the Patriots are in the playoffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:58 PM

This thread is about Proposition 8 and similar reactions pro and con, and the right opf people to legislate against basic civil rights.

That was what it was started about.

That is the topic.

All the rest is but sound and fury, mere garnishee to a crazy salad.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:51 PM

"It's not an issue for me at all. I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have never had any problem with same sex marriage. I don't care if people decide they want to do that. I don't care if it's made legal in Schenectady or Blind River or anywhere else. I shrug my shoulders. It's not my business anyway, is it?

"So, yes, you are missing something in regards to why I am bothering to post on this thread. ;-D "

Little Hawk, I very, very frequently agree with you on many, many subjects. I loves you, babe.

However. On this subject I wouldn't say that you are in denial, exactly, but you have said enough on it - many moons ago - that make me feel that you are being somewhat disenguous on this thread.

Examine it- and you will see what I mean.

As for the Bobbsey Twins, as has been clearly ponted out. you are not addressing the subject at all.

I have gay friends in relationships - at least one of the couples went to the East Coast and got married some time back- who own property together and are 'out' to everybody but they are sharply aware that if something happens to them healthwise or even should one of them die, their rights over their estate are virtually non-xistent.

And that, my friends, is the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:06 PM

Well, actually, this thread was staying pretty much on message until early afternoon of December 20, 2008, then it really went to hell a couple of hours later.

Tracing the career of this post shows the diversionary power of that mighty costumed hero and defender of propriety (Trumpet Fanfare), The Red Herring.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:07 PM

Bingo.

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

(The bingo was for Ebbie)