 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:52 PM I don't miss the point, Amos. I am well aware of what concerns many of you here about the civil rights issue, and I see no particular reason to oppose you on that, because in the whole I agree with you. I have said many times that I have no objection to ANY pair of consenting adults marrying one another. I also see what's concerning Akenaton. I don't think he's talking specifically about the California legal situation which is what many of you here are focusing on, I think he's discussing in a more general sense as it applies to the whole world including his own society in the UK whether a legal marriage complete with all the traditional ceremonials and expectations should be extended and broadened in its definition to include same-sex marriages as well as the traditional marriage of a man to a woman. He feels that it shouldn't, and for a number of reasons that are not based on some supposed hatred he has for gays. But that's only the start. He also feels that many in the liberal/progressive community (which he himself is a part of since he is a leftist progressive politically speaking)...he feels that many are lining up like good little slogan-repeating conformists within their own political correctness movement and supporting an exaggerated and out of balance media extravaganza that's been going on for at least a decade or more now about gay rights, primarily because they are, so to speak, admiring their own glorious "liberal" reflection in the mirror of their own minds while they're doing it, and that pleases them...not because they love gay people. And that could be a problem. Are people for something on genuine principles? Or are they acting out the latest political orthodoxy because they are so in love with their own righteous self-image? Do they really care about gays? Or do they care about how they sound when they start talking? That might be what is really concerning Akenaton here...and why he is so pissed off at what he sees a lot of so-called "liberals" doing. They're a bit like all the folkies back in the mid-60s...caught up so much in their own perceived moral purity and saying all the "right" things to each other loudly...and Oh! just so pleased to find some outcast heretics like Akenaton or GfS to pounce on and eviscerate with holy ardor....but do they actually give a damn about most gay people? Something along that line... ;-) I think you are mainly discussing Prop 8, Amos. I think Akenaton is discussing some much wider-ranging and more subtle issues beyond that, and so am I. And I agree with both of you on certain points, while I disagree on others. Furthermore, I respect both of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:08 AM The "Liberal" agenda does not consist of "rights for all", it consists of rights for certain selected minorities, especially vociferous powerful minorities with control over the media and entertainment industry! In other words the "liberal" agenda is to support any cause which may be useful in its quest for total power!! It's agenda, or the agenda of "liberals" in general, does not contain the right of "Freedom of Speech" The current attempt in the UK to criminalise the criticism of sexual behaviour, is about as reactionary as it gets!! Would this open the Pandora's Box of criminalising any sort of discussion?.....how long before it became a criminal offense to criticise the behaviour of the State? Fuckin' wake up, you are in the process of being skinned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:12 AM We are starting to approach the Orwellian realms of "thought crime" Send for the "thought police"! Little Hawk...If they really cared about homosexuals, they would be more concerned by the horrendous homosexual health statistics than homosexual marriage "rights". I'm sorry to say, they appear to be nothing more than a gang of politically motivated hypocrites, more concerned with their own political agenda than the deaths and suffering of homosexuals trapped in the current impasse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:27 AM Froggie....are you saying the inhabitants of the whole East Coast of Scotland are "abnormal"? (Not a very liberal shentiment shurely???) :0) SMEDDUM?....you have to be Scottish to fully understand the connotations. If you can be bothered, try reading the short story of the same name by Lewis Grassic Gibbon....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:31 AM sheeeeit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 09 - 11:31 AM Not so difficult to grasp, ake. From google: (And may I add that lacking 'pith' as you say I do is better than lacking 'understanding' as I say you do. Pith can be developed, understanding takes heart.) "The Scots language has had its up and downs over the centuries, as have some of the words that it contains. Smeddum is one such word. It goes back to Anglo-Saxon smeodoma, meaning fine flour. In 17th century Scotland, it referred to the finest particles of grain lost as dust in the grinding process and swept up as refuse or food for the miller's pigs. A century later, its meaning had been extended to any fine powder including a red precipitate of mercury, an insecticide known to Burns, who would have given the eponymous antihero of his poem To a Louse a dose 'of fell red smeddum'. "The notion of efficacy extended the meaning of the word to pith, strength or essence of a substance and so, in 1822, Galt describes good snuff as 'sae brisk in the smeddum, so pleasant to the smell'. "Smeddum was applied figuratively to spirit, energy and courage. Burns wrote in 1787 of persons possessing 'smeddum and rumblegumption'. This is the sense in which Lewis Grassic Gibbon used it for the title of a short story." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:06 PM Oh, gays may bleed, if you up and cut 'em, Their noses break if you head-butt 'em Their hearts may throb with love of glory, And thrill to tales of heros hoary. Gays may hunger, gays may thirst. Care for the best, and fear the worst. Gays may have dreams patriotic, Dreams bizarre, and dreams erotic. Gays may fear, and overcoming, March to the deathly battle-drumming. Gays may weep, when hearts are shattered, Feel quite human--but, no matter. Gays will never have true smeddum, Therefore you must never weddum! Gallivant Pixielater Andyerhorstu Hunagrians SIng for Gays Brown and Study, London 2001 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM "They're a bit like all the folkies back in the mid-60s...caught up so much in their own perceived moral purity and saying all the 'right' things to each other loudly...and Oh! just so pleased to find some outcast heretics like Akenaton or GfS to pounce on and eviscerate with holy ardor....but do they actually give a damn about most gay people?" Little Hawk, I don't know how old you are, but the view you have of "folkies in the mid-60s" is strictly shallow stereotyping and is misleading and inaccurate. I lived through that era as a adult, so I do know what it was like. Your idea of the "folkies back in the mid-60s" and Ake's idea of Liberals and the "Liberal agenda" are fictitious constructs based on stereotypes, probably learned from people who have no idea of what it's all about, and on that basis, view it with contempt. What Little Hawk and Ake are saying is highly offensive and insulting to the people who were and are involved. But I write it off as the babblings of a couple of guys who haven't a clue as to what they're talking about and have more than amply demonstrated that they are not qualified to speak on the subject. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM It might be worthwhile to look back through history at the arising of the institution we call "marriage" and to discuss how and why it came into being in the first place. It's been around a long, long time...probably longer than the most ancient historical records we have access to...and it was normally seen as a sanctified and officially recognized family arrangement between a man and a woman....or a man and several women (in some cultures). There may have been a few other variations too, but if so, they were quite rare. Why was such a custom even started? Well, the reasons appear quite simple. 1. Protection of the (physically) weak: In most societies of the past it was seen as absolutely necessary to protect the women and children from the many dangers of life. Men (who handled weapons, hunted, and went to war) were seen to be the protectors...as well as a very common source of danger! That is, men were seen as potentially dangerous to the unattached women...and not surprisingly. And children were in need of a father to provide for them and protect them. 2. Long term security for raising children: It takes roughly 20 years to raise a child (a bit less in more primitive societies), and it was seen as necessary to provide a stable family coupling of two people (and their close relatives) in order to provide the basis for doing that. Thus, a marriage with marriage vows and legal ties and responsibilities. This was a way of securing the future of the tribe or nation. 3. OWNERSHIP of the spouse: Now there's a thorny issue! Not very well looked upon by people nowadays, but that's what it amounted to. By marrying a woman, a man in effect OWNED her from that point on and had exclusive rights to intimacy with her. (She also owned him and had exclusive right to intimacy as well, of course, but the men tended to be in a far more powerful position in that regard...and tended to break the rules more casually as well, because they had the power to). Furthermore, the man basically OWNED the children that came along, and was thereby increasing his stake in the world and extending his power into the future. And those, I think, were the most significant issues driving the formation of the institution of marriage in ancient times. How much of the above relates to a gay marriage? A little of it, but not much. A gay marriage is a different proposition that has been added on like an extra branch. I have no objection to it, because I see no reason why gays shouldn't marry if they wish to...but it's a departure from most of the basic social issues that drove ancient societies to create the institution of marriage in the first place. It has more to do with the modern ideas of self-gratification than it does with anything else. "This would make me happy, so I want it." Well, okay, fine. Self-gratification is perfectly all right as long as it doesn't take people into completely irresponsible behaviour.....but it's a bit disingenuous to think that a gay marriage is the same type of arrangement in a social sense as a heterosexual marriage, because a gay marriage is not based on the very wide set of safety and security issues that a heterosexual marriage has been based on through the last many thousands of years. Therefore it's not really the same thing, in my opinion. Perhaps that's why some traditionalists find it inappropriate to be called a "marriage" and would prefer to call it a "civil union". It is a civil union, no doubt about that...it is as soon as it's been made official. But is it a marriage in the original sense of the word? That depends on what you think the original sense of the word was, doesn't it? In ancient times, and until very recently, the institution of marriage was seen by virtually everyone as the creation of a safe nest in which to raise children. That was its primary purpose in people's minds...and it's still seen that way in most poorer countries...but not so much in North America or in the affluent regions. That's because we now live in an age of consumerism, instant grafification, selfishness, and a very short attention span. This has affected how a lot of people look at marriage. They're not out to take on responsibility, they're out to gratify themselves. It's marriage on a trivial level...short term gratification. And that's why so many marriages are breaking up and so many children have only one parent in the home any longer. Not good. If I was gay, I think I'd just live with my partner. Who needs the legal arrangements? But you say there are financial advantages to the legal arrangements? Okay. Well, then, perhaps I would go for the "civil union". That could be a good practical move, I suppose. Would I feel that I had to have the same kind of official church (or other type of) "marriage" as heterosexual people have in order to be happy and fulfilled? Naw...I'm not interested. But that's just me. ;-) Heck, if that's what it takes to make a gay couple happy...well...I won't stand in their way. But I do think this whole brouhaha has arisen out of a society of self-indulgent, spoiled people who probably have way too much time and money on their hands, and way too many choices that they can't decide among, and they are getting a bit silly on account of it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM "It takes roughly 20 years to raise a child" Another notion to throw out: I thought it took a village . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM Good one, Peace. Back in the day, Little Hawk, when towns were smaller and families were larger, a great many people took an interest in how a child was progressing. We've lost a lot of that. I don't know how far back in history "marriage", as such, goes, LH, but the arrangements evidently were quite a bit more casual at one time. In Biblical days, "he went into her tent and knew her." Incidentally, same-sex unions of one sort or another in the Bible are frequently implied, if nothing else, among them David and Jonathan: ("That same day, when Saul had finished speaking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father's house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself. So Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because they loved the other as dearly as himself. And Jonathan stripped off the cloak he was wearing and his tunic, and gave them to David, together with his sword, his bow, and his belt.") If those words had been written about a man and woman we would entertain no doubts as to what kind of relationship they had. And Jesus and the apostle John: John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? And later John referred to himself as the "apostle that Jesus loved." I'm just sayin'. * Much later, marriages between leaders frequently were negotiated for political security, in binding together two or more kingdoms. * Weddings in ancient Greece were a major part of a person's life, especially for the bride-to-be. The weddings were usually arranged by the bride's parents (Kitto 220). The marriage symbolized: * love * mutual respect * equality * and sacrifice Incidentally, just when did the modern form of marriage begin and how was it created? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM Yes, Ebbie, a certain number of same-sex unions were found in most ancient societies (and maybe all of them). For sure. But they weren't called "marriages", and I think that's mainly because they couldn't produce children. A relationship that brings forth children is naturally about the most important thing going on in any society...because it secures the future of the nation and the stability of civil society. Other love relationships are desirable too, but they are not so vital to the future of the community, therefore they are given less importance and less ceremonial emphasis...if any. They become, in effect, informal private relationships which are a matter of private choice by those involved. That would also apply to what the Indians called "teepee-creeping" or we might call "playing the field". ;-) I'm not sure when the "modern" form of marriage as we know it began, but I would think it was a very long time ago, so maybe it's not modern at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM The raising of children requires stability and known, reliable parent figures. This can be achieved perfectly well by two married women, two married men, or a married man and woman. The staid and quaint image you found your essay on is nice, but is not accurate. The conditions supporting ot have changed, and one of the major changes is the degree of recognition of homosexuality as a natural condition which is not diabolical, psychotic, or destructive in itself, and is certainly not deliberate. Furthermore the fundamental question rsaised here is not the kind of tradition in which marriage occurs. It is the legal and civil status. The furbelows of additional significance can be all in the hands of the churches who preempted it from free people so many centuries ago. But once the law creates a civil status called "married", then (in this country) that legal status must be evenly available without the bias and prejudice which you and Ake articulate. That is the only central argument on which this thread is based. Invoking horrorsahow visions about homosexuality is of no more relevance than your velvet-lined needle-work pictures of the sanctimony of past religious ceremonies and their meanings. In the matter of law, equality must govern. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 05:00 PM I agree that "in the matter of law, equality must govern", Amos. But would you mind if I also talk here about other some things that interest me? ;-) It is quite clear that, as you say, "The raising of children requires stability and known, reliable parent figures. This can be achieved perfectly well by two married women, two married men, or a married man and woman." Sure. However, a union between two men or two women cannot produce any children...and that's significant, wouldn't you say? I'm suggesting that that is why all traditional societies we know of sanctified marriage between men and women...because it is the one and only union which produces children. Any combination of people can effectively raise a child if they are good people and they do it well. A child can be raised by: - its natural parents - one parent - an aunt and uncle - a guardian - a brother or sister - an adoptive parent or parents - an ashram or monastery - a small cooperative community - a school - a training academy - a hermitage - you name it Anything is possible in that regard, but the traditional marriage was based on two people who are the natural parents because they produced the child and passed on their own genes to the child. That's significant! That's why marriage became the most important relationship in society and still is. Are times changing? Yes, times always change, and so do customs. Do I oppose gay marriage? No, I don't. But I would like to talk about a number of things here, Amos, not just about the one specific theme that happens to turn your crank, as it were. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM I think if you study the numbers, unlike times past, there is a t present no shortage whatsoever of human beings, or even of children. So the production of them is not an issue of merit in this case. It is critically important to those who desire to forward their own protoplasm into the future, holding it as a magical token of their existence even though it reflects little upon them after a couple of decades, and nothing on their character, merit or virtue. So obsession with passing one's own genes forward is tangential to the question of whether gay marriage should be accepted under the law or not. If velour sentiment is not an argument, parenting is not an argument, and gene forwarding is not particularly an argument, there is nothing but fluff in the scale on the Proposition 8 side. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:29 PM But Little Hawk, you don't address the reason for this thread's being. If you agree that we already have more people than we know what to do with and there's no relief in sight, that brings us back to a reason beyond the production of children for union between people. As Amos says, it comes back to equality under LAW. Whyever should a certain group of people not be given the same consideration as 'most everyone else? Never mind what certain people say- and evidently believe - the homosexual's "lifestyle" has nothing whatever to do with my health or your health so that has nothing in the world to do with what law should pertain to him or her regarding their private lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:34 PM You're missing my point... (grin) Hell, there's an excess of children in the world right now! ;-) But what's that got to do with the traditional definitions of "marriage" or determining how the custom came to be in our civilization or what people think regarding marriage? I am not arguing the pros or cons for Proposition 8, Amos. I know you'd like me to...but I'm not. ;-) I hardly even care about Proposition 8 enough to draw a single passing breath over it, and I wouldn't care even if I lived in California. I don't give a darn. I did not get in on this thread out of any desire to either support or oppose Proposition 8. Regarding your supercilious remarks about "obsession with passing one's own genes forward".... Most parents are pleased to see some of their family's characteristics evidenced in their children. It's a normal impulse and instinct to look for that. I don't see any reason to sneer at people over it. In my own case I've decided not to have any children, so it obviously doesn't weight large in my calculations. For one thing, I didn't want to carry that kind of responsibility this time around (in this particular life). I didn't think it would suit me well. For another thing, Winona has not said "yes" as yet..... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM Ebbie - the original reason I got into this thread was simply that I saw some posters here demonizing other posters here with various derogatory labels and trying to prove that they are "bad" people because they have a different opinion about something. That's why I started posting here. Then I got interested in some other aspects that came up during a wide-ranging discussion, and that's why I'm still here...aside from when I'm just cracking a few jokes, that is. I have no desire to impede anyone's access to equal rights under the law, I assure you. I do not have to have a personal ax to grind about Proposition 8 to engage in this discussion. There's lots of other stuff to talk about here. A conversation, after all, is like the wind. You never know where it's going to go next. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:58 PM I was not sneering, L:H. I was simply commenting that some people have children because they have an irresistible desire to send their genes and their memes forward though time. And also, that the impulse is a low-level substitute for other kinds of contributions some people could make. I think it is a mistaken belief to feel you are achieving some fraction of immortality simply because you have combined your chromosomes with another and sent the genotype forward. I don't think it is a bad thing to do, mind, as the future of the reace depends on it occurring. But improving the race in some way is certainly a higher good, through improving thought, art, education, or technology in positive ways. In this respect, brooding trumps breeding. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM Well, I think you're quite right, Amos. I agree that it is "a mistaken belief to feel you are achieving some fraction of immortality simply because you have combined your chromosomes with another and sent the genotype forward." I've never believed in that myself. I know my father and his parents believed in it very strongly, so he must have been quite perturbed that I had no children in this life. Since I figure I'm going forward anyway (as a living spirit), I'm not too worried about passing any of my genes on to secure "immortality". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jul 09 - 10:53 PM Little Hawk, I recommend that you read my post above. CLICKY Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM I don't have time to f*ck all the waitresses in China, Don. ;-) I suggest you read my post below: CLICKY |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 09 - 11:49 PM Is this the War of the Clickies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM ..and though neither remembers What they are battling for, They'll post one more link In the Blue Clicky War! In the war of BLue Clickies Information will rule And the man who posts more Wins the day. But though links multiply, You may still feel a fool Finding new kinds of nothin to say. Oh the Blue Clicky War, Oh the Blue Clicky War Can anyone tell me What these links are all for? There's a screed waiting for you Behind every door Beware what you step in, In the Blue Clicky War! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM LOL!!! Peace, Don's "Clicky" was a link to this entire friggin' thread....so it was taking a long time to load, and I thought...WTF? So then I posted him a "Clicky" to the entire "Mother of all BS Threads" thread. You can sit there all afternoon waiting for that one to load. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM :) The MOAB? That's cruel. By the way, Don's link did indeed after a moment go to his own post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM Knock that shit off! Copy and paste it or yer gonna fry the server! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:36 PM Did it? Hmmm. It was taking ages to load here for some reason, so I finally assumed that he had just made a link to the entire damned thread...sort of a humorous jab in my ribs, as it were. ;-) Well, sometimes things are slow on computers and there's no clear explanation why. This one's usually quite fast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM I will copy and paste the entire TMOABST when hell turns into green cheese and is sold in little cellophane wrapped packages at the World's Fair. Don't worry, okay? It's not something I'm intending to make a habit of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:27 PM Paste it? Hell, he ain't even READ it! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:33 PM I've read enough of it to be able to say "I was there". ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:21 PM Little Hawk, I'm sorry my link did not work as well for you as it did for me. I tested it before submitting and it worked just fine for, and it apparently worked all right for Ebbie. I am, however, highly impressed by your assumption about me and the maturity of your response. Perhaps I'm just being silly myself, but I do consider the subject of this thread to be a matter, even if there are others who do not. So here, in case you're at all interested, is a cut-and-paste of the post in question—in response to your comments about passing one's genes along. Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM Missing words above: ". . . I do consider the subject of this thread to be a matter of importance. . . ." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM No problem, Don. If you scroll down some through my recent posts, you will see that I myself said to Amos that: "Any combination of people can effectively raise a child if they are good people and they do it well." I am not opposed to a gay couple adopting and raising a child. All human beings are unique, thus all relationships are unique, and each should be assessed strictly on its own merits alone rather than on some artificial or steretypical ideas based on the partners' gender, race, religion, political affiliation, etc... I've done a fair bit of serious talk on this thread...and also a fair bit of humour and satire. I use humour and satire sometimes to make a point...or sometimes just to provide some relief in a discussion that is getting too negative or hostile. It's kind of like playing a set of songs...you don't want them all to be deadly serious. You mix it up some for the best effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:37 PM Fair enough. But I'm quite sure that you can understand that when the subject is a serious one, such as the denial of civil rights to a particular group of citizens who are guilty of nothing other than offending the sensibilities of some (not too different from someone of a different ethnic group or religion moving into the neighborhood) when that life-style truly has no effect on those others other than they don't like it, that someone breaking into the discussion and acting the clown can be just a bit annoying. It's especially annoying when the jester, especially from a position that at least appears to be one of lofty superiority, takes people to task (no matter which side of the argument they are on) for having strong feeling on the matter. One tends to think that the jester fails to see the issue for what it really is. Either that, or just doesn't care one way or the other. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:46 PM OR one remains silently resentful, convinced that the jester's impersonation of enlightened insight is actually a woebegone dramatization of apathetic resignation and indifference, glossed over with the thin but sour veneer of condescending righteousness characteristic of unjustified acts of claimed superiority. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM wow that took a long time to catch up. i love this thread, i have had a history lesson, an R.E one a language one and a political one with some humour and seriousness thrown in, now where else can i get that? LH, correct me if i am wrong but i can sort of see where you and ake, are coming from. example(may be wrong) animal rights groups,people who spout rights for animals and then neglect their own pets by not fleaing or worming them, they take them to rallies and protests where there is alot of noise, where they cannot see anything but legs. just to prove how much they love their dogs,and cats but they do not get hauled around as a sign of comitment. is that the type of people you are both refering to, only about rights of gays. the ability to have children should not be an issue, there are plenty of people who cannot have kids, does this mean that society would frown upon them getting wed? or what about widows and widowers who are past child bearing age, should they be stopped from having their union recognised by others as a marriage? the abitilty to have kids should be the same as science,just becuse we can, doesn't mean we should. don't get me started on the people i know who have them and don't look after them as they should do. just a sec aaaaarrrrrrhgggggggggggggg! thats better. take care all and never take for granted those who love you jade x x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:36 PM Man, that gal sure can put oil on troubled waters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:09 AM Nice post, jade. ;-) Amos, your complaints about my style are not justified, and I'll tell you why. The only reason I came into this thread...as I have explained again and again and again...is that certain people on it were personally attacking other posters in what I consider an immoderate and unreasonable fashion. That's it. Period. That's why I started posting here. Then I got to talking about some other things that interested me as well. Whenever I see people perched high on the pillar of their own smug self-righteousness and using it to personally attack other people and call them things like an "anti-semite", a "commie", a "homophobe", a "sexist" and other personally damning terms of the present political era like that, I don't like it. It reminds me of the behaviour of a lynch mob or a bunch of witch burners. Even if it's in a good cause....I still don't like it. And I will toss humorous barbs at people who do it because I'd like to puncture their little vainglorious ego balloons. You, of course, think your own conduct is of the best...so does Don...and you think that mine is lacking in some way. Well, that's the world, isn't it? We all believe that our own conduct is quite appropriate. Everyone's like that. And yet we're all different... ;-) So one can expect these differences of opinion about whose conduct is most appropriate, no matter what is going on. But you won't hear me call you or anyone else here an anti-semite, a homophobe, a commie, a sexist or any other term like that. And if you do catch me doing that, then toss a humorous barb my way, because I will deserve it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:50 AM Little Hawk... Don't waste your time trying to explain your position to them...they already know your position, just as they know what I have been saying for months. By objecting to the words they use to close discussion, you have committed a thought crime and your place here is about to be lowered accordingly, you have planted the seed in their minds that you may be a dissenter....and a very popular and persuasive dissenter at that!!.......You will suffer in future threads...:0) They will not be satisfied until you or I get down on our knees and apologise for our heretic views, tell them that they were right all along and promise never to mention those views again. The "Orwellian liberal" agenda will have been satisfactorally achieved......silence will reign, there will be no need to deal with "inconvenient truth", no need to engage in the troublesome thought process.....all will be well with the world. The older I get and the more I examine political thought, the more I come to realise that the enemies of society are not the "right wing" with their mantra of individual freedom and personal responsibility, but the ideologues of the centre left, with their crazy Orwellian ideas on mass manipulation. The sad thing is that they don't even believe the shite they preach, the "centre left" is awash with hypocrisy, they simply bully and brainwash most people into giving them tacit support. They talk of egalitarianism, but what they really want is a society free from dissent, fashioned in their own image and most importantly, with the word "freedom" expunged from the dictionary of "newspeak".....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM AKe: I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned your last diatribe is pure horsepucky, and comes close to being wildly paranoid and delusory. I have addressewd you throughout this thread on one issue, and only one, the one defined at the beginning of the thread. Little Hawk, I have always forgiven you your occasional foray into vaunting superciliousness and condescension, because you a a blithe spirit and I generally like your style. But spare me the marshmallow wisdom; even if you mean it, it still sounds sanctimonious. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM Little Hawk: But you won't hear me call you or anyone else here an anti-semite, a homophobe, a commie, a sexist or any other term like that. And if you do catch me doing that, then toss a humorous barb my way, because I will deserve it. And Little Hawk earlier: And that is the problem on this thread. Period. People's own hysterical righteous posturing is interfering with their ability to actually listen to and understand anyone else who doesn't agree with them. And what else is new? ;-) I've been watching this ridiculous reactive BS go around for years here between the terminally righteous and the terminally vain. Sorry Little Hawk, I don't seem to have a humorous barb at my fingertips. Let's just say that accusing people of posturing, of not listening, of willfully not understanding, of being ridiculous, of being reactive, and being terminally vain is a whole bunch of name calling. It's a type of name-calling that is intended to shut others up and to make it OK to marginalize their statements -- exactly what you've been bitching about. "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to what Don and John say, they're just being reactive, not really thinking at all." You are being condescending, dismissive, and rude. And accusing us of things we're not doing, like not listening to Akenaton and not trying to understand where he's coming from. In fact, we've been listening very closely to Akenaton. We've been begging him to explain his statements, since they don't add up either factually or logically. You can tell us what a great, liberal, left-wing, thinking, caring person he is all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he supports denying civil rights to a group of people, that he thinks there is some link between AIDS and homosexuality, that he thinks there hasn't been any research done on this theoretical link, that he thinks admitting homosexuals into normal society is in some way dangerous to straight people, that he refuses to respond when presented with facts that disagree with him, that he calls anyone who disagrees with him a moron, and that he thinks there is some left-wing conspiracy to impose thought control on everyone. All the names he's been called here are supported by the evidence he has presented about himself in this thread. Neither Akenaton nor you can say the same about the names you've called other people. I freely admit to being angry about this topic. But you seem to be confusing anger with reactivity. Sorry, but you don't get to draw unsupported conclusions about what's going on in my head. Reactivity usually implies a lack of reality and logic. Almost everything that has been said to Akenaton has been a response to things he's said. Which is a very different thing than being reactive toward him. One of the reasons people are getting pissed at you for trying to get everyone to act nicer on this thread is because you are doing it in a supercilious, superior, condescending, dismissive, inaccurate, and not nice manner. Let's start with the accusation that I'm not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM Well, John, there is a strong tendency in any society to "impose thought control on everyone" through conformity. It's always there to some extent. I wouldn't necessarily call it a conspiracy...I'd just call it the weight of conventional thinking, herd instinct, trendiness, the desire to fit in, the desire to avoid criticism, the fear of what others may think, etc. That causes people to all repeat the same stuff like a bunch of parrots, because they're trying to fit into the going trend. And if you don't fit in you get picked on unmercifully by some of those conventional-minded people. I've always had an instinct to fight against that kind of herd mentality. If I saw a gay person here being persecuted in that fashion, I'd defend him. I don't like gang bullying of people who are outside the norm of opinion in some way, but who are not harming anyone. You follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM amendment to my last post. what i meant to ask was: was the animal rights example similar to what you are talking about on the liberal way of thinking, not the gay issue. take care all jade x x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM Little Hawk, That causes people to all repeat the same stuff like a bunch of parrots, because they're trying to fit into the going trend. Oh, good, now we're parrots as well. Let's just say that accusing people of posturing, of not listening, of willfully not understanding, of being ridiculous, of being reactive, and being terminally vain is a whole bunch of name calling. It's a type of name-calling that is intended to shut others up and to make it OK to marginalize their statements -- exactly what you've been bitching about. "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to what Don and John say, they're just being reactive, not really thinking at all." You are being condescending, dismissive, and rude. And accusing us of things we're not doing, like not listening to Akenaton and not trying to understand where he's coming from. Let's start with the accusation that I'm not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up. You follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:00 PM I don't like gang bullying of people who are outside the norm of opinion in some way, but who are not harming anyone.>/i> Can you define "not harming anyone" in the context of someone repeatedly calling for denying civil rights to a group of people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM John, why are you taking everything I say as a direct personal insult to you? I'm simply talking about why I defend underdogs and why I don't like slavish conformity to trends. I'm discussing general problems that can and do occur in ANY society, I'm not condemning you as an individual. I don't see that Akenation is harming anyone. He's expressing an opinion which diverges from yours in some way. That doesn't harm anyone. If we are to have a free society at all, then we must be able to allow a variety of opinions to be expressed freely without treating people like heretics or monsters just because they don't echo our own viewpoint...or the latest fashionable trend. But in saying that, I am clearly bucking the entire tide of history, because the majority of people everywhere have always looked down on people who don't support the latest fashionable trends. Well, I resist that tendency. My belief is that resistance is not futile...and I will defend those few who are ganged up on and bullied by an aggressive majority in any peer group. I'll defend them if they're gay. I'll defend them if they aren't. I'll defend them if they're on my side. I'll defend them if they're on the other side. See...I was in a minority of ONE when I was in school. I've seen how bullies and groups of people who follow trends operate. I will resist them. My issue here is not about matters of law as regards gay marriage. My issue is about how a group of people choose to treat a nonconforming member of the group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM THe point that you miss is that we are not trying to overwhelm one set of opinions with another. We are trying to clarify a policy based on the facts which are germane to it. The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law? The facts: The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it. So far no such facts have been presented. Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread. Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual. AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights. Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement? Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM Little Hawk, if you aren't directing your comments to people on this thread, why are you making them? We could as easily say that calling Akenaton a bigot is making a general comment about people who oppose equal rights for all, not talking about Akenaton in particular. When you respond to things others have said by saying that you don't like it when people are parroting the prevailing party line, are slavishly conforming to trends, see others as heretics or monsters for the views they hold, and are being reactive, one gets the idea that you are addressing those comments to the people you're talking to. If that's not the case, then you are just blowing wind and wasting peoples' time. Please find something real to say to the real people you are actually in a conversation with. As it is, all you are doing is strongly implying that many of us don't really think for ourselves. This is very insulting. Let's try again to get into the specifics of what you've been saying, third time for this question: Let's start with the accusation that we're not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM "The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law?" I don't see why not. (?) "The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it. " I agree with that. "Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread." I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument. "Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual." I don't know if they're factual or not, but they are significant in a social sense. Customs are based on a society's consensus as to what people like to do and think is "normal and proper"...as such, customs are more a subjective than an objective manner. They don't rest upon measurable facts as much as they rest upon people's preferences...and their expectations. "AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights." I agree with you on that. "Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement?" I am not arguing in favor of any such infringement nor am I looking for such facts. "Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement." Absolutely. Look, I've said before on this thread that I do not object to ANY pair of consenting adults marrying one another. I don't necessarily object to the custom (in some societies) of one man having several wives...and I wouldn't object to one woman having several husbands if it were customary in that society...AND IF all the adults involved consented freely to the arrangement. I wouldn't object to a man or a woman marrying a dog IF it could be clearly established that the dog understood the arrangement and was in favor of it. (It can't though...so that negates that possibility, doesn't it?) I am in favor of free choice for people, Amos. I don't miss your point. I'm just talking about a different point that concerns me, that's all, and it has to do with the hazing of individuals who in some way don't conform to the majority opinions of people in some peer group. When those individuals start being labelled as "homophobes", "anti-semites", "racists", "sexists", and other highly charged words of that sort, I don't like to see that. I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy. The aforementioned terms however (racist/homophobe/sexist/anti-semite) are tantamount to an accusation of heresy in today's politically correct climate. They are terms commonly used now to brand and destroy people in a professional sense, and to silence them, and sometimes even to bring legal actions against them under what is called "hate" legislation. I regard that as fascism in action. |
